Talk:Filioque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the public domain 1907 edition of The Nuttall Encyclopædia.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. See also the Eastern Christianity Portal. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please put new talk at the bottom of the page and sign and timestamp them with four tildes (~~~~)

Pjacobi 11:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Old talk

it is a pity that no one looks in depth on this matter about the political issue that relies. The catholic church wants a world of its own and complete control so does the orthodox who won? well observe it is obvious.

--212.251.85.20 13:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC) What does exactly mean "proceeds from the Father and the Son"?

This must have been a source of heated theological debate where we barely understand even the question nowadays.

Could somebody elaborate this a bit please?

sure. will do when I get some time this (Eastern Daylight Time) afternoon. It's a big topic.

is 'heresy' npov? Only if you're accusing someone of it. The term itself becomes merely descriptive, like 'schism', of groups which are not part of the larger church. You can, if you like, refer to them as 'Arian Christians,' but they were a separate body and recognized themselves as such. Lutherans and Calvinists did factually become separate from the Catholic church - schism would be an entirely appropriate term.

I think that heresies in this case is NPOV -- one of the primary focuses of the early church was to define orthodoxy, which necessitated defining the non-orthodox, i.e., the heretical. I'm fairly sure that Arians were considered heretics rather than schismatics at the time.

On another note, are Calvinists really schismatic? I thought it was just the Lutherans and the Anglicans...

Perhaps a better word would be heterodox. Same point but without the other NPOV usage. Danielsilliman 03:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Did this really originate in the fourth century?? Just found two different online sources that say the filioque clause was first formally adopted at the Synod of Spain in 589, and gradually spread to the Franks. Also, while some Popes may have approved of its usage elsewhere, Pope Leo III had the Nicene Creed engraved in Greek and Latin without the filioque clause and placed on St. Peter' tomb as late as the early 800's, perhaps to avoid schism with the Eastern patriarchs. I can provide references if need be, but it does look like this history could be expanded and some dates adjusted.

Also, I don't think the Eastern view is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "through the Son", as the article says. Their view is what the Nicene Creed said, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Athanasian Creed says that the persons of the Trinity can be differentiated by their relationships to each other: the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not begotten of anyone, the Son and the Holy Spirit do not beget anyone or have anyone proceeding from them, and the Father is not begotten and does not proceed from anyone. They are God, neither confused with each other or divided, sharing one Divine Nature, one Divine Essence.

--Wesley

Feel Free to expand the entry - it's wikipedia, after all.
It's all a lot less clear cut, as you're finding out, than controversialists like to admit. And also, notice that in the Eastern Rite Churches in union with the papacy the filioque is not said. So, it hasn't been (for at least the last 500 years) the make-or-break issue that some controversialists would like to make it. The standard explanation the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Rite Churches gives for lay people (which is all I am - not a theologian) is that the difference in formula does not express a difference in belief. I leave the fine points to the professionals, though, and just deal with the histories. One other thing to check is the actual creed of Nicaea vs. the Creed of 381. There are differences. --MichaelTinkler

I certainly agree that it's a complex issue. I believe that some East Orthodox theologians would agree that the difference in wording does not represent a difference in belief, but others of them would insist that the difference reflects a fundamentally different understanding of the Trinity. What is more clear is the issue of the pope insisting on the right to edit a creed which had been established by the whole church at Nicaea I in 325, edited by the whole church at Constantinople I in 381 to expand on the definition of the Holy Spirit. (Thanks for inspiring me to research that.  :-) The Third Ecumenical Council in 431 expressly forbade any further changes in the creed, or the composition of any new creeds. At any point, I think the role of the Pope in the church continues to be a much larger obstacle to reunification than the filioque clause itself; if East and West were to agree that it should consistently be one way or the other, the significance would be that they would have resolved how to settle differences between them, whether by all deferring to the Pope, or the Pope and everyone else deferring to Ecumenical Councils of the entire church.

The existence of the Eastern Rite churches is a current point of contention between Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II wanted to visit Moscow earlier this year, but was refused by the Patriarch, partly because the Catholic Church is continuing to invite Russian Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism and come under the Pope without making substantial changes to their prayers. This is viewed as something of a 'sweetheart deal'. Jurisdictional disagreements in Europe between East and West have been source of contention since at least the ninth century.

In the interests of full disclosure, I suppose I should mention that I'm a recent (2-3 years) convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, and part of a parish that is slowly moving into communion with the Orthodox Church in America. I grew up in a variety of protestant denominations, one after the other, including one that was "non-denominational." I'm certainly biased in editing these articles, but I'm doing my best to retain a NPOV in what I write and edit. I hope others will continue to correct me when I fail to do so, as I'm aiming for accuracy, not necessarily persuasion or proselytizing. I'm also using the process as a chance to research and learn.

