Filioque and the Protestant West

[Philip_B]

I am aware a lot of people do not know what it is, so here is the very short story.

• At the Council of Constantinople 381 the Nicene Creed was established.
• At the Council of Ephesus in 435 anathemas we declared against those who added to or took away from the Creed
• At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 these decisions were affirmed and ratified.
• At the Coronation of Henry II of Germany as Holy Roman Emperor 1014 the filioque was inserted in the Creed - Benedict VIII

The clause is in the section of the creed dealing with the Holy Spirit:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life
who proceeds from the Father (and the Son)
who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.​

This decision had a number of ramifications and was a significant part of what led to the great schism in 1054.

I don't understand why following the Reformation there was not a determination on the part of the reformers to dropped the clause. The call was that the Pope had exceeded his authority in may ways, and there was a general affirmation of the first four Councils.

Still today on this forum, where numbers of people are clearly antithetical to the Catholic position on anything, yet seem to clearly support the insertion of the Filioque.

By way of clarification, I am part of the church that uses the Filioque, though I specifically do not, not because I am anti Catholic, but because I believe the original is the Creed of the Church agreed in Council. I am not looking for the great debate, or a rerun of the great schism, however I am interested in something that does not seem completely consistent.

Please play nicely.

 

[ChurchMilitant]

What was Rome thinking when it added the Filioque?

This helped me understand the Catholic position,

 

[Philip_B]

What was Rome thinking when it added the Filioque?
This helped me understand the Catholic position,

Hi thanks for sharing that. I am aware of the argument and I understand that the Roman liturgy in Greek does not contain the filioque, however some of this is a clearly a gloss and does not answer the question as to why it was added, which I suspect may well have been more political than theological.

Sometimes I wonder if current English usages leave us vulnerable to the heresy that is feared of the clause in Greek.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi @Philip_B, I've posted this here at CF before, but it seems like it may be valuable for consideration in your thread as well. It caught my eye because it began as a discussion of the Father as the "source" of Godhead, and what that means. It may also help answer your question, "I don't understand why following the Reformation there was not a determination on the part of the Reformers to drop the clause".

Here's what Patrick/@AMR wrote:

We are entering deep waters here of the mysteries of God, so let's approach the subject with much fear and trembling.

Think of the phrase, "In the unity of the Godhead."

Western theology begins at this point. One God possessing full Godhead.

I think using the word "source" opens up too many distractions based upon modern notions that require much qualifications to prevent misunderstandings. The Father is unbegotten. As such God the Father is the ever-flowing fountain of the divine essence. He communicates this essence to the Son. He with the Son communicates this essence to the Spirit. The communication is eternal. It did not happen one time and then stop.

The first communication is called begetting; the second communication is called procession. Call the communication whatever one pleases, it is the communication itself which is important. So we say the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and the Son. The begetting is also often termed generation. The procession is also sometimes called spiration.

Berkhof writes:

• This procession of the Holy Spirit, briefly called spiration, is his personal property. Much of what was said respecting the generation of the Son also applies to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, and need not be repeated. The following points of distinction between the two may be noted, however:
  (1) Generation is the work of the Father only; spiration is the work of both the Father and the Son.
  (2) By generation the Son is enabled to take part in the work of spiration, but the Holy Spirit acquires no such power.
  (3) In logical order generation precedes spiration.
  
  It should be remembered, however, that all this implies no essential subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son.
  
  In spiration as well as in generation there is a communication of the whole of the divine essence, so that the Holy Spirit is on an equality with the Father and the Son
  
  The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is based on John 15:26, and on the fact that the Spirit is also called the Spirit of Christ and of the Son, Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6, and is sent by Christ into the world. Spiration may be defined as that eternal and necessary act of the first and second persons in the Trinity whereby they, within the divine Being, become the ground of the personal subsistence of the Holy Spirit, and put the third person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation or change.
  
  When one begins with the unity of God these personal properties are the means by which Godhead is understood to belong to a distinct mode of subsistence within the undivided substance.

Altering the personal properties so as to deny the filioque (fill-ee-oh-qwee) serves to create a new "stream" (using the above analogy of "fountain").

Once the filioque is denied, there is now no longer one stream
--> Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

A second stream has been created
--> Father, Son; Father, Holy Spirit.

There is no longer an unity of three but two unities of two.

Accordingly, the unity of God is maintained in the western theological tradition by what is called the communication of Godheadbegetting and procession. "Person" or "subsistence" depends on personal properties, i.e., properties which are unique to a person in relation to other persons. In the words of our Larger Catechism, there is something "proper" in these relations, that is, "divinely proper." To detract from any property of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit is to make Him inferior to the Father.

