What's the Filioque controversy all about?

Jackson Cooper said:

Apparently, this is the biggest issue between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I don't care for a debate, I'm just asking fellow Orthodox about this.
John 15:26 is cited by Roman Catholics.

I guess Papacy also used to be a big issue, but I don't personally know any Roman Catholics that respect Pope Francis.

Click to expand...

Filioque is the single most unnecessary heresy in the history of the Christian church.
A: to alter the creed which functioned as a common Christian ground of truce between the east and the west was highly stupid and arrogant. It was purely an act of provocation imho.
Why was it called for in the 9th century after 600 years in use?
B: its heresy as its altering the source of the divinity which is and has always been understood as a hierarchical single source.
The father is the Godhead and the Son is only begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

The father is head of both the Son and the Spirit. To mess with this as Augustine does by referring the the third person of the trinity, The Holy Spirit as the "love bond" uniting the Father and the Son is depersonalization of the Holy Spirit and is ipso facto a grave trinitarian heresy.
Its this idea that lies behind the Filioque and its heresy.

For years I've thought of this as adiaphora, but it really, really isnt. It's a very important subject which I understand that tipped the scale for the Eastern Church and forced them to depart from the roman heresy.

HOLY UNNECESSARY THREAD NECROMANCY, BATMAN!!!

~Matteus~ said:

Filioque is the single most unnecessary heresy in the history of the Christian church.
A: to alter the creed which functioned as a common Christian ground of truce between the east and the west was highly stupid and arrogant. It was purely an act of provocation imho.
Why was it called for in the 9th century after 600 years in use?
B: its heresy as its altering the source of the divinity which is and has always been understood as a hierarchical single source.
The father is the Godhead and the Son is only begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

The father is head of both the Son and the Spirit. To mess with this as Augustine does by referring the the third person of the trinity, The Holy Spirit as the "love bond" uniting the Father and the Son is depersonalization of the Holy Spirit and is ipso facto a grave trinitarian heresy.
Its this idea that lies behind the Filioque and its heresy.

For years I've thought of this as adiaphora, but it really, really isnt. It's a very important subject which I understand that tipped the scale for the Eastern Church and forced them to depart from the roman heresy.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I just got here.
What do you mean by "JUST the Son"?
What does the word begotten mean to you?

I do agree that the "love bond" takes away personalization and makes the Holy Spirit into a thing more than a person. Of course it'll be said that the "thing" IS a person.

Augustine was in the 400's and you're talking about the 900's. I've never really understood why he was so influential in the church--the Catholic church.

I don't quite grasp the difference in a real way, but I agree with you that it IS an important subject.

~Anastasia~ said:

Others will probably give you a more complete answer.

One thing is that Rome took it upon herself to modify something that shouldn't have been modified without a council led by the Holy Spirit. I think I heard that in St. Peter's Basilica the Creed (as we Orthodox recite it) is carved in stone along with a quote from one of the early Roman Popes forbidding (perhaps anathematizing) any change to it. Yet they did. And it was basically the definition of Christianity which they took upon themselves to modify arbitrarily.

The other main thing is the meaning. We say the Son was begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds - both from the Father and both in an eternal sense. It means (in the original Greek) that the Father is the absolute Source. Yes, the Son participates in sending the Holy Spirit, but He is not the source of the Holy Spirit. Rome has gotten a little fuzzy on what they mean, and sometimes say the Father sends the Spirit through the Son or some such, which can be technically true - but that sending is not what the Creed was meant to explain. It was meant to set forth our beliefs on the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, and part of that was to establish the Father as the Source.

If the Father is the Source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit - that is good and correct. They are all God, and co-equal, however the Father is the Source.

If instead you say as the Filioque implies in that eternal sense that the Father is the source of the Son, and the Father and Son together are the Source of the Holy Spirit, you create a three-level hierarchy within the Holy Trinity that subjugated the Holy Spirit. And this simply is not what was revealed to the Church Fathers.

That's why it's a big deal to us.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.
Could you explain better what I highlighted?

Why would it be a 3 level hierarchy instead of two.