--Wesley, a sinner

nice to meet you, Wesley - I'm glad you're here; in interest of disclosure (not that you couldn't find it if you trolled long enough, because it's come up before), I'll say that I am a cradle-Presbyterian-turned-Roman-Catholic, and I actually have family members who have become Orthodox (OCA - one's in seminary now) and friends who are Melkhite and Maronite priests. I think we can keep the entries npov - I agree with your historical summary above - after all, it's clearly true. The difference, whether or not it's irreconcilable, needs to be presented clearly but in a non-inflammatory way - including the inflammatory interventions of those across history (Photius, Humbert of Romans, Michael Caerulius, etc., etc.) who have made the difference less easy to reconcile because so unpleasant to review. On the other hand, we shouldn't be afraid to call spades shovels sometimes, either (I think Humbert was a hand-trowel of the spirit, though a fine public speaker). Let me take up one sentence in your response to show how hard npov on jurisdictional niceties is:

because the Catholic Church is continuing to invite Russian Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism and come under the Pope without making substantial changes to their prayers

Russian Orthodox churches - meaning parishes? or some of the several Russian Orthodox bodies? Or the whole shooting match (by the way, i'm sure the Pope would be delighted if they all came over at once) - or are we talking about th situation in the Ukraine, which is truly unpleasant and leads from statement to accusation immediately? I would rewrite it to say "because the Patriarch of Moscow perceives xxxx (spelling it out) as an invitation to Russian Orthodox (parishes/communions/whatever) to submit to Papal authority, the invitation sweetened with the promise that they would not have to alter their liturgy." I'm not certain that it's better, but I hope it is. So, are you going to start working on the big entry for Eastern Orthodox? --MichaelTinkler

It's good talking to you too, Michael. Yes, npov gets sticky when we talk about the nature and causes of the continuing schism between East and West. FWIW, I don't think the differences are irreconcilable, even in my lifetime. How they'll be reconciled, who knows, I just follow my bishop. But my guess would be it would need increasing informal cooperation and friendship at the local level, in lots of places, followed perhaps by more formal steps toward reunion. In the section you quoted, I was mostly referring to parishes in several parts of Russia and Eastern Europe, and especially to the mess in the Ukraine. I just found what seems to be a decent summary of the problem from the Russian Orthodox pov: http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/ve110771.htm. Sometime I need to go see what the Vatican has to say about it. The only reason I brought it up at all in this section was to point out that, from the East, allowing eastern rite churches to omit the filioque might be seen as less conciliatory if it seems to go along with taking over Russian Orthodox church buildings and parishes. I don't know that any of this discussion belongs in the article about the filioque clause itself. And yes, I have started thinking about working on the Eastern Orthodox entry, but I'd rather wait a couple weeks until I have time to do it justice, even as a beginning. Wesley

Wesley referred to "a parish that is slowly moving into communion with the Orthodox Church in America". I am puzzled. I thought the Orthodox Church in America was one of the 16 autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches (having been granted autocephaly by the Patriarch of Moscow in 1970) and therefore to be in communion with it is the same as being in communion with the whole Eastern Orthodox communion. Therefore, I would have thought one would speak of "slowly moving into communion with Eastern Orthodoxy". Could it be that you mean the parish is already in communion with the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy and is slowly moving toward membership in this one particular autocephalous branch of that communion? Or does "communion" simply mean membership in that particular hierarchical church (in which case my understanding needs revision)? Is this a "dissident Orthodox" church that is not part of the Eastern Orthodox communion but nonetheless considers itself Eastern Orthodox? (Full disclosure: I am an atheist. And the author of some Wikipedia material on Catholic sacraments and similar topics.) -- Mike Hardy

Many Orthodox Christian parishes in the USA have very perigrinatory histories. There is a parish in Indianapolis that, for a while, was the last headquarters of the "Holy Order of MANS" (HOOM)--a theosophical group formed in the 1960s. Gradually, many individuals and groups within MANS embraced the Orthodox Church. Likewise, there have been many Evangelical parishes who, in an attempt to become more like the ancient Church, have determined that the Orthodox Church is that ancient Church. In addition, due to the fact that the US government does not intervene in who and who is not allowed to use terms like "Orthodox" in their names, there are many groups who owe their establishment to "independent" Bishops, some of whom were Old Catholic, others were of groups that left the majority of Orthodoxy over various local controversies. After emigrating to the USA, they would establish their own parishes. Some of these have entered a jurisdiction of the larger Eastern Orthodox communion.Dogface 04:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is no et in the filioque clause. This is readily apparent to those that have studied Latin, since the -que in filioque simply means and, so no et is necessary. But don't take my word for it, the Nicene Creed on the Vatican web site [1] also lacks the spurious et! Stephen C. Carlson 22:06 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry --- I got that one wrong. -- Mike Hardy

"....the connection between the Son and the Spirit is nevertheless clear" This statement is inaccurate, especially in an entry that is about the controversy over just this relationship. References here to the "Bible" to "Scripture" to "Gospel" need to be made specific, and distinction has to be maintained between a statement in scripture and its interpretation before the entry meets Wikipedia standards. --Wetman 08:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--I agree wholeheartedly. The original (Orthodox?) author of this article said that Scripture is "clear" with regard to his interpretation of Scripture. You point out, rightly, that this is the whole point of the controversy, over many generations. Therefore, the text has been updated, in the interest of greater objectivity. Michael Gilligan 68.78.34.133 05:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed this sentence from the article as the link is dead:

An excellent history of the filioque is available, as assembled by Gerard Serafin: Filioque/And the Son, replete with images and links.

