Why wasn't the filioque ever removed?

[kidkaos2]

I find this filioque issue in church history puzzling. My understanding of the history is that the Nicene creed was universally accepted but then hundreds of years later at some point Rome slipped the filioque in, not thinking it would be controversial. When the Orthodox objected, I am under the impression that Rome's argument came down to basically "it's no big deal, quit overreacting." If Rome's attitude was that it wasn't anything important, then why not simply remove it when it was obvious that half the known world did in fact find it objectionable? Then hundreds of years later when Luther kicked off the Reformation, the filioque was again one of the justifications given for splitting. Again, the Catholic church didn't change it. They even had the counter-reformation which addressed many of the objections Luther had in attempt to keep people loyal, but the filioque was not one of the changes they made. Again, if you don't consider this a major point and you're reworking things anyway, why not revisit the filioque?

The only thing that comes to my mind is that the bishops considered it an authority thing. They didn't particularly care about the filioque and didn't see why it was such an issue for other people, but their authority to make whatever changes Rome wanted must be absolute as a matter of principle. Changes would only be made on their terms. That's the only thing I can think of to explain why the Church was willing to see two great schisms over an issue that was, from their point of view, of no real consequence. Or do I misunderstand the Church's reaction and having the filioque in was as important to Rome as having it out was to Constantinople?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I find this filioque issue in church history puzzling. My understanding of the history is that the Nicene creed was universally accepted but then hundreds of years later at some point Rome slipped the filioque in, not thinking it would be controversial. When the Orthodox objected, I am under the impression that Rome's argument came down to basically "it's no big deal, quit overreacting." If Rome's attitude was that it wasn't anything important, then why not simply remove it when it was obvious that half the known world did in fact find it objectionable? Then hundreds of years later when Luther kicked off the Reformation, the filioque was again one of the justifications given for splitting. Again, the Catholic church didn't change it. They even had the counter-reformation which addressed many of the objections Luther had in attempt to keep people loyal, but the filioque was not one of the changes they made. Again, if you don't consider this a major point and you're reworking things anyway, why not revisit the filioque?

The only thing that comes to my mind is that the bishops considered it an authority thing. They didn't particularly care about the filioque and didn't see why it was such an issue for other people, but their authority to make whatever changes Rome wanted must be absolute as a matter of principle. Changes would only be made on their terms. That's the only thing I can think of to explain why the Church was willing to see two great schisms over an issue that was, from their point of view, of no real consequence. Or do I misunderstand the Church's reaction and having the filioque in was as important to Rome as having it out was to Constantinople?

I guess this is one of several differences between the two. I believe the correction was necessary as the Council got it wrong the first time. Jesus Christ of Nazareth made it clear that He and the Father are One. The Holy Spirit is One with the Father and the Son. They are One. They make their Home in the beliver as One.
Blessings.

Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

 

[HTacianas]

I find this filioque issue in church history puzzling. My understanding of the history is that the Nicene creed was universally accepted but then hundreds of years later at some point Rome slipped the filioque in, not thinking it would be controversial. When the Orthodox objected, I am under the impression that Rome's argument came down to basically "it's no big deal, quit overreacting." If Rome's attitude was that it wasn't anything important, then why not simply remove it when it was obvious that half the known world did in fact find it objectionable? Then hundreds of years later when Luther kicked off the Reformation, the filioque was again one of the justifications given for splitting. Again, the Catholic church didn't change it. They even had the counter-reformation which addressed many of the objections Luther had in attempt to keep people loyal, but the filioque was not one of the changes they made. Again, if you don't consider this a major point and you're reworking things anyway, why not revisit the filioque?

The only thing that comes to my mind is that the bishops considered it an authority thing. They didn't particularly care about the filioque and didn't see why it was such an issue for other people, but their authority to make whatever changes Rome wanted must be absolute as a matter of principle. Changes would only be made on their terms. That's the only thing I can think of to explain why the Church was willing to see two great schisms over an issue that was, from their point of view, of no real consequence. Or do I misunderstand the Church's reaction and having the filioque in was as important to Rome as having it out was to Constantinople?