The EO objection in relation to the Holy Spirit is removed by a simple acknowledgement that the unique person of the Holy Spirit also consists in a unique property, and that property is to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.

If this were not accepted as the Holy Spirit's distinct property He would not be the third person of the Trinity but would be a second second person. This means He would be a second Son. His very name, Spirit, is suggestive of an altogether unique relation in union with Father and Son which nullifies the objection. The Holy Spirit is the person upon whom the communication of Godhead finally terminates. In this capacity the Spirit is Himself the bond of union and communion between Father and Son. Likewise, in the ad extra works (works outside the Goddhead) of the Trinity, this unique relation finds expression in His distinctive function in connection with the creation of, providence over, and redemption of, the world He is the Spirit of life and communion.

AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog
​

--David

 

[prodromos]

The EO objection in relation to the Holy Spirit is removed by a simple acknowledgement that the unique person of the Holy Spirit also consists in a unique property, and that property is to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.

Patrick is mistaken. This makes the procession of the Holy Spirit common to the Father and the Son which thus makes it of the nature of God, except that the Holy Spirit would therefore also have to proceed from itself. Patrick truly does not understand the EO objections to the error of the filioque.

 

[dreadnought]

I am aware a lot of people do not know what it is, so here is the very short story.

• At the Council of Constantinople 381 the Nicene Creed was established.
• At the Council of Ephesus in 435 anathemas we declared against those who added to or took away from the Creed
• At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 these decisions were affirmed and ratified.
• At the Coronation of Henry II of Germany as Holy Roman Emperor the filioque was inserted in the Creed - Benedict VIII

The clause is in the section of the creed dealing with the Holy Spirit:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life
who proceeds from the Father (and the Son)
who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.​

This decision had a number of ramifications and was a significant part of what led to the great schism in 1054.

I don't understand why following the Reformation there was not a determination on the part of the reformers to dropped the clause. The call was that the Pope had exceeded his authority in may ways, and there was a general affirmation of the first four Councils.

Still today on this forum, where numbers of people are clearly antithetical to the Catholic position on anything, yet seem to clearly support the insertion of the Filioque.

By way of clarification, I am part of the church that uses the Filioque, though I specifically do not, not because I am anti Catholic, but because I believe the original is the Creed of the Church agreed in Council. I am not looking for the great debate, or a rerun of the great schism, however I am interested in something that does not seem completely consistent.

Please play nicely.

People like to categorize people, and so sometimes people categorize Protestants, as if we all believe exactly the same thing on every issue. I looked up Filioque, since I've never heard of it before. So you want the world to believe that Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit emanates from both the Father and the Son? Well, I'm a Protestant and I've never heard of this before.

 

[tz620q]

People like to categorize people, and so sometimes people categorize Protestants, as if we all believe exactly the same thing on every issue. I looked up Filioque, since I've never heard of it before. So you want the world to believe that Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit emanates from both the Father and the Son? Well, I'm a Protestant and I've never heard of this before.

I've often noticed that whenever a new group is founded, the founder sets the trajectory that the group merely maintains. So since Luther and the other reformers did not have an objection to this, there was never a formal Protestant protest of the filioque. It was just accepted as part of correct theology. This is not a knock on the reformers as much as an observation of how we've gotten to where we are.

 

[dreadnought]

I've often noticed that whenever a new group is founded, the founder sets the trajectory that the group merely maintains. So since Luther and the other reformers did not have an objection to this, there was never a formal Protestant protest of the filioque. It was just accepted as part of correct theology. This is not a knock on the reformers as much as an observation of how we've gotten to where we are.

In all my 65 years I've never heard of filioque, yet you want me to believe that we Protestants are adherents to filioque simply because Martin Luther didn't take time to specifically mention it? Maybe it wasn't on his top ten list of complaints regarding the Catholic Church.

 

[tz620q]

In all my 65 years I've never heard of filioque, yet you want me to believe that we Protestants are adherents to filioque simply because Martin Luther didn't take time to specifically mention it? Maybe it wasn't on his top ten list of complaints regarding the Catholic Church.

I don't let Protestants off that easy. They've had 500 years now to study this controversy that was at the heart of the greatest Schism in the church. And to be fair, a lot have done just that, specifically Anglican and Lutheran theologians. But the rank and file, don't study history, don't study the early fathers, and don't study past heresies. They are not culpable for this; but their pastors are, in my opinion, doing them an injustice; because it is easy to slide down the slope of ignorance into the pit of past mistakes.

 

[dreadnought]

I don't let Protestants off that easy. They've had 500 years now to study this controversy that was at the heart of the greatest Schism in the church. And to be fair, a lot have done just that, specifically Anglican and Lutheran theologians. But the rank and file, don't study history, don't study the early fathers, and don't study past heresies. They are not culpable for this; but their pastors are, in my opinion, doing them an injustice; because it is easy to slide down the slope of ignorance into the pit of past mistakes.