Pjacobi 11:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This sounds very POV to me: "(Instead, like all heretics, they will readily quote the Scripture in defense of their positions.) For this reason, over the years, creeds, decrees, hymns, and prayers have been formulated, in order to clarify, defend, and make explicit the faith we have from the apostles, the faith which is both Catholic and Orthodox. The filioque is but one such attempt." Who you calling 'heretics' and what do you mean 'we'? ThePedanticPrick 00:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While doing some research on the new Roman Catholic Pope Benedict XVI, and reviewing some of his writings on the Vatican Web site, I came across the document Dominus Iesus and as an old Latin student and former Catholic seminarian, I decided to take a look at the official Latin text. I was totally amazed to find the filoque REMOVED from the Latin. And mind you I was NOT expecting its removal. Can you imagine my total suprise? This removal, an obvious and conscious removal by Cardinal Ratzinger, a renowned Catholic theologian and Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, and now Pope Benedict XVI, was, to me, simply astounding! I HAD to update the Wikopedia discussions here and elsewhere with this "find" that I wasn't even looking for. Respectfully yours, User:KCSIMO-USA Major Keith Simon USMCR (Ret) 11:33 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks to all above

Sincere thanks to all those who made criticisms. I have tried to implement all suggestions, as noted. For example, while Orthodox and Catholics would look on Arians as heretics, it's more neutral to identify them at this point in the article as "those who denied the Trinity." In this context, it is not necessary to refer to Unitarians. Throughout this article, I have tried to be neutral with regard to Catholics and Orthodox. Especially for many Orthodox, this is a "hot-button" issue and has been so for a long time. From my perspective, this is a great time to see the Holy Spirit helping us to work out such a long-standing issue of controversy. It is necessary, too, to understand the history behind the dispute; much published material involves name-calling and unfair accusations.

I have also included what seem to me to be the best results of contemporary scholarship. For example, the Nicene Creed today is thought to be most likely the baptismal Creed of Constantinople, not something derived from the statement of Eusebius at the 325 council. It is also not true that Pope Leo III kept the filioque out of the Mass. At that time, there was no Creed in the Mass. Finally, the original author of this article said that the filioque was introduced to show a connection between the Son and the Spirit. He then included references to Scripture, to show that the Bible is clear enough on this point. (Hence, one would think, the Latins were obtuse.) The truth is rather that the Spanish were engaged in a rough struggle to fight denial of the divinity of the Son and divinity of the Spirit. So, these corrections seemed necessary. Michael Gilligan MichaelG 02:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External links in article

It is generally considered against Wikipedia style guide, to put external links into the article text. Can you please clarify, why you added such a number of those? Do you have any suggestion for re-arranging to avoid them? --Pjacobi 15:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for References Provided

Thank you, Peter, for this observation. I am new at Wikipedia and am sincerely grateful for any help offered, especially to conform to Wikipedia style; I am just beginning to learn. Specifically, with regard to the references added at the end of this filioque article, I wanted to provide indications of published material that to my knowledge is not available online and, consequently, cannot be the object of a link. Please tell me if such a bibliography is or is not appropriate. Advice is welcome.

Other references can be added, such as Congar and Gill, who do have links in the article. However, their complete works should be consulted in print, not merely in linked excerpts. Congar has an entire chapter on the filioque. Gill has assembled a thorough historical review, of benefit to any serious student of Florence.

Another example is that of Jungmann's Pastoral Liturgy, which provides an essay that is still of excellent value, in understanding the anti-Arian cast of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, especially the historical context. However, I can't find even an excerpt of this material online; therefore, a reference is added to the printed word. Similarly, I have included a reference to a document from the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. I have only the French edition on my shelf and can find nothing of it online. This document, however, represents valuable testimony to the scholarly, ecumenical work as of the early 1980s. Would this sort of thing not be useful to the reader, as in any scholarly encyclopedia?

For my part, I can only cite works that I actually have in my hands. In due course, I will go the library and confirm the works of Congar and Gill. For the moment, I have added only selected references I have used and which are in my hands. More work needs to be done.

At your convenience, please let me know what you think would be the best course of action in this matter. Sincerely, Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 20:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] External Links in Text

Sorry, Peter; I believe I misunderstood your note. I think you are referring to the links in the body of the text which are external, to sites outside Wikipedia. I did not know this was not appropriate and did not understand why. As in any published scholarly article, one should document statements that are made. Where I have added references, I did so in part because I found no equivalent reference within Wikipedia. For example, on the topic of the filioque, at the beginning of the article, there is a reference to Seraphin's website, which provides a wealth of citations and quotations that are important to understanding the controversy. Especially noteworthy are Seraphin's references to Grohe and to [Kalistos] Ware; their observations, as noted in the article, are critical.

