What's the Filioque controversy all about?

[Jackson Cooper]

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Google it. It’s easy to research yourself, OP

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

Google it. It’s easy to research yourself, OP

Eh, lots of false stuff hiding behind the word Orthodox.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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?

 

[Jackson Cooper]

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.

Ah, I get John 15:26 now. The Filioque used to be written in stone and one of the popes forbade any change to it? Why would any modern Roman Catholic think that Filioque is how the creed was originally?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Eh, lots of false stuff hiding behind the word Orthodox.

This is true ...

You know though Jackson, there are some reliable websites you can trust that might help answer your questions. Though not every site I've seen recommended is trustworthy. Usually the jurisdictions' own websites are.

I use Goarch for example, among others. It's the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ah, I get John 15:26 now. The Filioque used to be written in stone and one of the popes forbade any change to it? Why would any modern Roman Catholic think that Filioque is how the creed was originally?

I don't think any of them imagine it used to be in the original Creed. I think they just believe Rome had the authority to change it so it's ok that they did.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ah, I get John 15:26 now. The Filioque used to be written in stone and one of the popes forbade any change to it? Why would any modern Roman Catholic think that Filioque is how the creed was originally?

I don't think any of them imagine it used to be in the original Creed. I think they just believe Rome had the authority to change it so it's ok that they did.

And I think it is STILL written in stone ... not just used to be.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Pope of Rome at first refused to approve an official addition of the Filioque, though it was tolerated in some areas formally under his jurisdiction. Pope Leo III, however, had the Creed in its original form engraved on silver tablets and deposited at the tomb of St. Peter in St. Peter's Basilica. The Pope formally approved the anathematization of the Filioque by the union council of 879, which healed the Photian Schism. But under pressure from the medieval German rulers and hierarchy, Rome finally accepted it in 1014.
--- from http://www.orthodoxnet.com/wisdom/h003.html (which has other info besides)

Pope Leo III forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.
--- from Filioque - OrthodoxWiki (which has more of the historical context if you open all the sections)

 

[Philip_B]

Just the quick History for those who are lost:

381 AD - Constantinople 1 set in place the Nicene Creed without the filioque
435 AD - Council of Ephesus confirmed the creed and proclaimed anatemas on additions to or subtractions from the Creed
451 AD - Council of Chalcedon confirmed the Creed and the Anathemas.

589 AD - Third Council of Toledo did not change the Creed but did specify that the Nicene Creed should be said or sung in the liturgy for Sundays and Holy Days.

Somewhere in the blurry bit the filioque appeared in Ibera and Gaul, and then Germany.

794 AD - Council of Frankfurt authorised it's inclusion under Charlmagne without Papal assent.

809 AD - Council at Aix-la-Chapelle (Charlemagne again) asked the Pope if they might include it and he said no.

847 AD - Monks in Jerusalem disagreed with it's use and the Pope forbade it.

1014 AD - Benedict IX acquiesced to a request from Henry II (HRE) and Michael 1 Cellairis objected. The East argued it was the Creed of the Councils, and the West argued that he held the Keys of the Kingdom.

1054 AD - Mutual Excommunications East and West not liften till after Vatican 2.

A Quick note on Procession

John 14:15-17
John 15:25-27
John 20:20-23​

These are the three key texts. At issue is that the East argue that origins always lie ultimately in the Father. The only viable way to read the filioque is 'from the Father through the Son' otherwise wyou will do damage to one of the Johannine texts.

So at the heart of the Great Schism is Procedure, Procession, and Primacy.

Hope that helps

 

[GodsGrace101]

Google it. It’s easy to research yourself, OP

It's really not a good idea to learn from professor Google, unless you already know some.

Too many differing opinions.

 

[GodsGrace101]

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.

Very interesting.
They say.....
The Son is begotten of the Father.
The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.
I'm trying to reason why this would create 3 different God's......

 

[~Anastasia~]

Very interesting.
They say.....
The Son is begotten of the Father.
The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.
I'm trying to reason why this would create 3 different God's......

That is including the Filioque.