Also, even if we called it a two level hierarchy, wouldn't that mean the Son (and Holy Spirit) are LESS than the Father?

~Anastasia~ said:

And I'm not sure if it's the biggest issue or not. It was at one time certainly. But Rome has made so many changes on different levels and they all separate us to a degree so ... I'm not sure it's even profitable to decide which is the biggest.

The papacy for example - we used to regard Rome as first among equals with a primacy of honor. That was something. So in the beginning, Rome's assertions of authority were misplaced but ... now the Pope is supposed to be not only supreme authority but imbued with infallibility in some cases, and it seems he has replaced Christ as the head of the Church, since we didn't need a single man in that role (indeed it's dangerous) because the Holy Spirit actively guides the Church. So it's a bigger deal now than it was initially. But at one time they asserted something like not being in communion with the pope meant you were going to hell, so at least they have retracted that (I think) and so that part of the doctrine/dogma is not as bad as it was?

Click to expand...

Your statements are correct.

GodsGrace101 said:

I agree with you.
Could you explain better what I highlighted?

Why would it be a 3 level hierarchy instead of two.

Also, even if we called it a two level hierarchy, wouldn't that mean the Son (and Holy Spirit) are LESS than the Father?

Click to expand...

Hi ... sorry I can't review everything just now but hopefully can address this.

I say a three-level hierarchy because in the original intent of the Filioque it would be Father - then Son - then Holy Spirit. Because the Father is the Source of the Son, which places Him above the Son (Two levels). And then the Father and Son co-operatively are the Source of the Holy Spirit, so He would be a lower level still (three levels).

In a sense, we DO actually have somewhat of a two-level hierarchy, because only the Father is the ultimate source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. But we must understand that it was not that the Father used to be alone and at some point in time He created the Son and Holy Spirit. That would make them creatures and not God, and is an error. Rather, the "begetting" of the Son and the "breathing forth" of the Holy Spirit (a better translation than "procession" IMO) ... both of these actions occur in an eternal sense, not at a fixed point in time past. It's more about how the members of the Trinity are related, and not at all about how the Son and Holy Spirit "came to be" (because they didn't). All three Persons of the Holy Trinity share a single Essence (one God) ... so all co-eternal, all unoriginate. They are perfectly united in will, purpose, power, and attributes. (When I say attributes, I mean all are love, for example ... not that all became incarnate as only the Son did.)

It can be difficult and even theologically dangerous to try to explain, as we must not speculate beyond what has been revealed to us. And to a point we can understand ... yet in some ways God is incomprehensible to humans and can't be contained within or grasped by our minds and understanding.

But I hope I at least explained why I said what I did (which isn't my thinking btw, though I recognized it ... but I only accepted it because I found it agreed with what Christianity taught from early on, so I can't take any credit nor does it need defending from me ... not that you are arguing, I just wanted to say this is "not me" lol).

God be with you.

~Anastasia~ said:

Hi ... sorry I can't review everything just now but hopefully can address this.

I say a three-level hierarchy because in the original intent of the Filioque it would be Father - then Son - then Holy Spirit. Because the Father is the Source of the Son, which places Him above the Son (Two levels). And then the Father and Son co-operatively are the Source of the Holy Spirit, so He would be a lower level still (three levels).

In a sense, we DO actually have somewhat of a two-level hierarchy, because only the Father is the ultimate source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. But we must understand that it was not that the Father used to be alone and at some point in time He created the Son and Holy Spirit. That would make them creatures and not God, and is an error. Rather, the "begetting" of the Son and the "breathing forth" of the Holy Spirit (a better translation than "procession" IMO) ... both of these actions occur in an eternal sense, not at a fixed point in time past. It's more about how the members of the Trinity are related, and not at all about how the Son and Holy Spirit "came to be" (because they didn't). All three Persons of the Holy Trinity share a single Essence (one God) ... so all co-eternal, all unoriginate. They are perfectly united in will, purpose, power, and attributes. (When I say attributes, I mean all are love, for example ... not that all became incarnate as only the Son did.)