Please help me out here. Would it appropriate simply to refer to such authors, without a link? I think that in such a case, the reader would not be able to check my work, to see if I have been accurate, or to follow up in more detail, for a deeper understanding. Would external links be more appropriate in a bibliography, at the end of the article? I could certainly do that. Sincerely, Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 20:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Michael, I must have been somewhat unclear in my statement above: The point, in which your changes contradict the usual style guide, is directly linking some words to external websites, e.g.:
Perhaps in the second case, the internal link to Photius in the next sentence is good enough on its own, and the http://www.praiseofglory.com/photius.htm reference can be given in the Photius article?
Pjacobi 21:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
External websites with general information to the article are usually put in the last section "External links" of the article. If for some sentence you want to give a specific external link, use the [http://www.example.org] syntax, which would look like this: [2]. --Pjacobi 21:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this advice, Peter. As you have suggested, so shall it be done. Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 23:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, now it's done. As best as I could, all external links in the body of the text have been transferred to the final section of this article. A few other editing upgrades have also been added. As you can guess, I'm still new at this, so the advice is appreciated. The extensive norms for writing provided by Wikipedians are well worked out. With regard to the link to the Congar article on Photius, it seems to me useful to keep it here, for the convenience of the reader who can thereby get ready access to an excellent author, on this precise topic. Overall, as noted, I have done my best to be fair to both Orthodox and Catholic positions, as clearly as possible in this format. Any further comments are welcome. (I'm still trying to log in to Wikipedia and awaiting a new password.) Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 10:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's a question. When I first came to the brief, original version of this filioque article, the name of the page was and still is "Filioque clause." Yet, in English, a clause has a subject and a predicate. The word "filioque" could be called a "phrase," but it is really (in Latin) only a word. Why, then, does the page "Filioque" redirect to "Filioque clause"? It seems to me that, rather, the opposite should be true. Is there a Wikipedia expert out there who can answer this question? Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 03:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity in 2nd paragraph

Here's another question I have. In the 2nd paragraph the original author, presumably Orthodox, sets forth a distinction of meaning in two verse fragments of the Gospel of John, reflecting a long-standing Orthodox interpretation of the Scripture. On the one hand, I understand this interpretation; it is the familiar Orthodox response to the filioque. On the other hand, the texts in question can and have been interpreted differently. In the interest of objectivity, then, especially for fairness between Orthodox and Catholic, I think the article should just say that the wording of the Creed ("proceeds from the Father") is derived from the specific verse fragment quoted of John. At this point in the article, it seems that we should not include this interpretation right off; it is mentioned later and is explained somewhat extensively. The undeniable fact here is that the wording of the Creed is derived from the second verse fragment quoted. I think in the filioque article, at this point, we should just say that and move on. Is this not so? Would that be not more objective? Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 05:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights and OrthodoxWiki

I suspect a cross-pollination between this article and Filioque on OrthodoxWiki . Since OW operates under a kind of "noncommercial use-only" license, I would kindly ask the authors to make sure that our article does not have copyvio. mikka (t) 20:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iota

What about one "iota"? - a major cvause of the Filioque and schism. Still used in contemporary English Today as in "I don't care one iota! or I'm not changing even one iota of it!

I believe you're thinking of the iota difference between homoousios and homoiousios that was a topic of debate regarding Arianism and the First Council of Nicea, a debate which predates the Filioque by some centuries. Both sides of the Filioque debate held (and still hold) to the homoousios formulation, without the iota. —Preost talk contribs 01:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section headers

Should not the headers 'Orthodox Church' and 'Catholic Church' be changed to 'Eastern Orthodox Church' and 'Roman Catholic Church' respectively since those are the titles of the Wikipedia articles? Also, might those headers be linked to the respective articles?

Trvalentine 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)trvalentine 2006.02.11 19:54

Generally it's best ot keep wikilinks out of headers. Rich Farmbrough 13:04 14 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wandering

Is it just me, or do the entire contents of section 2 regarding the history of the clause wander off-topic with some frequency to deal with a myriad of historical details and events that relate to the East/West Schism but not the filioque clause directly? I feel as though some of the material, while accurate and reasonably clear, does not belong in this article at all, but on articles examining that split between Rome and Constantinople. Anyone else have a reaction to that section? Jwrosenzweig 07:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LARGE portions of this article are off-topic. If there is no active editing going on, and no objection from interested parties, I will try to remove irrelevant sections (and add to an appropriate article) next week (maybe). Mdotley 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so it wasn't "next week" (March 2007), but this week (September 2007). I hope I didn't step on any toes. Feel free to reinsert anything necessary. ~ MD Otley (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that there still is too much irrelevant historical material on the reconciliation attempts. Andres (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

"Of special importance is a recent clarification of the filioque by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. This document was prepared at the specific request of the Bishop of Rome. It is entitled The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit."

