Filioque

Filioque, Latin for "and the Son", was added in Western Christianity in 589 to the Nicene Creed. This creed, foundational to Christian belief since the 4th century, defines the three persons of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In its original Greek form, the creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father". The Latin text speaks of the Holy Spirit as proceeding "from the Father and the Son".

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.

(And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who from the Father and the Son proceeds.)

The word Filioque was first added to the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589) and its inclusion spread later throughout the Frankish Empire.^[1] In the 9th century, Pope Leo III, while accepting, like his predecessor Pope Leo I, the doctrine, tried to suppress the singing of the Filioque in the Mass of the Roman rite.^[1] In 1014, however, inclusion of Filioque in the Creed was adopted in Rome.^[1] Since its denunciation by Photios I of Constantinople,^[1] it has been an ongoing source of conflict between the East and West, contributing to the East-West Schism of 1054 and proving an obstacle to attempts to reunify the two sides.^[2]

Contents 1 Present position of various churches 1.1 Roman Catholicism 1.2 Anglicanism 1.3 Eastern Orthodoxy 1.3.1 Views of Eastern Orthodox saints 1.3.2 The historical use of the Filioque by the West 1.3.2.1 Eastern Romans, Byzantines, Greeks 1.3.2.2 Frankish and Venetian ambitions 1.3.2.3 Franks recast as Western Romans 1.3.2.4 The Frank and German Popes 1.3.2.5 Frankish corruptions of Christian dogma 1.3.2.6 Franks insistence on imposing Augustine 1.3.2.7 Ecumenical Council as the Highest Authority to Establish dogma 1.4 Councils involving the Filioque East and West 1.4.1 Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD 1.4.2 Eighth Council of Toledo in 653 AD 1.4.3 Twelfth Council of Toledo in 681 AD 1.4.4 Council of Constantinople in 867 AD 1.4.5 Council of Constantinople in 869 AD 1.4.6 Council of Constantinople in 879 AD 1.4.7 First Council of Lyon in 1245 AD 1.4.8 Second Council of Lyon in 1274 AD 1.4.9 Council at Constantinople in 1285 AD 1.4.10 Council of Florence in 1431 AD 1.4.11 Council of Jerusalem in 1583 AD 1.4.12 Council of Jerusalem in 1672 AD 2 Theology 2.1 New Testament 2.2 Theological contention 2.2.1 The difference between the ontology and the economy of the Trinity 2.2.2 Eastern Orthodox theology 2.2.2.1 Roman Catholic theology 2.2.3 Theodoret's statement against Cyril 2.2.4 John Damascus 2.2.5 Photius and the Monarchy of the Father 2.2.6 Gregory Palamas' Tomus of 1351 2.2.7 Monarchy of the Father in the West 2.2.8 Orthodox theologians who do not condemn the Filioque 3 Historical Overview 3.1 Ecumenical councils on the creed 3.2 Church Fathers 3.3 First Eastern opposition 3.4 Statement of Saint Maximus the Confessor 3.5 Later Developments 3.6 Photian controversy 3.7 Adoption in the Roman Rite 3.8 East-West controversy 3.9 Recent discussion 3.9.1 Importance of Saint Maximus in Ecumenical Relations 3.9.2 Greek verbs translated as "proceeds" 3.10 Joint statement in the United States in 2003 4 Summary 5 References 6 Bibliography 7 External links

Present position of various churches

The doctrine expressed by this phrase is accepted and generally included in recitation of the Creed by the Roman Catholic Church,^[3] by Anglicanism^[4][5][6] and most other Protestant churches. Some recent "modern liturgy" Anglican service books such as the Canadian Book of Alternative Services, omit the Filioque out of respect for Eastern and Oriental Christianity; but the churches in question do not repudiate the doctrine.^[7]

These groups do not dispute that Filioque is not part of the original Greek text established at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. This original Greek text is used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, except that it changes the plural verbs, "Πιστεύομεν ... ὁμολογοῦμεν ... προσδοκοῦμεν" (we believe ... confess ... await), of the original text into the corresponding singular verbs, "Πιστεύω ... ὁμολογῶ ... προσδοκῶ" (I believe ... confess ... await). The groups that add Filioque also add Deum de Deo (God from God), as is traditional in the Latin version, and make the same change as the Eastern Orthodox Church does in the three verbs mentioned.^[8]

Roman Catholicism

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the original text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed does not include the Filioque: when quoting that text, as it did in the 6 August 2000 document Dominus Iesus, on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, it does so without that addition.^[9] In the liturgy also, the Roman Catholic Church does not add the phrase corresponding to Filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek text of the Creed, even for Latin Rite Catholics.^[10] Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause.^[11][12][13] In addition, Eastern Catholic Churches do not necessarily include "Filioque" in their versions of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Even those Eastern Catholic Churches that are not of Greek tradition and that have incorporated the Filioque into their recitation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed are officially encouraged to omit it.^[14]