The Son is begotten of the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
That is the way the Creed was written and ratified and used for centuries.

This issue with the Filioque isn't three Gods ... actually it is in understanding the eternal begetting and eternal procession that we can understand God is One.

But we can talk more later if you like. Maybe someone else can explain better.

 

[GodsGrace101]

That is including the Filioque.

The Son is begotten of the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
That is the way the Creed was written and ratified and used for centuries.

This issue with the Filioque isn't three Gods ... actually it is in understanding the eternal begetting and eternal procession that we can understand God is One.

But we can talk more later if you like. Maybe someone else can explain better.

It's said that the Holy Spirit can be understood as being the love made manifest between the Father and the Son.

This is the controversy as per wikipedia:

In the late 6th century, some Latin-speaking churches added the words "and from the Son" (Filioque) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what many Eastern Orthodox Christians have at a later stage argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicaea or that of Constantinople.[35] This was incorporated into the liturgical practice of Rome in 1014.[30] Filioque eventually became one of the main causes for the East-West Schism in 1054, and the failures of the repeated union attempts.

The Vatican stated in 1995 that, while the words καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ("and the Son") would indeed be heretical if used with the Greek verb ἐκπορεύομαι[36]—which is one of the terms used by St. Gregory of Nazianzus and the one adopted by the Council of Constantinople[30][37][38]—the word Filioque is not heretical when associated with the Latin verb procedo and the related word processio. Whereas the verb ἐκπορεύομαι (from ἐκ, "out of" and πορεύομαι "to come or go") in Gregory and other Fathers necessarily means "to originate from a cause or principle," the Latin term procedo (from pro, "forward;" and cedo, "to go") has no such connotation and simply denotes the communication of the Divine Essence or Substance. In this sense, processio is similar in meaning to the Greek term προϊέναι, used by the Fathers from Alexandria (especially Cyril of Alexandria) as well as others.[30][39] Partly due to the influence of the Latin translations of the New Testament (especially of John 15:26), the term ἐκπορευόμενον (the present participle of ἐκπορεύομαι) in the creed was translated into Latin as procedentem. In time, the Latin version of the Creed came to be interpreted in the West in the light of the Western concept of processio, which required the affirmation of the Filioque to avoid the heresy of Arianism.[30][40]

I too am learning as we go along.
The original wording needs to be posted here.
No time now. Later.
(of the Nicene Creed and the one from the 6th century posted above).

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm thinking about this and can't seem to get my housework done!

This is from wikipedia:

Filioque (Ecclesiastical Latin: [filiˈɔkwe]) is a Latin term added to the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (commonly known as the Nicene Creed), and which has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity. The Latin term Filioquedescribes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son, (and not from the Father only). In the Nicene Creed it is translated by the English phrase "and [from] the Son"[1]:

I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceedeth from the Father ⟨and the Son⟩.
Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.
or in Latin:

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem:
qui ex Patre ⟨Filioque⟩ procedit
Qui cum Patre, et Filio simul adoratur, et cum glorificatur.
Whether that term Filioque is included, as well as how it is translated and understood, can have important implications for how one understands the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which is central to the majority of Christian churches. For some, the term implies a serious underestimation of the Father's role in the Trinity; for others, denial of what it expresses implies a serious underestimation of the role of the Son in the Trinity. Over time, the term became a symbol of conflict between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, although there have been attempts at resolving the conflict. Among the early attempts at harmonization are the works of Maximus the Confessor, who notably was canonised independently by both Eastern and Western churches.

The Filioque is included in the form of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed used in most Western Christian churches, first appearing in the 6th century.[2][contradictory] It was accepted by the popesonly in 1014 and is rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches and Church of the East. It is not in the original text of this Creed, attributed to the second ecumenical council, Constantinople I (381), which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father", without additions of any kind, such as "and the Son" or "alone";[3] the Latin text now in use in most Western Churches speaks of the Holy Spirit as proceeding "from the Father and the Son".