What does the document say?! 71.198.169.9 09:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


AN EASTERN APPRAISAL OF THE VATICAN'S "CLARIFICATION ON THE FILIOQUE" (Posted: 27 July 2006)

The Vatican's "Clarification on the Filioque" is an attempt to resolve the problem of the filioque, but sadly the text of the "Clarification" is theologically ambiguous as far as the monarchy of the Father is concerned. Here are a few examples of the problems present within the Vatican's "Clarification":

1. "The Father alone is the principle without principle of the two other persons of the Trinity." [Quotation taken from the "Clarification"]

The problem with this statement is that the Father, rather than being described simply as the "principle of the two other persons of the Trinity," is described as the "principle without principle," which can imply that the Son is a "principle with principle" within the Trinity (i.e., that the Son is a secondary principle within the Godhead). The idea that there can be a "secondary" principle in the Godhead is contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Church, and would ultimately destroy the monarchy of the Father, replacing it with a diarchy of the Father and the Son.

2. "The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner." [Quotation taken from the "Clarification"]

The problem with this statement is centered upon the concluding portion of the formula, that is, where the text says that the Spirit comes from the Father alone in a "principal, proper, and immediate manner," because this modifying phrase implies, or at least allows for the possibility, that the Son is involved in the existential origin of the Spirit in a secondary, received, and mediate manner. This kind of secondary or mediate causation is incompatible with the Triadology of the Eastern Fathers, and in particular with the doctrine of the Cappadocians, because as St. Gregory Nazianzus said, ". . . all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality" [St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 34:10]. Now, in order for the ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to advance, the Latin Church is going to have to issue a document that cannot be read in an equivocal manner on these issues. In other words, it must say that the Father is the principle of divinity, period, end of sentence, with no modifying phrases or clauses added on. Moreover, the West will need to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without adding modifiers like "principally, immediately, properly, etc.," which can imply that the Son Himself participates in the hypostatic origination of the Spirit.

3. "In 1274, the second Council of Lyons confessed that 'the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle.'" [Quotation taken from the "Clarification"]

The Western theory that says that the Father and the Son are a "single principle" in the spiration of the Spirit is unworkable in Eastern Triadology, because the fact that the Father is the principle of divinity is held to be a hypostatic characteristic of His person, and so it cannot be shared with the Son, as St. Gregory Palamas explained:

"We do not say that the Son is from the Father in as much as He is begotten by the divine essence, but rather in as much as He is begotten by the Father as person. For the essence is common to the three persons, but begetting is proper to the Father personally. That is why the Son is not begotten by the Spirit. Consequently the Spirit is also from the Father; He possesses the divine essence, proceeding from the person of the Father. For the essence is always and absolutely common to the three persons. Therefore the act of spiration is proper to the Father as a person and the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, for the Son does not have the personal properties of the Father." [St. Gregory Palamas, "Logos Apodeiktikos" I, 6; this quotation from Palamas' writings was taken from M. Edmund Hussey's dissertation "The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas," page 25]

In saying this St. Gregory Palamas is simply following in the tradition of the Cappadocian Fathers, because within their Triadology it is not possible to call the Father and the Son a "single principle," since that would be to confound the person of the Father with that of the Son, which would entail falling into the heresy of Sabellian modalism. Thus, the Western notion that the Father and the Son are a "single principle" is incompatible with the doctrine of the Eastern Church.

Sadly, the insertion of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed shows that the West has confused two distinct -- but inseparable -- divine realities: (1) the existential procession of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis (person), which is from the Father alone; and (2) the Spirit's eternal manifestation as divine energy (i.e., as uncreated grace), which is from the Father through the Son. In other words, in the theology of the Eastern Fathers the Holy Spirit proceeds as hypostasis from the Father alone, but He is manifested -- both temporally and eternally -- from the Father through the Son, not as hypostasis, but as divine energy; and this energetic manifestation expresses the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostaseis within the Godhead. Now, as is clear from what has been said, it is vital that the Spirit's energetic manifestation through the Son not be confused with the hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, because that would ultimately lead to Sabellian modalism.

It should be noted, of course, that these are only a few of the problems with the "Clarification on the Filioque," and so, even though it is a valiant attempt by the Western Church to make the filioque more acceptable to the East, it ultimately highlights the differences between the two sides as it concerns the doctrine of the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I do not want to give the impression that the document is an utter failure, because it at least shows that the West realizes that the filioque is a true obstacle to the restoration of communion, and that further dialogue on this issue will have to be carried out if there is to be any chance at all of resolving this doctrinal disagreement.

Finally, the best solution put forward so far to resolve the problem of the filioque can be found in the "Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation," which put forward the recommendation that the Latin Church remove the filioque from all liturgical and catechetical documents. The use of the original creed by the Latin Church in its liturgical celebrations, and catechetical instructions, would facilitate ecumenical dialogue, while simultaneously removing one of the major obstacles to the restoration of communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

See the Tomus of the Blacernae Council (A.D. 1285) for more information on the Spirit's energetic manifestation from the Father through the Son: Tomus of Faith against Beccus

See the "Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation" recommendations: USCCB or SCOBA

Steven Todd Kaster, Th.M.