The agreement that brought about the 1595 Union of Brest expressly declared that those entering full communion with Rome "should remain with that which was handed down to (them) in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son."^[15] The Roman Catholic Church understands the statement that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" – a statement that expresses the Father's character as the first origin of the Spirit – as affirming that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son.^[16] And it understands the statement that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" as implying "that the Father, as 'the principle without principle', is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that, as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds",^[16] and so "not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son".^[15]

The belief of the West that the Holy Spirit proceeds, in this sense, "from the Father and the Son" was held in the West at an early stage. Even before Rome, at the 451 Council of Chalcedon recognized and received the 381 Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed with its expression "from the Father", Pope Leo I declared in 446 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.^[17] The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, in the Greek language, the word used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit cannot appropriately be used with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in other languages.^[10]

In the view of the Roman Catholic Church, what it calls the legitimate complementarity of the expressions "from the Father" and "from the Father and the Son" does not, provided it does not become rigid, affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.^[16]

Anglicanism

In 1978 the Anglican Communion's Lambeth Conference requested "that all member Churches of the Anglican Communion should consider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed, and that the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission through the Anglican Consultative Council should assist them in presenting the theological issues to their appropriate synodical bodies and should be responsible for any necessary consultation with other Churches of the Western tradition."^[18]

In 1988 the conference "ask(ed) that further thought be given to the Filioque clause, recognising it to be a major point of disagreement (with the Orthodox) ... recommending to the provinces of the Anglican Communion that in future liturgical revisions the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed be printed without the Filioque clause."^[19]

This recommendation was not renewed in the 1998 and 2008 Lambeth Conferences and has not been implemented.^[20]

In 1985 the General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA) recommended that the Filioque clause should be removed from the Nicene Creed, if this were endorsed by the 1988 Lambeth Council, but this has not been implemented.^[21]

Eastern Orthodoxy

Views of Eastern Orthodox saints

The Filioque was qualified as a heresy by some of the Eastern Orthodox Church's saints, including Photios I of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, Gregory Palamas, who have been called the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. Saint Maximus the Confessor instead defended the Western use of the Filioque in a context other than that of the Nicene Creed.^[22]

The historical use of the Filioque by the West

The Eastern Orthodox view the Filioque as not proper to the actual Nicene Creed.^[23] This is because according to Orthodox theologians, the Nicene Creed establishes the doctrine of the Trinity (3 persons or hypostases of God). The Nicene Creed establishes the dogma of the persons called the Trinity. The Nicene Creed was not establishing the church dogma about the other realities of God. Especially the Creed was not defining the uncreated essence of God and the economy or interrelationships of the hypostases or persons of God.^[24][25]

Eastern Romans, Byzantines, Greeks

The core or biggest part of the issue historically in regards to the Filioque from an Eastern perspective is that the Western church fell under the conquest of the Germans and the Franks,^[26] who used the teaching of the Filioque and Papal authority to :

1. Distinguish an anti-Greek (anti-Eastern) character ^[27][28] within the Western Christian faith (i.e. filioque, Papal supremacy, Latin customs addressed at the Quinisext Council); and
2. Exploit that difference and then attempt to conquer the East, by starting with forcing the East to accept whatever changes the West saw fit and the rule of the West over their own domains (i.e. Filioque, Papal supremacy, Sack of Constantinople, the Northern Crusades, most importantly Frankokratia and the Latin occupation and conquest of Eastern Rome);
3. Seek primacy rather than equality and fraternity between East and West;

These processes culminated in the teaching in the East of the Western Captivity of Orthodox Theology by scholasticism and rationalism over mysticism.^[29] Some Eastern theologians view the heart of the conflict to be the presence of modalism, in specific the Sabellian heresy of modalism, first by the Latin West using the word persona (in English person or mask) in its translation of the Greek word hypostasis.^[30] Hypostasis is sometimes translated as existence or reality.^[31] Along with the Latin West inserting the Filioque which changes the teaching of the origin or source of the Holy Spirit.^[32]

Frankish and Venetian ambitions

The West is perceived as there by attempting to submit the Eastern Roman Catholic Christian Churches and its authorities, through various Western machinations,^[33] to the Filioque, to the Western Papacy and European Emperors. Machinations including the fabrication of documentation to validate political and theological positions in the West (see the False Decretals of Isidore for the Filioque, and the Donation of Constantine for Papal primacy). The conflict between the two parties is at its core a conflict about the authority of European Christianity over and above (gaining Primacy over) the Eastern Christian communities.^[34] The doctrine of the Filioque is symptomatic of this power struggle for the East to be self determined over and against the perceived imperialistic behavior of the West towards the East.

