Filioque

[humble theologian]

What do you think of the Filioque?
if this is a heresy, maybe this is the reason for the fall of Christianity in the west?

 

[seeking.IAM]

I think the filioque is a departure from Christianity as originally defined at Nicaea. My church follows the west, but has had discussions in removing it upon the next irritation of The Book of Common Prayer. We recite the Creed weekly. But as for me, I stand with historic Christianity so there are three words I don't say.

 

[concretecamper]

What do you think of the Filioque?
if this is a heresy, maybe this is the reason for the fall of Christianity in the west?

IMO, it's a scapegoat for the real reason which is the Authority of Rome.

 

[jas3]

What do you think of the Filioque?

I think the vast majority of people who debate about it online are vastly underqualified to do so (myself included)

Personally, from what I've studied of it, I think the filioque shouldn't have been added to the Creed. The only explicit statement in Scripture about the Spirit's procession is that He proceed from the Father, and the closest we see to procession from the Son is that our Lord says He will send the Spirit from the Father. That's not to say that we're bound only to what the Bible teaches explicitly, but the Fathers of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople I weren't bound to that either, and they still only professed the Spirit's procession from the Father.

The most damaging piece of evidence to the filioquist side, I would say, is St. Maximus the Confessor's letter in defense of Rome (I can look up the exact citation if anyone's interested) where he says that the Latin teaching on the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son doesn't make the Son a cause (aitia) of the Spirit. At the Council of Florence, the Orthodox bishops tried to present St. Maximus's letter three times, but each time they were prevented from doing so, and the council ended up defining the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son with the procession from the Son explicitly "according to the Greeks indeed as cause."

if this is a heresy, maybe this is the reason for the fall of Christianity in the west?

I think people tend to make too much out of the filioque in general. It certainly was a sign of the times when Rome unilaterally modified the Creed, but it was not itself the cause of all the West's troubles since then as some would argue. I do find it incredibly strange that some Catholics will argue that the Orthodox are somehow in error for not having added the filioque, even though that criticism would apply equally to Rome for most of the first millennium and to the Eastern Catholic churches today.

 

[RileyG]

IMO, it's a scapegoat for the real reason which is the Authority of Rome.

Agreed.

 

[humble theologian]

The most damaging piece of evidence to the filioquist side, I would say, is St. Maximus the Confessor's letter in defense of Rome (I can look up the exact citation if anyone's interested) where he says that the Latin teaching on the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son doesn't make the Son a cause (aitia) of the Spirit. At the Council of Florence, the Orthodox bishops tried to present St. Maximus's letter three times, but each time they were prevented from doing so, and the council ended up defining the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son with the procession from the Son explicitly "according to the Greeks indeed as cause."

In this letter, if I'm not mistaken, St. Maximus the Confessor asserts that Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son as a cause, but according to the Divine economy

I think people tend to make too much out of the filioque in general. It certainly was a sign of the times when Rome unilaterally modified the Creed, but it was not itself the cause of all the West's troubles since then as some would argue. I do find it incredibly strange that some Catholics will argue that the Orthodox are somehow in error for not having added the filioque, even though that criticism would apply equally to Rome for most of the first millennium and to the Eastern Catholic churches today.

I beg your pardon, but I disagree with you, I think if we distort our idea of God then everything will go nowhere, because without true knowledge about Cause of causes, we create mental idol and worship not the true God but our imagination

 

[jas3]

In this letter, if I'm not mistaken, St. Maximus the Confessor asserts that Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son as a cause, but according to the Divine economy

I looked the letter up again, it's his letter to Marinus. You're correct, he says that the sense of procession as it applies to the Son is one of sending forth, and explicitly not one of cause.

 

[Philip_B]

Although I don't think the Filioque is a life or death matter, I also think that those who don't think it matters perhaps don't think unity matters either.

The Councils from Constantinople 1 Affirmed the Creed, including Ephesus which included anathemas on those who would change the Creed, This Creed was affirmed by Patriarchs East and West. Following the relief provided on February 14, 1014 Pope Benedict VIII allowed the Filioaue at the coronation of Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor. This was contentious for the East, and ultimately led to the Great Schism, July 16, 1054.