It can be difficult and even theologically dangerous to try to explain, as we must not speculate beyond what has been revealed to us. And to a point we can understand ... yet in some ways God is incomprehensible to humans and can't be contained within or grasped by our minds and understanding.

But I hope I at least explained why I said what I did (which isn't my thinking btw, though I recognized it ... but I only accepted it because I found it agreed with what Christianity taught from early on, so I can't take any credit nor does it need defending from me ... not that you are arguing, I just wanted to say this is "not me" lol).

God be with you.

Click to expand...

I agree that it's theologically dangerous to try to explain the Trinity. Whatever method you use you fall into a "heresy trap".

I'm sorry the word BEGOTTEN was used in the Nicene Creed. It makes it sound like God Father begot God Son, when really Jesus always existed.

In these modern days we understand begot as something that is gotten and did not always exist...when in reality it just means something unique.

And I don't care for the word PROCEEDS either. It makes it sound like God Father and God Son somehow made the Holy Spirit.

Even if we want to say that God Father is the source of the Holy Spirit, this also makes it sound like God Father created the Holy Spirit.

Is your understanding that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God but is a separate person somehow?
This would take care of the word PROCEEDS which, to me at least, creates a confusion...and I know that it does because I've been present at lessons on this.

GodsGrace101 said:

I agree that it's theologically dangerous to try to explain the Trinity. Whatever method you use you fall into a "heresy trap".

I'm sorry the word BEGOTTEN was used in the Nicene Creed. It makes it sound like God Father begot God Son, when really Jesus always existed.

In these modern days we understand begot as something that is gotten and did not always exist...when in reality it just means something unique.

And I don't care for the word PROCEEDS either. It makes it sound like God Father and God Son somehow made the Holy Spirit.

Even if we want to say that God Father is the source of the Holy Spirit, this also makes it sound like God Father created the Holy Spirit.

Is your understanding that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God but is a separate person somehow?
This would take care of the word PROCEEDS which, to me at least, creates a confusion...and I know that it does because I've been present at lessons on this.

Click to expand...

Well I am cautious to say that the Holy Spirit is THE spirit of the Father, as though He doesn't possess His own Spirit otherwise (God IS Spirit) ... and yes, they are both persons but we cannot really say SEPARATE persons because the Holy Trinity cannot be divided. They are distinct - we can speak of either one of them. But they cannot properly be "separated" (i.e. God cannot be divided or carved up into the Persons of the Holy Trinity).

As you said, it's VERY easy to fall into heresy when we try to explain. The modern understanding of begotten (which is already an antiquated word, and a translation from the original) indeed causes some problem, as we can't really understand "begotten" (fathering a child, usually) in an eternal sense.

I find myself tending to say less and less in posts like this. No longer do I try to explain, because I would risk making errors. It's much easier to say what we CAN'T say about the Holy Trinity, than to try to expand on and explain what the early Church set forth as the Christian understanding. Forgive me that I can do no better than that.

By the way, as I said "proceeds" is a poorer translation IMO. Sometimes you hear "spiration" which is essentially that God the Father "breathes" the Holy Spirit, and I prefer that. Just as I prefer considering the Son as the Logos (Word) that became incarnate. There is a Theological treasury in just those two words, and I've barely begun to scratch the surface of those.

when regarding the Trinity, all we know is the unbegotten Father, the begottenness of the Son, and procession of the Spirit are distinct. but any deeper than that and we are running into dangerous territory.

ArmyMatt said:

when regarding the Trinity, all we know is the unbegotten Father, the begottenness of the Son, and procession of the Spirit are distinct. but any deeper than that and we are running into dangerous territory.

Click to expand...

Ah I thought this was in another thread and didn't realize it was in TAW. Glad to have you stepping in. Please let me know if I got anything wrong.

~Anastasia~ said:

Ah I thought this was in another thread and didn't realize it was in TAW. Glad to have you stepping in. Please let me know if I got anything wrong.

Click to expand...

what you said looks good to me.

ArmyMatt said:

what you said looks good to me.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

no probs!