Homepage: The Taboric Light


Sad that a genuine attempt at reaching an understanding is outrightely rejected and the words twisted: "not as from two principles but as from one single principle.'" is turned into a claim that "that the Father and the Son are a "single principle"", as if the text didn't say "as from one ...". All of this to ensure that one "has been right all along", to avoid being "Christocentric", to protect the political machinations of a Patriarch long dead and buried. Str1977 (smile back) 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Yes, the Spirit as hypostasis proceeds "from one principle," i.e., the Father, and not from the Father and the Son. The Son is not a principle (secondary or mediate), a source, or a cause within the Godhead.

Steven Todd Kaster, Th.M.


But do not even Eastern Orthodox believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son? Str1977 (smile back) 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


No, not if you are referring to the existential origin of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because as person the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) only from the Father. Now, on the other hand, as energy the Spirit is manifested (proeinai) from the Father through the Son, but this manifestation must not be confused with the Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin from the Father alone. The Tomus of Blachernae (A.D. 1285), which rejected the "union" council of Lyons II, emphasizes the importance of this theological distinction. Moreover, this distinction is supported by St. John Damascene, who, in his treatise "De Fide Orthodoxa," said that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, but "not from the Son" ["De Fide Orthodoxa," Book I, Chapter VIII], and he confirmed this distinction yet again when -- in another treatise -- he wrote that, we speak of ". . . the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him [i.e., the Son] manifest and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence from Him" [St. John Damascene, "Sabbat." 4:21-23], and elsewhere he said that, ". . . the Word is a real offspring, and therefore Son; and the Spirit is a real procession and emanation from the Father, of the Son but not from the Son, as breath from a mouth, proclaiming God the Word" [St. John Damascene, "Trisagion" 28:40-43].

Steven Todd Kaster, Th.M.

[edit] What do "old-calendarists" have to do with the filioque controversy?

My guess is, nothing. Including this non-canonical 'fringe group' and their rejection of... electrical power within temples, seems designed to "weasel word" negative connotations about the Orthodox at large, despite the fact the latter don't have much to do with them. Last time I checked, "weasel-wording" is discouraged in wikipedia ; accordingly, this irrelevant statement is out. Porfyrios 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What would jesus do

honestly, i cannot believe these major conflicts in history are brought about by such stupid stuff


The comment above is pointless.

[edit] Text of the creed

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to present the creed in full text and highlight the part this article refers to. I mention this as this is the first article I came upon doing some research and am not familiar with the creed, nor do I feel that it would cause considerable harm to include it here (whereas having to look it up and then return here to try and comprhend is difficult (especially because I am not a christian scholar.)

70.177.212.37 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

I just read the first half of this article and still have no idea wat the filioque actually is. The article is clear that it is a disputed part of the nicean creed which has something to do with the trinity, but it never explicitly states what the thing is.

You were right. I just changed the intro to make exactly what is being discussed more clear. Thanks for pointing this out. Gentgeen 08:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] want to make some adjustments

I question the accuracy and/or evenhandedness of the following, and barring any profound arguments, want to make some adjustments:

>In the first millennium, the "Catholic Church" is the "Roman Church" of both East and West.

??? How is the Eastern church the "Roman Church"?

Constantinople was the New Rome, and, indeed, the new capital of the Roman Empire. Mdotley 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

>By the same token, it is not accurate to say, as some historians do, that the >"Catholic Church" introduced the filioque into the Mass. Eastern Churches, for >example, the Maronites, fully part of the Catholic Church, never used the filioque.

Uhh, the Western Church did introduce it to the mass, albeit they introduced it as part of introducing the creed rather than adding it to the pre-existing creed, right?

How the Maronites fit into this I'm not sure. The "Catholic Church", as a term used to refer to those in communion with the Pope did not include Maronites when the filioque was introduced to the mass as part of the creed.

I believe what the writer was saying is that the whole Catholic Church did not introduce it. And according to the Wikipedia page on Eastern Catholic Churches, the Maronites pride themselves on NEVER having been out of communion with the Pope. Mdotley 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

>for a long time, as mentioned, it was in no way justification for breaking communion.

It wasn't justification of breaking communion, because the East had little knowledge of it, right?

>Now briefly, officially and publicly, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were in communion. So, the Council of Florence >helped establish a fundamental principle: the Church must be one in its faith, its essential beliefs, but may be diverse in >its culture, customs and rites. Although theologically the Church had to be uniform, the addition of the Filioque did not >seem at the time to violate that uniformity. > >However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed. Many Orthodox faithful and bishops, including the >Patriarch of Constantinople, rejected the union,

How "official and public" could this communion be when the Patriarch didn't sign off on it??

58.169.1.85 04:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Public because it was announced publicly, (regardless of who agreed or disagreed), and official b/c it was an official delegation, with the Emperor's support. Mdotley 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to call the united Church Roman - it was headed by the Pope of Rome, whose authority was universally accepted despite the conflicts, but it was not the Roman Church (which is the diocesis of the Pope) any less than today's Catholic Church would call itself Roman Catholic Church.