There are several issues:

Primacy:
No one questions the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and this is a matter of the 1st Council of Constantinople, however, there is a question as to whether this is a Primacy of Honour or a Primacy of Authority. This of course leads to questions about the Pope's ability to change the words of the Creed of the Councils, and in the face of the anathemas of Ephesus. Ultimately are the Councils the servants of the Pope, or is the Pope subject to the Council? Whilst there had been friction between East and West, the issues in the 40 years leading to the great schism threw this matter into sharp relief.

Procession:
The question of the Procession of the Holy Spirit is the subject of much theological speculation as it drives deep into the nature and character of the very being of God which is beyond the capacity of our mortal frame. The Scriptures will be a source of categorical truth on the matter for many.

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever.​

John 15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.​

John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.​

The East argues that the origin of the Holy Spirit must always be seen in the Father, and in keeping with the Opening of the Nicene Creed the monarchical integrity of the Father affirms our belief in one God. Many in the West would see that John 20:22 suggests that Spirit may originate from the Son. Others would argue that this on the one hand creates a hierarchical idea of the Trinity which does not reflect the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity. Both Augustine and Aquinas argued that when the Spirit was seen to proceed from the Son, the Spirit had in the same instance proceeded from the Father. Real milk may be poured from the carton, however, it has always in the first instance come from the cow.

Procedure:
Procedurally one would imagine that if the Creed had originated in the Council it would indeed be changed by a Council.

Politics:
There is a great deal of Politics involved in all of this, as Constantinople, built on the site of the old Byzantium, and we talk about the Byzantine Empire, however, they understood themselves to be Romans, and indeed Constantine had imagined the city to be Nova Romanum (New Rome). Most of the Holy Roman Emporers from Charlemagne understood their authority to include Constantinople and all of the East.

I personally do not say the Filioque, though the Church where I worship does, and I just take a breath.

Is the Filioque Heresy? I don't think it has to be, however, I do think it is open to it. The matter comes down to what you mean when you say it. There are examples of the Spirit proceeding from the Father alone (Creation, Exodus, Baptism of Jesus .,,) So if you mean the Spirit can not proceed without Jesus you possibly have crossed that line. If by using the Filiouque you are affirming a three-tiered authority within the trinity then perhaps you have crossed it.

I don't want to write a long essay that doesn't matter, however, I for one believe it does matter, and I would be happy for my Church and all the west to stop inserting it into one of the finest pieces of theological writing in the last 2000 years.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What do you think of the Filioque?
if this is a heresy, maybe this is the reason for the fall of Christianity in the west?

Please explain how it would be a heresy.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think the filioque is a departure from Christianity as originally defined at Nicaea. My church follows the west, but has had discussions in removing it upon the next irritation of The Book of Common Prayer. We recite the Creed weekly. But as for me, I stand with historic Christianity so there are three words I don't say.

Does your church say the filioque is a heresy?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

IMO, it's a scapegoat for the real reason which is the Authority of Rome.

Some may well think that way.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Does your church say the filioque is a heresy?

No, my church includes the filioque. I do not.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No, my church includes the filioque. I do not.

This is a curiosity question, it isn't important, do you think filioque in the creed is heresy?

 

[seeking.IAM]

This is a curiosity question, it isn't important, do you think filioque in the creed is heresy?

I do not know that I would go so far as to call it heresy. That is not for me to say. I do think the filioque is a departure from what the early church decided when the church was one before its great schism, so I prefer the earliest iteration of the Creed when the church was one.

For example, also coming from the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) was canon that kneeling on Sundays and during Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter) was prohibited. Standing was the normative posture for prayer. Kneeling was considered a penitential posture. Depending on which worship rite is used in my church, the rubrics are the people may "kneel or stand" or "stand or kneel," with that listed first as what is preferred for that rite. In reality, nearly everybody kneels regardless of what time of year. But there are a few outliers like me who like to stand while everyone kneels unless it is Lent or perhaps Advent. We forget this history and tradition, but I think it is worth remembering and honoring.

I have a personal belief about many types of things that those closest to an event are in a better position to say than those who come along years later and think they have a better idea or a new revelation. To me, that is particularly true of some corners of Christianity - my bias, admittedly.