Differences over this doctrine and the question of papal primacy have been and remain primary causes of schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Western churches.[4][5] The term has been an ongoing source of conflict between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, contributing, in major part, to the East–West Schism of 1054 and proving to be an obstacle to attempts to reunify the two sides.[6]

sourece: Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

 

[GodsGrace101]

The Nicene Creed:

The Nicene Creed (325 AD-381 AD) We believe in one God, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one lord, Jesus the anointed, the only begotten son of God, begotten of the father before all worlds, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, being of one substance [homousion] with the father [against ebionitism and Arianism], by whom all things were made. Who for us humans and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the holy spirit and the virgin Mary [against docetism], and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the father. And he shall come again to judge both the living and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end. [This first paragraph was agreed upon at the Council of Nicea, 325 AD.] And in the holy spirit, the lord and giver-of-life, who proceeds from the father, who with the father and the son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. [This concluding paragraph is supposed to have been adopted by the Council of Constantinople, 381 AD, although the records of that council are lost. The official recorded ratification of the creed as a whole took place at the Council of Chalcedon,

 

[GodsGrace101]

The Filioque
3rd council of Toledo
589 AD

Canons[edit]
Reccared then bid the council with his licence to draw up any requisite canons, particularly one directing the creed to be recited at Communion, so that henceforward no one could plead ignorance as an excuse for misbelief. Then followed 23 canons with a confirmatory edict of the king.

• The 1st confirmed the decrees of previous councils of the Catholic Church and synodical letters of the popes;
• the 2nd directed the recitation of the creed of Constantinople at Holy Communion, with the addition of the Filioque clause: Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit ("I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and Son") which was never accepted in the Christian East and led to drawn-out controversy;
• the 5th forbade the converted Arian bishops, priests, and deacons to live with their wives;
• the 7th directed that the Scriptures should be read at a bishop's table during meals;
• the 9th transferred Arian churches to the bishops of their dioceses;
• the 13th forbade clerics to proceed against other clerics before lay tribunals;
• the 14th forbade Jews to have Christian wives, concubines, or slaves, ordered the children of such unions to be baptized, and disqualified Jews from any office in which they might have to punish Christians. Christian slaves whom they had circumcised, or made to share in their rites, were ipso facto freed;
• the 21st forbade civil authorities to lay burdens on clerics or the slaves of the church or clergy;
• the 22nd forbade wailing at funerals;
• the 23rd forbade celebrating the eves of Saint's days with dances and songs, characterized as "indecent".

The canons were subscribed first by the king, then by 5 of the 6 metropolitans, of whom Masonasigned first; 62 bishops signed in person, 6 by proxy. All those of Tarraconensis and Septimaniaappeared personally or by proxy; in other provinces several were missing.

Closing[edit]
The proceedings closed with a triumphant homily by Leander on the conversion of the Goths, preserved by his brother Isidore as Homilia de triumpho ecclesiae ob conversionem Gothorum a homily upon the "triumph of the Church and the conversion of the Goths."

Effects of the council[edit]
The proscriptions against Jews were soon followed by required conversions, which led to a wholesale flight of Jews from Visigothic Spain to Ceuta and technically Visigothic nearby territories in North Africa. There, a community of exiles and malcontents formed, that were later to provide useful alliance and information at the time of the Moorish invasion in 711.

The filioque clause spread through the Latin-literate West but not through the Greek-speaking East. The Franks adopted it, but its use caused controversy in the 9th century. Its use spread to Rome soon after 1000, and it contributed to the Great Schism (1054) between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.[1]

source: Third Council of Toledo - Wikipedia

 

[GodsGrace101]

So,
If we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it is OK because of this procession
Father
Son
Holy Spirit
Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father

If we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son it diminishes the Holy Spirit:
Father
Son
from which the Holy Spirit proceeds

So, yes, it would seem that the Father and Son are in a different category... and the Holy Spirit is dimished.
But even here, the Father is "number one", and all proceeds from HIM.

Very interesting. I've never thought of it like this before.
Thanks!

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would also point out that Constantinople IV, which healed the Photian-Nicolaitan Schism, anathematized the Filioque as heresy and Rome agreed to it for more than 200 years.