ArmyMatt said:

when regarding the Trinity, all we know is the unbegotten Father, the begottenness of the Son, and procession of the Spirit are distinct. but any deeper than that and we are running into dangerous territory.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by the begotteness of the Son??

GodsGrace101 said:

What do you mean by the begotteness of the Son??

Click to expand...

not the unbegotteness of the Father, and not the procession of the Holy Spirit. that's about all.

I've tried finding out why the Council of Toledo added the filioque to the creed. All that is ever referenced was that it was a continuation of combating Arian theology. Does anyone know what those latest Arians were teaching that got the members of that Council to think that they best way to argue was to add the filioque?

If Rome truly looking to return to the bosom of the Church, and away from heresy, Filioque needs to be dropped, along with Papal Infilibality, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, papal indulgences, Clerical celibacy, Original Guilt, papal supremacy, Ultra-montantism, treasury of merit ,etc.

As far why the Filioque is heresy, others have covered it in detail, it wasn't even apart of the church until the time of Chalaemegne, the Franks and Pope Leo during the creation of the Holy Roman Empire,the Filioque was condemned by previous popes, the creed without the Filioque was even nailed to the door of Rome, it no longer there, the Filioque messes up the precession of the Holy Spirit.

While Filioque was probably biggest issue between Rome and Orthodoxy, other disputes like Papal Infallibility , Unlevend bread, created grace, scholasticism, Clerical celibacy, etc. were also issues issues, there were even schisms preceding the Great schism such as the Acadian and photos schisms, even going back to the quartodeciman controversy over when to celebrate pascha, the popes try to stick it nose in the other churches dispute, acting like he was the head of the church, and other patriarchs , told him no, and he had to accept the outcome.

GreekOrthodox said:

I've tried finding out why the Council of Toledo added the filioque to the creed. All that is ever referenced was that it was a continuation of combating Arian theology. Does anyone know what those latest Arians were teaching that got the members of that Council to think that they best way to argue was to add the filioque?

Click to expand...

Maybe Father Matt can answer you, it a wired reasoning, fight heresy with even more heresy, then again that seems to be church history, like Monophysitism being used to combat Nestorianism, etc.

GreekOrthodox said:

I've tried finding out why the Council of Toledo added the filioque to the creed. All that is ever referenced was that it was a continuation of combating Arian theology. Does anyone know what those latest Arians were teaching that got the members of that Council to think that they best way to argue was to add the filioque?

Click to expand...

I think this is a really good area to explore, and I have done some research on this point.

I have concluded that the filioque was not added at the Third Council of Toledo 589.

1. My first reason for this conclusion is that as we now have access to the proceeding of the council, admittedly in latin, and I think it has been run through some sort of OCR process, but you can search and read it.
   
   Synodus Toletana tertia
   
   If you search for the phrase 'Ex patre procedentem' you will find it twice, both as part of the Nicene Creed (Constantinople) and without the Filioque.
   
   
2. My second reason is that the primary purpose of the 3rd Synod of Toledo was the receive Reccared into the catholic Church, turning his back on Arianism and bringing with him the leading families of Iberia. This was a great moment for Nicene christianity in Iberia, and it makes no sense to suggest that on embracing the catholic faith he or Leander would want to change it. They were very aware of the anathemas of Ephesus, and the record above makes mention of them.
   
   
3. My third reason is that the filioque does nothing to address Arianism as such, and indeed Charlmagne argued at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794 that it should be included to combat Spanish Adoptionism a heresy based on an overemphasis of the kenotic Christology, and perhaps have some elements of Nestorianism about it. Charlemagne championed the filioque against the mind and will of the Pope.
   
   
4. My fourth reason is that the 3rd Synod of Toledo took a very high view of the Creed of the Holy Fathers of Constantinople, to the extent that it is spelled out twice the proceedings of the council, and this council decreed that it should be sung on Sundays and Great Feast Days.

I think it is more likely to have slipped into the creed by virtue of a copying error, possibly replicating the et filio from the next clause, before being tidied up to be filique. I think that Pepin the Short understood it to be the original, and his son Charlemagne certainly did not see it as an insertion, hence his arguing about it with the pope over about 20 years.