It isn't a controversy for us. I'd never heard of it before today.

 

[tz620q]

It isn't a controversy for us. I'd never heard of it before today.

Do you ever state the Nicene creed in your worship services?

 

[Albion]

.

 

[dreadnought]

Do you ever state the Nicene creed in your worship services?

We read a creed every once in a while.

 

[tz620q]

We read a creed every once in a while.

Dreadnought, I am not singling you out; but merely stating my opinion. Creed comes from the Latin, credo, which is the first word in Latin of the Nicene Creed and means, "I believe". All that follows is a statement of our deepest beliefs as Christians. That is why the Nicene Creed is used as a litmus test for who is Christian on this forum. I urge everyone who is reading this to ponder these words deeply and carefully, otherwise, you could be parroting a belief that you do not really hold. There is much wisdom in the creed and the formation of it is a milestone in Christian history.

 

[dreadnought]

Dreadnought, I am not singling you out; but merely stating my opinion. Creed comes from the Latin, credo, which is the first word in Latin of the Nicene Creed and means, "I believe". All that follows is a statement of our deepest beliefs as Christians. That is why the Nicene Creed is used as a litmus test for who is Christian on this forum. I urge everyone who is reading this to ponder these words deeply and carefully, otherwise, you could be parroting a belief that you do not really hold. There is much wisdom in the creed and the formation of it is a milestone in Christian history.

Creeds come from people, but we need to learn to follow Jesus.

 

[Albion]

I've often noticed that whenever a new group is founded, the founder sets the trajectory that the group merely maintains. So since Luther and the other reformers did not have an objection to this, there was never a formal Protestant protest of the filioque. It was just accepted as part of correct theology. This is not a knock on the reformers as much as an observation of how we've gotten to where we are.

But on the other hand, many Protestant churches are explicitly non-creedal. They do not believe that any man-made statement of faith should be required of any member (but only the truths of the Bible).

As a result, we cannot talk as though they are confused or flippant when it comes to the nature of Christ--in the way it was described in the Nicene Creed.

And then there are some churches that are not non-creedal but accept and use the Apostles Creed (but not the Nicene) and the filioque is not an issue with it.

 

[tz620q]

But on the other hand, many Protestant churches are explicitly non-creedal. They do not believe that any man-made statement of faith should be required of any member (but only the truths of the Bible).

As a result, we cannot talk as though they are confused or flippant when it comes to the nature of Christ--in the way it was described in the Nicene Creed.

And then there are some churches that are not non-creedal but accept and use the Apostles Creed (but not the Nicene) and the filioque is not an issue with it.

I once read a statement by a prominent theologian in a denomination that they maintained purity by rejecting all creeds. Their witness was tainted by the many arguments and splits that happen within their denomination. What purity is there in dissent? At least they honestly disapprove of creeds and accept the consequences; but without a firm statement of faith they seem to be blown around by the wind a lot. This is not the same thing as saying they are heretical, only in pointing out that they have no firm mooring to which to tie their beliefs. And those beliefs they do have are not invented whole cloth; but start in the slipstream of the apostolic faith that is tied to creeds.

So I find it rather disingenuous to deny the creed while professing all that it says as true to be their beliefs. It, to me, is a rejection of historical continuity that is built right on top of the historical edifice.

 

[Albion]

I once read a statement by a prominent theologian in a denomination that they maintained purity by rejecting all creeds. Their witness was tainted by the many arguments and splits that happen within their denomination. What purity is there in dissent? At least they honestly disapprove of creeds and accept the consequences; but without a firm statement of faith they seem to be blown around by the wind a lot.

But of this is all irrelevant.

If their theology is non-creedal, we on the other side cannot expect them to be fastidious or deeply concerned about the fine points in a creed that is NOT part of their belief system and, indeed, has been explicitly rejected by them.

 

[tz620q]

But of this is all irrelevant.

If their theology is non-creedal, we on the other side cannot expect them to be fastidious or deeply concerned about the fine points in a creed that is NOT part of their belief system and, indeed, has been explicitly rejected by them.

I feel you have missed my point completely. To reject a creed as man-made while accepting everything that it states as your beliefs based on your sole understanding of the Bible is logically inconsistent.

 

[Albion]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Logically speaking, if the Word of God is available to you, why would a church that uses it have to require you to subscribe to a paraphrase of it as well?

Mind you, I accept the Nicene Creed myself; but when it comes to non-creedal Christians, we cannot expect them to view this issue in the same light as we do.