Some of what is accepted in the West historically, like the concept of the Byzantine Empire is seen in the East as propaganda, to this effect.^[35] As Eastern Patriarchs like Photius were being defensive and or reactionary to what was perceived as the West imposing their political power and Western theological opinions on the East as dogma.^[36] This starting with the establishment of a Frank and German Empirical and military power over the Western Church after the fall of Rome to the Goths. Charlemagne being the first of this line and also being the first to establish this doctrine and set of objectives.^[34] Each of these objectives, the Filioque, Papal supremacy, the Sack of Constantinople, the Northern Crusades, Frankokratia and the Latin occupation and conquest of Eastern Rome was and is to be resisted and or rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Franks recast as Western Romans

The Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans of the Holy Roman Empire. However the Franks and Germans where not "Romans" (in the sense of being Mediterranean or originally of the ruling class in ancient Rome). As the Western Roman Empire had been conquered and subjected to the Germans and Franks. Making the Franks (the French) the actual Empirical rulers of the West. With the Coronation of Charlemagne as emperor of Western Rome, in the Eastern mind, this began the actual first steps of the East-West schism. A schism provoked by Charlemagne under the title of Holy Roman Emperor and carried there by the Franks and Germans who took over the papacy. As the East sees Charlemagne having used the Filioque as a wedge to separate East from West. In order to divide and conquer as well as subject both to Frankish and German rule. Charlemagne appeared to try and use iconoclasm (by endorsing the position) to this end first,^[37] but was rebuffed by Pope Leo III, as unlike the Filioque, the position iconoclasm was made a heresy by an Ecumenical council.^[34]

The Frank and German Popes

With the removal of actual Latin, Roman, Italian popes from the head of the Western Church, the East became even more isolated. As the original Western Latins had through much political, social and economic turmoil maintain to some degree unity with their Eastern Christian brothers. However with the establishment of Frank and German popes whom maintained the doctrine set out by the Holy Roman Empire and whom supported wholeheartedly the Filioque the chance of re-establishing the Nicene Creed in its original form through whatever means appears to be distant.

Frankish corruptions of Christian dogma

The Frankish Kings and clergy made several terrible declarations on their positions on Christian dogma. The first being the condemnation of the last Ecumenical council. This council was conveyed to address the iconoclasm heresy.^[38] but was rebuffed by Pope Leo III, as unlike the Filioque, the position iconoclasm was made a heresy by an Ecumenical council.^[34] Charlemagne and his group of Bishops drew up a text called Libri Carolini to refute not only this council but the positions generally called "Orthodox". Some of the arguments of the Libri Carolini were later used by Pope Leo IX's legates in the bull of excommunication of Patriarch Michael I in 1054. In the bull of excommunication issued against Patriarch Michael by the papal legates, one of the reasons they cited for excommunication was the Eastern Church's deletion of the "Filioque" from the original Nicene Creed (as claimed also in the Libri Carolini).^[39] but was rebuffed by Pope Leo III, as unlike the Filioque, the position iconoclasm was made a heresy by an Ecumenical council.^[34]

However, as the Western Church itself acknowledges this as incorrect^[40] the West still supported the bull of excommunication and the conduct of the pope's representative and the excommunications contents for almost a thousand years. It was the West's representatives whom, posted the bull of excommunication attacking the theology and dogma of the Eastern Churches. In specific targeting the Patriarch of Constantinople. The bull of excommunication containing the accusation the East altered the original Creed and removed the Filioque was posted in the City and capitol of Eastern Rome, Constantinople, in the Empirical Holy Wisdom church, on the alter, during Empirical liturgy (church services).^[41]

Though saying that they (the West) believe in exactly the opposite from what was declared by the Western legates in the 1054 bull of excommunication.^[42] The Eastern Church did not delete anything. It was the Western Church that added this phrase to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.^[43] In contradiction to the mistaken assertion of the papal legates in 1054 and the equally mistaken assertion in the Libri Carolini, which were refuted by the Pope Adrian I,^[44] the Western Church teaches that "the affirmation of the Filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople."^[45] While again also maintaining both the actions and assertions of the excommunication for almost a thousand years.^[46]

Franks insistence on imposing Augustine

The East also considers the vast majority of Augustine as speculative at best, and commonly heretical. The East does no use Augustine's theology. The East believes the Wests' Orthodoxy was corrupted by the Franks insistence to impose Augustine over ecumenical dogma, even when a Western council clearly condemned his works. This creates contradictory and confusing theology where the West teaches a doctrine and then reject its own teachings. This example is in how the West teaches the critical doctrine of the Trinity. The Filioque again is seen as endemic of this overview.