The controversy with the filioque is that Rome unilaterally added it to their Creed absent an Ecumenical Council. When the Eastern Church objected, Rome asserted that they had the authority to change the Creed under the authority of the Pope. In effect, that made the claim that the Pope has more authority than an Ecumenical Council.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Filioque Controversy is two-fold:

1. Theological, where the question is if the Filioque is theologically true; does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son? The question, I'd argue, needs to be answered without appeal to the sending of the Spirit, as the procession of the Spirit is an eternal reality and not a reference to the sending of the Spirit on Pentecost. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son predates the Filioque itself by centuries, as it was the common language of the West going back to the fathers. I think that it is possible for East and West to find a common ground of speaking of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit through open dialogue.

2. Ecclesiastical, which I think is the bigger of the two points when it comes to the controversy over the Filioque. After all, East and West were united and in communion with one another even though the West spoke of the procession of the Spirit as being from Father and the Son--that did not disrupt the communion and fellowship of the Church. It was only when the Pope claimed he could unilaterally modify the wording of the Creed by his own authority that it became a real problem, leading to Schism.

This leads to a question: Can one confess that the Filioque is theologically accurate but its inclusion in the Creed remain illicit and invalid? Protestants have kept the Filioque in the Creed, despite the rejection of the very unilateral authority which included it, because of it being considered theologically true.

Without a Church-wide council the issue will continue to be divisive; and of course having that Council is made impossible because of the present schisms and divisions themselves. If, God willing, reunification could ever happen this would certainly be an issue at the forefront.

For Rome, the inclusion of the Filioque was a valid and proper thing, though those Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are free not recite the Creed without the Filioque. But if Rome dropped it it would, ultimately, be an admission that it was illicit and invalid to have included it in the first place--which would almost certainly undermine the entire claim of papal authority.

Protestant churches are, perhaps, more willing to contemplate this issue; but again, it comes down to accepting the theology which the Filioque asserts. In that sense, to remove the Filioque would be seen as a rejection of the theology, which is why one isn't going to see Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, et al removing it anytime soon.

Meaningful dialogue and moves and changes on this issue would involve an unprecedented amount of ecumenical conversation and work that likely would mean radical changes across the entire landscape of global Christianity--that may simply be outside the realm of probability.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

And it isnt like the East and the West havent had these discussions starting in 800AD with the crowning of Charlemagne which is when the controversy really popped up. The West has tried coming up with some formula that would be acceptable, but until the Filioque is removed, it becomes a bunch of word games as to what is really meant. If the Filioque is removed then Rome would have to then figure out what to do with Lateran IV and Florence.

The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215): "The Father is from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both."

The Council of Florence, session 6 in Laetentur Caeli (1439), on union with the Greeks: "We declare that when holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this tends toward that understanding which signifies that the Son, like the Father, is also what the Greeks call 'cause' and the Latins 'principle' of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit.
And since the Father himself has given to his only begotten Son, in generating him, all that the Father has except being the Father, the Son himself eternally has from the Father, from whom he is eternally generated, precisely this: that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

 

[zippy2006]

I find this filioque issue in church history puzzling. My understanding of the history is that the Nicene creed was universally accepted but then hundreds of years later at some point Rome slipped the filioque in, not thinking it would be controversial. When the Orthodox objected, I am under the impression that Rome's argument came down to basically "it's no big deal, quit overreacting." If Rome's attitude was that it wasn't anything important, then why not simply remove it when it was obvious that half the known world did in fact find it objectionable?

In large part because the papal prerogatives were at stake, but it is also worth noting that the filioque is a very difficult and nuanced theological issue. Even today it is hard to know whether the filioque is true or false, theologically speaking.

Then hundreds of years later when Luther kicked off the Reformation, the filioque was again one of the justifications given for splitting.

No, I don't believe that is true at all. Protestants have always affirmed the filioque.

Or do I misunderstand the Church's reaction and having the filioque in was as important to Rome as having it out was to Constantinople?

There has always been legitimate theological disagreement on this issue, including disagreement about how to interpret patristic texts. Some of the reunion efforts were technically successful, in that all of the bishops agreed on a proposed formula, but this agreement dissolved when the Eastern bishops returned to their Sees.