 

[The Liturgist]

What do you think of the Filioque?
if this is a heresy, maybe this is the reason for the fall of Christianity in the west?

Well, I’m Orthodox, so I reject it because it confuses the nature of the Trinity and causes in some cases people to view the Holy Spirit as a sort of unifying shared attribute of the Father and the Son, as opposed to being a distinct person who proceeds from the Father.

 

[concretecamper]

Well, I’m Orthodox, so I reject it because it confuses the nature of the Trinity and causes in some cases people to view the Holy Spirit as a sort of unifying shared attribute of the Father and the Son, as opposed to being a distinct person who proceeds from the Father.

In reality, 99.9% of Christians couldn't explain generation vs. spiration, or the concern you raise (which I find very interesting ). Which leads one to think, is it really a valid cause of any schism.

 

[The Liturgist]

In reality, 99.9% of Christians couldn't explain generation vs. spiration, or the concern you raise (which I find very interesting ). Which leads one to think, is it really a valid cause of any schism.

It is not the cause of any current schism. The issue was resolved in the 9th century at the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Furthermore, even when the RCC reversed course, the Orthodox did not sever communion at that time, but rather, you excommunicated us for failing to adhere to the innovative doctrine of Papal Supremacy (which can be shown to be incorrect by canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea).

 

[The Liturgist]

I do not know that I would go so far as to call it heresy. That is not for me to say. I do think the filioque is a departure from what the early church decided when the church was one before its great schism, so I prefer the earliest iteration of the Creed when the church was one.

For example, also coming from the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) was canon that kneeling on Sundays and during Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter) was prohibited. Standing was the normative posture for prayer. Kneeling was considered a penitential posture. Depending on which worship rite is used in my church, the rubrics are the people may "kneel or stand" or "stand or kneel," with that listed first as what is preferred for that rite. In reality, nearly everybody kneels regardless of what time of year. But there are a few outliers like me who like to stand while everyone kneels unless it is Lent or perhaps Advent. We forget this history and tradition, but I think it is worth remembering and honoring.

I have a personal belief about many types of things that those closest to an event are in a better position to say than those who come along years later and think they have a better idea or a new revelation. To me, that is particularly true of some corners of Christianity - my bias, admittedly.

The Eastern Orthodox usually do not kneel on Sunday, although I have seen some people make metanies, because some have forgotten about Canon 20 of Nicaea. Likewise, the Syriac Orthodox do not prostrate themselves on Sunday, but the Copts do, which is technically a violation. Also, one could argue that the Eastern Orthodox should be applying what is presently done only in Bright Week to the entire Pentecostarion period.

In the Western churches there is even less observance or awareness of the canons of the Council of Nicaea.

I am planning on doing a thread in the near future on ancient canon law and why it matters, and why modern churches should continue to follow it. For example, the canons that prohibit clergy from managing the finances of anyone as a financial advisor is a very solid, common-sense protection (there was only one exception, that being if someone bequeathed their entire estate to the church.

 

[The Liturgist]

In this letter, if I'm not mistaken, St. Maximus the Confessor asserts that Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son as a cause, but according to the Divine economy

That’s true, but unfortunately not everyone who professes the filioque sees it that way, and furthermore the Orthodox Church cannot accept the Filioque because its mere existence violates the Canons of the Council of Ephesus, which prohibit either modifying or replacing the Nicene Creed.*

*That being said, we do include the correct, filioque-free version of the canticle by some as “the Athanasian Creed” in some Russian Psalters and Greek-language Horologion, and the English language A Psalter for Prayer, published by ROCOR’s Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, but we do not use it as a creedal statement. Historically, this was sung as a canticle.

Likewise, other documents sometimes called creeds in the West, like the Apostles’ Creed, are acceptable provided they are understood as canticles and not as rival alternative creeds, which unfortunately is the impression that some liturgical texts give.

 

[concretecamper]

It is not the cause of any current schism. The issue was resolved in the 9th century at the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Furthermore, even when the RCC reversed course, the Orthodox did not sever communion at that time, but rather, you excommunicated us for failing to adhere to the innovative doctrine of Papal Supremacy (which can be shown to be incorrect by canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea).

Which speaks to my view that Papal Supremacy IS THE REASON of the schism, not the filioque