Ecumenical Council as the Highest Authority to Establish dogma

In the Eastern Orthodox Church the councils of the church are held as the highest authority at establishing doctrine or dogma and there is no primacy given to the Patriarch of Rome over and above the Ecumenical councils (for example see the Byzantine Papacy).^[47][48] As at least one of the Ecumenical councils were held to remove a Patriarch of Rome (i.e. Pope Honorius I) and a Patriarch of Constantinople (see Patriarch Nestorius).^[49] Eastern Roman Emperors called each of the Seven Ecumenical Councils^{[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]} and none of the seven Ecumenical councils were ever called by a Patriarch of Rome (Pope) alone.^{[51][52][53][54][58][59][60]}

None of the Ecumenical Councils recognized by the East were ever attended in person by the Pope (i.e. the Patriarch of Rome) in all cases the Pope sent representatives or legates to the councils. Where as each of the councils were presided over by the Patriarchs of the Constantinople. The first Bishop to be named Patriarch of Constantinople being Metrophanes of Byzantium.^{[61][62][63][64]} None of seven Ecumenical Councils that are universally accepted were held in the West or Rome.^[65]

The Eastern Orthodox position based on these historical facts has stated that the Filioque has never been a universal teaching of the whole church. That Pope Benedict VIII's acceptance of the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed is not within the entire church's tradition.

However, of the seven councils accepted as ecumenical by both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, none explicitly rejected the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son".^[66]

Since this sets the actions of the Papacy over and above the actions of an Ecumenical council as the criteria to establish Universal church dogma. Dogma as not what is acceptable per se but more importantly what is necessary for one's salvation according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Irrespective of what possible theological merits the Filoque might have. From the Eastern position the West should remove the Filioque from the Western Creed as it is a hindrance to reconciliation and that the Creed should be restored to its original ecumenical form.^[33]

Councils involving the Filioque East and West

The following councils are not recognized as ecumenical by either East or West. Of the seven ecumenical councils recognized by Orthodoxy (all of which are recognized also by the West as ecumenical) none explicitly rejected the Filioque.^[66] On the other hand, councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church have considered the Filioque dogma and condemned denial of it.^[67]

Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD

The Filioque were first inserted in Spain. Around the year 400 it had been found necessary at a Council of Toledo to affirm the double procession of the Holy Spirit against the Priscillianists. In an effort to combat Arianism in Spain by making the Son like the Father in all things (specifically, being a source of the Holy Spirit's procession although this subordinated the Holy Spirit). The newly converted Goths were required to sign the creed with the addition. The council added the additional phrase 'and the Son' (the Filioque) to the Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed. Despite declarations of previous Ecumenical (Imperial) Councils that no changes were to be made in perpetuity. It was this belief in a 'double procession' of the Holy Spirit that led to the eventual separation between Orthodoxy in the East and Roman Catholicism in the West.

Eighth Council of Toledo in 653 AD

The Filioque was recited at this council.

Twelfth Council of Toledo in 681 AD

The Filioque was recited at this council.

Council of Constantinople in 867 AD

Repudiated Pope Nicholas' council of 863 held at Lateran that deposed Photius. This council also condemned the Filioque.

Council of Constantinople in 869 AD

This Council reversed the discussions of 867. The Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) was the 8th Catholic Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople from October 5, 869 to February 28, 870. It included 102 bishops, 3 papal legates, and 4 patriarchs. The Council met in 10 sessions from October 869 to February 870 and issued 27 canons.

The council was called by Emperor Basil I the Macedonian and Pope Adrian II. It deposed Photios, a layman who had been appointed as Patriarch of Constantinople, and reinstated his predecessor Ignatius.

Council of Constantinople in 879 AD

At the 879-880 Council of Constantinople the Eastern Orthodox Church re-affirmed the condemnation of the "Filioque" phrase.^[68][69] Re-affirming it from the previous council held in Constantinople in 867 condemnation, declaring it "a novelty and augmentation of the Creed". On the other hand, at the council "there was no extensive discussion of the Filioque, which was not yet a part of the Creed professed in Rome itself, and no statement was made by the Council about its theological justification."^[13] Orthodox theologian John Romanides holds that, contrary to what has always been held by Western scholars, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican or Protestant, Pope John VIII did accept that the Filioque was a heresy.^[70]

The council of 879 was at the time accepted^[71] by Pope John VIII, who endorsed Photius being re-instated as the Patriarch of Constantinople. After Patriarch Ignatius' death in 877,^[72] or was at least accepted by Pope John VIII legates but later repudiated by the Pope himself, while still accepting Photius as Patriarch.^[73] Many consider the council of 879 the Eighth Ecumenical Council,^[74] but it is unlikely that even the Eastern Orthodox Church will formally accept this council as ecumenical.^[75]

First Council of Lyon in 1245 AD

The First Council of Lyon held on June 28, 1245, after the singing of the Veni Creator, Spiritu, Pope Innocent IV preached on the subject of the five wounds of the Church and compared them to his own five sorrows: (1) the poor behavior of both clergy and laity; (2) the insolence of the Saracens who occupied the Holy Land; (3) the Great East-West Schism; (4) the cruelties of the Tatars in Hungary; and (5) the persecution of the Church by the Emperor Frederick.