At bottom it would seem that the East and the West conceive of the Trinity in a slightly different manner, although I am not convinced that this difference justifies separation. In any event, over time the growing distance between East and West led to other differences, some of which are weightier than the filioque.

 

[zippy2006]

For Rome, the inclusion of the Filioque was a valid and proper thing, though those Eastern Churches in communion with Rome are free not recite the Creed without the Filioque. But if Rome dropped it it would, ultimately, be an admission that it was illicit and invalid to have included it in the first place--which would almost certainly undermine the entire claim of papal authority.

I don't think removal from the creed would endanger papal authority, as recent popes have shown themselves willing to make concessions for the sake of unity and such concessions have not been viewed as a wholesale forfeiture of papal prerogatives. The deeper problem is the dogmatic difference, which would remain independent of the liturgical creed.

 

[a_ntv]

I find this filioque issue in church history puzzling. My understanding of the history is that the Nicene creed was universally accepted but then hundreds of years later at some point Rome slipped the filioque in, not thinking it would be controversial. When the Orthodox objected, I am under the impression that Rome's argument came down to basically "it's no big deal, quit overreacting." If Rome's attitude was that it wasn't anything important, then why not simply remove it when it was obvious that half the known world did in fact find it objectionable? Then hundreds of years later when Luther kicked off the Reformation, the filioque was again one of the justifications given for splitting. Again, the Catholic church didn't change it. They even had the counter-reformation which addressed many of the objections Luther had in attempt to keep people loyal, but the filioque was not one of the changes they made. Again, if you don't consider this a major point and you're reworking things anyway, why not revisit the filioque?

The only thing that comes to my mind is that the bishops considered it an authority thing. They didn't particularly care about the filioque and didn't see why it was such an issue for other people, but their authority to make whatever changes Rome wanted must be absolute as a matter of principle. Changes would only be made on their terms. That's the only thing I can think of to explain why the Church was willing to see two great schisms over an issue that was, from their point of view, of no real consequence. Or do I misunderstand the Church's reaction and having the filioque in was as important to Rome as having it out was to Constantinople?

Perhaps you miss a very important point.

Arianism had been a sharp heresy in the first centuries in the Eastern, but since the 5th century it was no more a problem in the East.
However it became a huge problem in the West, because most of the German people who invaded Europe were Arians: the Goths, Vandals and the Longobards who reigned in Italy. Arian believed that Jesus less divine than the Father.

5th, 6th and 7th centuries were simple times, not used to the high ancient theology. And the contacts with the East were very limited.
In such time to state that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father meant that actually the Son was not so divine.
Thereof in the West it was added the "Filioque": who read out the Creed without the "Filioque" was Arian, who said "Filioque" was Catholic (i.e. not Arian).

Concerning Luther I don't know: perhaps he accepeted the normal middle-age understanting ("Filioque = not Arian"), or perhaps he just did not realize that it was addition of Rome-Babylon.

 

[kidkaos2]

I have been investigating the Jesus Prayer lately and a brief overview of the theology of St Gregory Palamas. I think from his theology I understand better what the theological motivation was that was at stake in objecting to the filioque. It was a VERY brief overview of Palamite theology, but the gist was there of how the filioque would violate the Eastern way of thinking and why the filioque would be objectionable to them while being self evident to the West. I can see how the Pope could have considered the filioque just fixing a small loophole in the creed while the bishops of the East saw that same action as altering spiritual truths.

 

[prodromos]

I have been investigating the Jesus Prayer lately and a brief overview of the theology of St Gregory Palamas. I think from his theology I understand better what the theological motivation was that was at stake in objecting to the filioque. It was a VERY brief overview of Palamite theology, but the gist was there of how the filioque would violate the Eastern way of thinking and why the filioque would be objectionable to them while being self evident to the West. I can see how the Pope could have considered the filioque just fixing a small loophole in the creed while the bishops of the East saw that same action as altering spiritual truths.

I would recommend you also read "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" by St Photius

The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit

 

[concretecamper]

Proceeds from the Father through the Son

Or

Proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The formulation of the filioque isn't the issue that the East couldn't accept. It is Rome having authority, it all comes down to Authority.