It is also wrong to emphasize the non-controversial nature of the filioque over 400 years. The issue only came up in the Photian controversy and after this the controversy was always there - it was not the reason for the schism but the element that made the schism so hard to heal.

It is also wrong to talk about "the right to change the creed" to being in issue and Council play no role in this. The Eastern position is that no one can change the creed (this was first decided at Ephesus, 431 - because of this no more dogmatic definitions were added but defined separately, first in 451) - the Western position is not that the Pope can change the creed but that the version including the Filioque has been handed down through the generations as well and is dogmatically sound and that the usage of it is nothing to object to on dogmatic grounds. The West does not consider the creed changed.

Communion was restablished twice (despite popular opposition in Contantinople). There is no denying this. Str1977 (smile back) 08:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter of contention. Photius was not the first to object to the filioque; Pope Leo III objected to adding it to the Creed well before then. Had later popes not given in to the Franks, the schism might have been avoided. The West does not consider the creed changed because the version the Franks were familiar with included the Filioque, and the Franks eventually got Rome to adopt their version, and accused the Byzantines of heresy for omitting it. In hindsight from today's perspective though, we know that the Creed of 381 did not have the filioque clause and that later versions in the West did. Whether communion was ever reestablished is also a matter of debate, as the delegation had the Emperor's support but not the support of the people or the patriarch. Byzantines emperors are notorious for getting their theology wrong from time to time. :-) Wesley 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical origins

Somehow or another, the theory that the Filioque clause reflects Arian influence in Hispania came up on Talk:History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I don't find the theory very convincing, but fourth-century views of the Holy Spirit may still be relevant. Since it was largely irrelevant over there, but may be relevant here, I'm copying my last comment on that thread, with minor corrections:

I was wondering if the idea of dual progression was generally accepted or generally rejected by the Eastern Orthodox; of course its insertion into the Nicene Creed is rejected.
One common suggestion is that the Filioque was inserted, not to rule out Arianism, but to attract those wavering between Gothic Arianism and western Catholicism, in Spain. I'm not sure how that would work. Arian theologies generally regard generation and procession as forms of creation, and Nicene ones do not, so I'm not sure how any addition about procession in the Nicaean sense could compromise with Arianism or address Arian concerns. Strictly speaking, this is getting way off-topic for the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church and we may wish to port this discussion to Talk:Filioque clause. Nonetheless, I'll continue here.
Not many Gothic Arian theological texts survive. One is Auxentius of Durostorum's eulogistic letter for Wulfila where he says (translated by Heather & Matthews; Goths in the Fourth Century) (gaps are my selection, not gaps in the text):

The Holy Spirit he furthermore declared to be neither Father nor Son, but made by the Father through the Son before all things ... created by the unbegotten through the begotten ...

This could be said to parallel the Filioque, but I'm not convinced.
Another is the Skeireins (translations here). I actually disagree with the translations; One of Wright's dictionaries, as opposed to the linked translations, translates andwairþi as "presence, face, person" in andwairþja as "before, in the presence of" and andwairþs as "present" - so, going on an OR limb, the definition as "person" is the odd one out, and while it makes the Skeireins fit Trinitarian expectations, it is not logically necessary.
This reads, in part:

... For not only the change of names signifies the difference of the two persons, but much more the evidence of work. the One obviously judging no one, but giving to the Son the power of judgment, and He, receiving the honor from the Father, and He performing all judgment by His Will, that all may honor the Son, as they honor the Father. Now we all should, at such and so clear a declaration, render honor to the Unborn God, and recognize the Only Begotten Son of God to be God ...

There are several references to the Holy Spirit but none to tripersonality (regardless of the translation). I'm not sure what to make of that. Jacob Haller 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spliting the article based on theme

From what I see there are at least two articles. So there are the Filioque clause and the Filioque case at best. This article should spend bandwidth explaining the Filioque clause, which subject is barely touched. Instead it revolves around the political case and about historic fighting between the two churches. 82.240.243.35 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It should be marked somehow that this is Catholic argumentation so far

It should be marked somehow that this is Catholic argumentation so far with some mentions to the Orthodox dogma. At this point I find the article biased, which is not a bad thing in my oppinion. Perhaps such a subtle subject should be more of a result from reading and understanding the two sides' arguments instead of trying to make just one page containing it all. 82.240.243.35 15:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Council of Ephesus

Quoting from the current text of the Filioque article:

This creed was not officially received until the Council of Ephesus in 431.

and that is all. No other information. In the context of:

Following John 15:26b, the First Council of Constantinople in 381 modified the statement of the First Council of Nicea in 325 by stating that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father". The Council had not elaborated on the origin of the Holy Spirit. Hence, the Nicene creed is often called "Nicene-Constantinopolitan" or "Niceno-Constantinopolitan." This creed was not officially received until the Council of Ephesus in 431.

the phrase is just misleading. It implies that the form of the Creed was not clear to the leaders of the Old Church (after all at that time there was no Schism).