Second Council of Lyon in 1274 AD

The Second Council of Lyon's main topics discussed at the council were the conquest of the Holy Land and the union of the Eastern and Western Churches. The first session took place on 7 May 1274 and was followed by five additional sessions on 18 May, 4 or 7 June, 6 July, 16 July and 17 July. By the end of the council, thirty-one constitutions were promulgated. The Greeks conceded on the issue of the Filioque (two words added to the Nicene creed), and union was proclaimed, but the union was later repudiated by Andronicus II,^[2] heir to Michael VIII. The council also recognized Rudolf I as Holy Roman Emperor, ending the Interregnum.^[2]

Council at Constantinople in 1285 AD

In the thirteenth century John Bekkos, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1275 to 1282, was condemned for "arguing that, while the Father is cause, it is through the Son that he exercises his causality".^[76] This council (also called Second Synod of Blachernae) was conveyed to confirm the dogma of the Procession of the Holy Spirit according to the Eastern church's doctrine. Patriarch Bekkos was condemned at the council.^[77]
A summary of one of the statements of the council.

"It is recognized that the very Paraclete shines and manifests Himself eternally by the intermediary of the Son, as light shines from the sun by the intermediary of rays ...; but that does not mean that He comes into being through the Son or from the Son."^[78]

This council rejected the Council of Lyons II and refuted the Filioque this council laid out the dogma of the Eastern Orthodox Church in response to the teaching in the West of the Filioque. According to the works of Theodore Metochites and the later summary of the council by historian George Pachymeres included eleven anthemas against the pro Filioque of Patriarch Bekkos.^[79]

Council of Florence in 1431 AD

Maximus's interpretation was written before the West adopted the filioque as dogma. His interpretation was officially rejected at the Council of Florence.^[80] Earlier Pope Leo III c. 810AD appears to have embraced Maximus' interpretation in his rejection of the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed. While holding that the doctrine is true, only for his exclusion of the phrase from the Creed to be disregarded later. Orthodox Theologian Romanides holds, contrary to what, he says, is always held by Protestant, Anglican and Latin scholars, that Pope John VIII did accept that the Filioque was a heresy.^[70]

The West holds that the formulas "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son" are equivalent,^[81] as was agreed at the Council of Florence, but was then rejected by the East.^[82] The East holds that the creed should be recited as was accepted in 381. Since the categories of the Trinity in time and the Trinity in eternity should be clarified by the Creed. The Creed should be used to reflect its original intent which was the Trinity in eternity.^[83][84] The West still recites the Creed with from the Father and the Son, claiming it is equivalent to "from the Father through the Son", a view rejected in the East.^[82][85] The East sees the West's teaching from the Son as equivalent to through the Son as confusing and even heretical.^[86]

St Mark of Ephesus proposed at the Council of Florence that, of the quotations from the Fathers offered as proof texts, only those that agreed with the explanation of the Filioque given by Maximus should be considered genuine, and did not sign the agreement at the Council of Florence.^[87] The West still recites the Nicene Creed saying I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Rather than what has been proposed as a compromise by the East of reciting the Creed in its original form and teaching Maximus' interruption of the Filioque. This compromise was rejected by West.^[88] In what the West claims is equivalent to I believe in the Holy Spirit the lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father through the Son.

In 1439, the Council of Florence, reached an "accord with the Greek delegation in which the formulas 'from the Father and the Son' and 'from the Father through the Son' were recognized as equivalent".^[82][89] The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father through the Son, which was expressed by John of Damascus in about 750^[90] and by Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople when presiding over the seventh ecumenical council in 787^[90][82] and was approved by Pope Hadrian I, was used as the basis for the compromise at the Council of Florence in 1439.^[90] But Photius and later Easterners, insisting on procession from the Father alone, dropped or rejected "through the Son", as too similar to "and from the Son", or excluded its applicability to the eternal procession of the Spirit, as distinguished from the Spirit's sending.^[90] But the agreement reached at Florence was never accepted in the East.^[82] As most of the Eastern delegates whom signed the agreement later retracted their endorsement.^[91] Eastern Christians and clergy expressed the belief that the Fall of Constantinople to Islam, in 1453, was God's punishment for the previous Emperor forcing the Eastern churches into accepting the West's doctrines of Filioque, Purgatory and the supremacy of the Papacy at the Council of Florence 1439. The West did not fulfill its promise to the Eastern Emperor, of troops and support if he agreed to the reconciliation. Help so desperately needed to defend the East against the onslaught of Islam.

Council of Jerusalem in 1583 AD

The 1583 Synod of Jerusalem condemned those who do not believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone in essence, and from Father and Son in time. In addition, this synod re-affirmed adherence to the decisions of Council of Nicaea I in AD 325.

Council of Jerusalem in 1672 AD

Re-affirmed procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone.