 

[prodromos]

The formulation of the filioque isn't the issue that the East couldn't accept.

It certainly is one of the issues.

It is Rome having authority, it all comes down to Authority.

It is all the novel papal claims that are absent in the early Church.

• Universal jurisdiction
• Judged by no one
• Infallible in regard to faith and morals

I could probably find more if I was inclined to look.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't think removal from the creed would endanger papal authority, as recent popes have shown themselves willing to make concessions for the sake of unity and such concessions have not been viewed as a wholesale forfeiture of papal prerogatives. The deeper problem is the dogmatic difference, which would remain independent of the liturgical creed.

I feel it worth asking though: If it is admitted that the inclusion of the Filioque by the unilateral power of the Pope was a mistake, how would this not significantly undermine some significant matters of papal authority and power?

While the Filioque isn't exactly at the very top of the list of things that went down in the 11th century, it is certainly emblematic of them. I have a hard time conceiving a scenario where a significant redress of these issues by the papacy, including the inclusion of the Filioque, wouldn't involve a rather serious blow to nearly a thousand years of particular claims--claims which have played a functional role in several significant Christian schisms.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

I feel it worth asking though: If it is admitted that the inclusion of the Filioque by the unilateral power of the Pope was a mistake, how would this not significantly undermine some significant matters of papal authority and power?

While the Filioque isn't exactly at the very top of the list of things that went down in the 11th century, it is certainly emblematic of them. I have a hard time conceiving a scenario where a significant redress of these issues by the papacy, including the inclusion of the Filioque, wouldn't involve a rather serious blow to nearly a thousand years of particular claims--claims which have played a functional role in several significant Christian schisms.

-CryptoLutheran

On the one hand it is true that Papalism underwrites much of the filioque controversy, but my point is that the mistake could be construed as mere inclusion, rather than, "inclusion by the unilateral power of the Pope." Vatican I Catholics in favor of removing the filioque from the creed would say just that. They would say that although the Pope has the power to include the filioque in the creed, nevertheless it was an error to do so, and should be corrected. Contradicting the dogma of the filioque is what would especially endanger Vatican I papal prerogatives.

 

[Daniel Peres]

The controversy with the filioque is that Rome unilaterally added it to their Creed absent an Ecumenical Council. When the Eastern Church objected, Rome asserted that they had the authority to change the Creed under the authority of the Pope. In effect, that made the claim that the Pope has more authority than an Ecumenical Council.

The fact is that the Eastern Catholics (now Eastern Orthodox) unilaterally made additions to the creed about the Holy Spirit also.

The original Nicene Creed established at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 had only one line about the Holy Spirit at the end of the creed which was, “And the Holy Spirit”.

The part the reads, “And 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, who spake by the prophets” was added in 325 at the First Council of Constantinople.

The First Council of Constantinople was actually a local council where the Eastern Christians unilaterally made their own addition to the creed about the Holy Spirit. The only reason this council is considered ecumenical is because the Pope gave his approval for the East’s additions, and that’s why the entire Catholic Church adopted the council’s additions to the creed.

However, the canons declared by the First Council of Constantinople were never approved by the Pope and so they never became part of the Church’s teaching. The Patriarchy of Constantinople was already trying to usurp Rome. One of the council’s canons was to declare that Constantinople was the second most important city in the church. They wanted to usurp the city of Antioch’s place in the church. Antioch was, and still is, the second most important city in the church because it was the first church Peter, the first pope, led. The East argued that since the emperor (a non-church authority) moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Constantinople, it deserved to be the second most important city in the church. They didn’t care that the only reason the Patriarchy of Constantinople even existed was because the Pope established it.

Just as the Pope had the authority to approve and therefore add Constantinople’s amendments to the Nicene Creed, the Pope also had authority to approve the addition of the Filioque Clause.

I am convinced that that the East’s objection to the Filioque Clause stems from their arrogance. It can’t be a theological disagreement. Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the son. The Gospel of John 20:22 clearly states that Jesus breathed on the apostles and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Based on this verse alone, I really see no theological reason for believing the Holy Spirit does not proceed from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox believe that each person of the Trinity contains the full presence of the other two persons. As Jesus asked the apostles in John 14:10, “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?” Therefore, even if we exclude the Filioque clause, the Holy Spirit still proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[WordAloud]

My understanding is that the filioque is a Latin response to a Greek fudge - in terms of constructive ambiguity.