On the other hand, the facts are:

The Council of Ephesus also declared the text of the Nicene Creed of 381 to be complete and forbade any additional change (addition or deletion) to it. In addition, it condemned Pelagianism.

based on the current information also in Wikipedia about the Council of Ephesus.

Now, I don't know so much about the Catholic way of taking dogmatic decisions, but in the Orthodox Church nothing can change what was formaly decided, thus the Council of Lyon (1274) or later on the Council of Florence couldn't make a change. 82.240.243.35 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Council of Toledo

In the current text of the article there is no clear difference between the various Councils.

In reality there are two type of Councils ecumenical (bishops representing areas from all churches) and local (bishops from a certain area that do not represent the Church in its unity.

Although there were earlier hints of the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, including an expression in the Athanasian Creed and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I[3], it was first officially added to the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589.[4] This was done primarily to oppose Arianism, which taught that the Son was a created being and which was prevalent among the Germanic peoples. This version of the Creed was accepted by the local Visigothic rulers, who had been Arians until then.

In this unclarified form the Council of Toledo would have had the same weight as the Council of Nicene or the Council of Ephesus. Which is not the case. 82.240.243.35 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A rephrasing could be of help

The filioque clause became integral to the Western theology of the Trinity in part because the teachings of the Western Church fathers such as St. Augustin of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas contain statements that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Eastern Church fathers, such as John of Damascus and Gregory Palamas, carried on the tradition of the original Creed promulgated at Constantinople in 381 and the filioque was thus seen as alien to the theology of the Eastern Church.

This reads to me like there are two teams fighting for the prize like a debate competition. In reality there should be a split, probably making the text longer for the sake of clarity. I would add to the article the links to the pages refering to the above saints.

Back to my rephrasing request. So there are Augustin of Hippo and John of Damascus before the Schism. After the Schism there are Anselm of Canterbury (father of scholasticism), Thomas Aquinas and Gregory Palamas.

A final note John of Damascus should read St. John of Damascus as both he and St. Augustin of Hippo are recognised saints by Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Churches. 82.240.243.35 16:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Something that I forgot to mention when I added this section: St. John of Damascus lived before the Great Schism so his text couldn't mention something like the filioque was... alien to the theology of the Eastern Church. 82.240.243.35 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


There are several texts written by St. John Damascene in which he explicitly excludes the concept of the "filioque" (i.e., of a hypostatic procession of origin of the Spirit from the Son); and so, the "filioque" can legitimately be described as "alien" to the teachings of the Eastern Church, for as St. John himself explained: ". . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son; but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son." Thus, while the taxonomy of the persons of the Trinity allows us to speak of the Spirit as the Spirit of the Son, it nevertheless does not allow us to say that He (i.e., the Spirit) "proceeds" from the Son (See the other quotations taken from St. John Damascene's writings in my essay above). Steven Todd Kaster (12:38, 9 January 2008).

[edit] Filioque is NOT the only cause of the Schism

Both Patriarch Photius in 862 and Patriarch Cerularius in 1054 accused the West of heresy for introducing the filioque in the Creed. In general, except for reconciliatory pauses in 1274 and 1439, at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence, many Orthodox have repeated the charge of heresy, up to the present day.

From the above quote it seems to me like this is the only or at least the main cause of the Schism.

Quoting from the East-West Schism from Wikipedia also:

  • Disputes over whether the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope, should be considered a higher authority than the other Patriarchs.
  • The designation of the Patriarch of Constantinople as ecumenical patriarch, which was understood by Rome as universal patriarch and therefore disputed.
  • Certain liturgical practices in the West that the East believed represented innovation: the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, for example.
  • Celibacy among Western priests (both monastic and parish), as opposed to the Eastern discipline whereby parish priests could be married men whose marriage had taken place when they were still laymen, before their ordination to the diaconate.

thus filioque cause doesn't seem that big, although it is one of the main reasons.

First there was the problem of the Patriarch of Rome who wanted to be more equal than the others while all the Orthodox Churches have kept the tradition of all autonomus Churches being equal disregarding size - something considered great modern thinking at the time of the American Revolution.

Second in the light of the above the Patriarch of Rome was unwilling to allow the Patriarch of Constantinopole to be ecumenical patriarch (this does not mean supremacy over the others like with the first issue).

Third was the change of the Holy Mass by changing the use of leavened bread with the use of unleavened bread. And this is an issue at least as large and important as the filioque cause and the arguments go both ways as well.

Fourth were a list of issues like celibacy for the parish priests that were strongly dabated later on and lead to another big schism with the protestants and fueled the arguments against the Catholic Church that are raised now. 82.240.243.35 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is imo pretty good by wikistandards, but somewhat limited in scope. The "per filium vs. filioque" issue is not an isolated one. It embodies and exemplifies deep differences between Roman and Orthodox approaches and spiritualities. Addressing them is admittedly difficult, but it may also be fruitful. L'omo del batocio (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)