Theology

New Testament

While the phrase "who proceeds from the Father" is found in John 15:26, no direct statement about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is found in the New Testament, although perhaps indirectly discernible in John 20:22 and other passages. In John 16:13-15 Jesus says of the Holy Spirit "he will take what is mine and declare it to you", and it is argued that in the relations between the Persons of the Trinity one Person cannot "take" or "receive" (λήψεται) anything from either of the others except by way of procession.^[92] Other texts that have been used include Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19, where the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of the Son", "the Spirit of Christ", "the Spirit of Jesus Christ", and texts in the Gospel of John on the sending of the Holy Spirit by Jesus (14:16, 15:26, 16:7).^[92]

Titus 3:6 speaks of God pouring out the Holy Spirit "through Jesus Christ our Saviour", while Acts 2:33 speaks of Jesus himself pouring out the Holy Spirit, having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father. The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent (on Pentecost day) from the Father through the Son (ex Patre per Filium procedit). The Latin West states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together (ex Patre Filioque procedit).^[93]

Theological contention

Eastern Orthodox theologians (e.g., Michael Pomazansky) say that the Nicene Creed as a Symbol of Faith, as dogma, is to address and define church theology specifically the Orthodox Trinitarian understanding of God. In the hypostases of God as correctly expressed against the teachings considered outside the church. The Father hypostasis of the Nicene Creed is the origin of all.

The Father is the eternal, infinite and uncreated reality, that the Christ and the Holy Spirit are also eternal, infinite and uncreated, in that their origin is not in the ousia of God, but that their origin is in the hypostasis of God called the Father. The double procession of the Holy Spirit bears some resemblance^[94] to the teachings of Macedonius and his sect called the Pneumatomachians in that the Holy Spirit is created by the Son and a servant of the Father and the Son. It was Macedonius' position that caused the specific wording of the section on the Holy Spirit in the finalized Nicene creed.[80]^[95]

Points of the filioque as Roman Catholic dogma seen as in contention with Eastern Orthodoxy.

1. The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally. The Fourth Council of the Lateran, 1215,
2. A definition against the Albigenses and other heretics [We] confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one. The Second Council of Lyon, 1274, Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
3. The Father is not begotten; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Council of Florence, 1438–45, Decree for the Jacobites
4. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration . . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246^[96]
5. In particular the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son”^[97]

In the judgment of these Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church is in fact teaching as a matter of Roman Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit derives his origin and being from both the Father and the Son, making the Filioque a double procession.^[98][99] This being the very thing that Maximus the Confessor was stating in his work from the 7th century that would be wrong and that the West was not doing.^{[100][101][102]}

They thus perceive the West as teaching through more than one type of theological Filioque a different origin and cause of the Holy Spirit. That through the dogmatic Roman Catholic Filioque the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son and not a free and independent and equal to the Father as an hypostasis that receives his uncreatedness from the origin of all things, the Father hypostasis. Trinity expresses the idea of message, messenger and revealer, or mind, word and meaning. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in one God the Father, whose person is uncaused and unoriginate, who, because He is love and communion, always exists with His Word and Spirit.^[103][104]

The difference between the ontology and the economy of the Trinity

Eastern Orthodox theology

The activity and actuality of the Trinity in creation are called God's energies. God also has existences (hypostasis) of being. The word for God's existences in Greek is called hypostases this is translated as the word "person" in the West. God's uncreatedness or being or essence in Greek is called ousia. Each hypostasis of God are specific and unique existences of God. Each as uncreated have the same essence. Each specific quality that make each hypostasis of God, is non-reductionist and not shared. As the Father is unique, as the Son is unique, as the Spirit is unique. As the essence of God resides in the Father it is the Father who is the cause of all things.

These hypostases remain unique and these specific qualities are not the same with one another as the eternal, did not die nor stop being when the Christ was crucified. As the Spirit that animates life did not stop animating life when Christ was crucified and died. Each hypostasis doing what is necessary for each man's salvation. It is this immanence of the Trinity that was defined in the finalized Nicene Creed. The economy of God as God expresses himself in reality (his energies) is not what is defined in the Nicene Creed. It is to confuse the purpose of what was addressed in the East by the Creed, to try and use the Creed to explain God's energies as to reduce God existences to mere energies or actualities, activities is to embrace the heresy of modalism. As the existences of God and also God's energies are uncreated and or uncaused.

Roman Catholic theology

Theodoret's statement against Cyril

The issue of the Filioque can somewhat be dated to the 5th century where St Theodoret refused to endorse the deposition of Nestorius by the Council of Ephesus (431),^[105] where Theodoret accused St Cyril of Alexandria of erroneously teaching that the Son has a role in the origin of the Holy Spirit.^{[106][107][108][109][110]} Photius's position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone has been described as only a restatement of Saint Theodoret's.

Under persistent urging by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (451), Theodoret finally pronounced an anathema on Nestorius.^[111] He died in 457. Almost exactly one hundred years later, the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) declared anathema anyone who would defend the writings of Theodoret against Saint Cyril and his Twelve Anathemas,^[112] the ninth of which Theodoret had attacked for what it said of the procession of the Holy Spirit.^[107] (See Three-Chapter Controversy). He is considered a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but is called "the excommunicate" by the Oriental Orthodox Churches.^[113] Both sides consider Cyril of Alexandria a saint. As Cyril spoke of the matter of which Theodoret accused him of as a misunderstanding. Cyril himself taught that the Latin teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son appears to confuse the three hypostases of God with the common attributes of each hypostasis, and to the God's energetic manifestation in the world.^[114][115]

John Damascus

Before Photius, St John Damascus spoke explicitly of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son. His statement.