ὁμοούσιον was something of a new - made-up word.

(Shoot me down but this is what I remember.)

It literally slurred the words in an attempt to settle down competing sides. (re. consubstantial)

This relates to the filioque - in terms of the sending of the Spirit.

The filioque in Latin, fairly obviously, is or was controversial because it becomes more specific and definitive than this linguistic fudge. It states more definitively that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. This challenges the Godhead of the Father - and redefines the Trinity.

The Greek could be more, 'from the Father and through the Son'.

That might be a bit confused, but the essence is that you disrupt the Godhead of the Father.

Please educate me if that is all wrong!!!!

xOliver

 

[Lukaris]

It is clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father per John 14:26, John 15:26, Isaiah 48:16 etc.

Despite the misconception of the filioque, I believe Christians who profess it still have salvation by grace ( Ephesians 2:8-10) and I have to work out my salvation with fear, trembling etc. ( Philippians 2:12).

 

[zippy2006]

The Gospel of John 20:22 clearly states that Jesus breathed on the apostles and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Based on this verse alone, I really see no theological reason for believing the Holy Spirit does not proceed from both the Father and the Son.

That verse alone provides no reason for believing that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from both the Father and the Son. But this isn't a very helpful claim, because we have no reason to limit ourselves to a single verse or piece of evidence.

 

[prodromos]

My understanding is that the filioque is a Latin response to a Greek fudge - in terms of constructive ambiguity.

ὁμοούσιον was something of a new - made-up word.

(Shoot me down but this is what I remember.)

"ὁμοούσιον" wasn't a new 'made-up' word, there are examples of its use prior to the Council of Nicaea. Nor can it be described as a 'fudge'. It is very precise in its meaning.

Interestingly enough, I haven't been able to find examples of "επιούσιον" prior to its appearance in the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:11 and Luke 11:3 (it doesn't translate as "daily" either BTW)

It literally slurred the words in an attempt to settle down competing sides. (re. consubstantial)

I believe you have this confused with "ομοιούσιος" (similar essence), a term which was rejected by the Church.

This relates to the filioque - in terms of the sending of the Spirit.

The filioque in Latin, fairly obviously, is or was controversial because it becomes more specific and definitive than this linguistic fudge. It states more definitively that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. This challenges the Godhead of the Father - and redefines the Trinity.

You have this completely backwards as well as referring to the wrong word entirely. The word at issue is "εκπορευεται" in John 15:26, or "εκπορευόμενον" as it appears in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, which in Latin is translated as "procedit". Unfortunately the Latin term is not an accurate translation, especially if you look at the etymology of the two words. They are very different words.
As long as the Church in the West read "procedit" with the meaning understood at the Council of Constantinople, there was no problem, but as the knowledge of Greek waned in the Western Church, and they became estranged from the East, the proper understanding of the Creed as originally put forward by the fathers was lost in the West and they read it with the inaccurate Latin meaning

The Greek could be more, 'from the Father and through the Son'.

Not really. It confuses the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit with the temporal sending out. The Creed only refers to the former.

That might be a bit confused, but the essence is that you disrupt the Godhead of the Father.

I don't know what you mean by this or how you reached that conclusion.

 

[Daniel Peres]

It is clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father per John 14:26, John 15:26, Isaiah 48:16 etc.

Despite the misconception of the filioque, I believe Christians who profess it still have salvation by grace ( Ephesians 2:8-10) and I have to work out my salvation with fear, trembling etc. ( Philippians 2:12).

These verses

It is clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father per John 14:26, John 15:26, Isaiah 48:16 etc.

Despite the misconception of the filioque, I believe Christians who profess it still have salvation by grace ( Ephesians 2:8-10) and I have to work out my salvation with fear, trembling etc. ( Philippians 2:12).

The verses you cited may appear to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the father, but even if you are correct about those verses, you are willfully ignoring John 20:22 where it is explicitly written that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the son.

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that the Holy Spirit may proceed exclusively from the Son.