” Of the Holy Ghost, we both say that He is from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father; while we nowise say that He is from the Son, but only call Him the Spirit of the Son.” (Theol., lib. l.c. 11, v. 4.)^[116][117]

Saint John of Damascus's position stated that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, but through the Son as mediator, in this way differing from Photius.^[90] John Damascus along with Photius, never endorsed the Filioque in the Creed.

Photius and the Monarchy of the Father

Photius insisted on the expression "from the Father" and excluded "through the Son" with regard to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit : "through the Son" applied only to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit (the sending in time).^{[90][118][119]} Photius addresses in his entire work on the Filioque the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. That any addition to the Creed would be to complicate and confuse an already very clear and simple definition of the ontology of the Holy Spirit that the Ecumenical Councils already gave.^[120]

Photius' position has been called a reaffirmation of Orthodox doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father. Photius's position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone has also been described as a restatement of the Cappadocian Antiochian school ^[121][122] (as opposed to the Alexandrian)^{[10][123][124]} teaching of the "monarchy of the Father".^[125]

Of the Easter Orthodox's teaching ("from the Father alone"), Vladimir Lossky says that, while "verbally it may seem novel", it expresses in its doctrinal tenor the traditional teaching which is considered Orthodox.^[126] The phrase "from the Father alone" arises from the fact that the Creed itself only has "from the Father". So that the word "alone", which Photius nor the Orthodox suggest be added to the Creed, has been called a "gloss on the Creed", a clarification, an explanation or interpretation of its meaning.^[127]

Photius as well as the Eastern Orthodox, have never seen the need, nor ever suggested the word "alone" be added to the Creed itself. With this, the Eastern Orthodox Church generally considers the added Filioque phrase "from the Father and the Son" to be heretical,^[128] and accordingly procession "from the Father alone" has been referred to as "a main dogma of the Greek Church".^[129] In his study of the matter, Avery Dulles does not go so far and only states that the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone was the formula preferred by Photius and his strict disciples.^[130]

Eastern Orthodox theologians maintain that by the expression "from the Father alone",^[125] and Photius' opposition to the Filioque, Photius was confirming what is Orthodox and consistent with church tradition. Drawing the teaching of the Father as cause alone (their interpretation of the Monarchy of the Father) from such expressions from various saints and biblical text. Such as that of Saint Irenaeus, when he called the Word and the Spirit "the two hands of God".^[131][125] They interpret the phrase "monarchy of the Father" differently from those who see it as not in conflict with a procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through or from the Son. As the Father has given to the Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father (see examples given above of those who in this way uphold the monarchy of the Father).

By insistence of the Filioque, Orthodox representatives say that the West appears to deny the monarchy of Father and the Father as principle origin of the Trinity. Which would indeed be the heresy of Modalism (which states the essence of God and not the Father is the origin of, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The idea of Photius having invented that the Father is sole source of cause of the Holy Trinity is to attribute to him something that predates Photius' existence i.e. Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and John of Damascus.^[132] "Photius never explored the deeper meaning behind the formula 'through the Son' (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ), or the necessary eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, even though it was a traditional teaching of the previous Greek fathers".^[133]

Photius did recognize that the Spirit maybe said to proceed temporally through the Son or from the Son.^{[90][118][119][134]} Photius stated that this was not the eternal Trinitarian relationships that was actually the thing being defined in the Creed.^[125] The Nicene Creed in Greek, speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit "from the Father", not "from the Father alone", nor "From the Father and the Son", nor "From the Father through the Son".

Photius taught this in light of the teachings from Saints like Irenaeus whose Monarchy of the Father is in contrast to subordinationism, as the Orthodox officially condemned subordinationism in the 2nd council of Constantinople. That the Monarchy of Father which is in the Nicene Creed, Photius (and the Eastern Orthodox) endorse as official doctrine.^[135] As well as St John of Damascus whom taught the Holy Spirit proceeds from the being of God (as does Zizilious). Which is the Father expressed in the concept of the 'monarchy of the Father' via John 14:28 (“The Father is greater than I am”).^[136]

Gregory Palamas' Tomus of 1351

In St Gregory of Palamas' Tomus (1351) on the issue of the Filioque he very clearly denotes the distinctions of the Eastern and Western churches positions on the procession of the Holy Spirit here St Gregory was not only following the Eastern Tradition of what was addressed in the Nicene Creed by the Greek Fathers but he also clarifies what the divergent phrases of those in the East whom appear to support the Filioque and what distinction is actually being made by the Eastern fathers whom oppose the use of Filioque.

"The Great Maximus, the holy Tarasius, and even the saintly John [Damascene] recognize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, from whom it subsists in terms of its hypostasis and the cause of its being. At the same time, they acknowledge that the Spirit is given, revealed, and, manifeste, comes forth, and is known through the Son."^[137]

Monarchy of the Father in the West

The monarchy of the Father is a doctrine upheld not only by those who like Photius speak of a procession from the Father alone. It is also by theologians who speak of a procession from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son. Examples cited in the book The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy by A. Edward Siecienski ^[138] include Bessarion,^[139] Maximus the Confessor,^[140] Bonaventure,^[141] and the Council of Worms (868),^[142] The same remark is made by Jürgen Moltmann.^[143] The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity also states that not only the Eastern tradition, but also the Latin Filioque tradition "recognize that the 'Monarchy of the Father' implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (αἰτία) or Principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."^[10]

Orthodox theologians who do not condemn the Filioque

Not all Orthodox theologians share the view taken by Vladimir Lossky, Dumitru Stăniloae, John Romanides and Michael Pomazansky , who condemn the Filioque. There is a liberal view within the Orthodox tradition which is more accepting of the Filioque.^[144] The Encyclopedia of Christian Theology lists Vasily Bolotov,^[145] Paul Evdokimov, I. Voronov and Sergei Bulgakov as seeing the Filioque as a permissible theological opinion or "theologoumenon",^[145][146] For Vasily Bolotov this is confirmed by other sources,^[147] even if they do not themselves adopt that opinion. Though it must be noted that Bolotov firmly rejects the Filioque in the procession of the Spirit from the Father.^[148]

Sergei Bulgakov's own work The Comforter states:

"from the Son" and "through the Son" are theological opinions which were dogmatized prematurely and erroneously. There is no dogma of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son and therefore particular opinions on this subject are not heresies but merely dogmatic hypotheses, which have been transformed into heresies by the schismatic spirit that has established itself in the Church and that eagerly exploits all sorts of liturgical and even cultural differences" (emphasis in the original).^[149]

As an Orthodox theologian, Bulgakov acknowledges that dogma can only established by an ecumenical council.

Boris Bobrinskoy sees the Filioque as having positive theological content.^[150][151] Bishop Kallistos Ware suggests that the problem is of semantics rather than of basic doctrinal differences.^[152][144] Saint Theophylact of Ohrid likewise held that the difference was linguistic in nature and not actually theological.

Historical Overview

Ecumenical councils on the creed

The first ecumenical council, that of Nicaea (325) ended its Creed with the words "and in the Holy Spirit". The second, that of Constantinople in 381 spoke of the Holy Spirit as "proceeding from the Father" (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον). This last phrase is based on John 15:26 (ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται).

The third ecumenical council, held at Ephesus in 432, which quoted the creed in its 325 form, not in that of 381,^[153] decreed in its seventh canon:

“

"It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized".[154]

”

While the Council of Ephesus thus forbade setting up a different creed as a rival to that of the first ecumenical council, it was the creed of the second ecumenical council that was adopted liturgically first in the East and later in the West. The form of this creed that the West adopted, while agreeing with that in the East in having the singular in place of the plural ("I believe" in place of the Council's "We believe"), also had two additions: "God from God" (Deum de Deo) and "and the Son" (Filioque).^[155]

The fourth ecumenical council, that of Chalcedon (451), quoted the creed of 381 and formally treated it as binding, together with that of 325.^[13] Within 80 years, therefore, the creed of 381 was normative in defining the Christian faith.^[13] In the early sixth century, it was widely used in the liturgy in the East and at the end of the same century in parts of the West, perhaps beginning with the Council of Toledo in 589.^[13]

Church Fathers

Before the creed of 381 became known in the West and even before it was adopted by the First Council of Constantinople, Christian writers in the West, of whom Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220), Jerome (347–420), Ambrose (c. 338 – 397) and Augustine (354–430) are representatives, spoke of the Spirit as coming from the Father and the Son,^[92] while the expression “from the Father through the Son” is also found among them.^[156][157] Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century, emphasizes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power,^[158] which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by the Son to the Spirit.^[159]

One Christian source for Augustine was Marius Victorinus (ca. AD 280-365), who in his arguments against Arians strongly connected the Son and the Spirit.

Hilary of Poitiers, in the mid-fourth century, speaks of the Spirit as "coming forth from the Father" and being "sent by the Son" (De Trinitate 12.55); as being "from the Father through the Son" (ibid. 12.56); and as "having the Father and the Son as his source" (ibid. 2.29); in another passage, Hilary points to John 16.15 (where Jesus says: 'All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from what is mine and declare it to you'), and wonders aloud whether "to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father" (ibid. 8.20).

Ambrose of Milan, writing in the 380s, openly asserts that the Spirit "proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son", without ever being separated from either (On the Holy Spirit 1.11.20).

None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being."^[13]

Already in the fourth century the distinction was made, in connection with the Trinity, between the two Greek verbs ἐκπορεύεσθαι (the verb used in the original Greek text of the 381 Nicene Creed) and προϊέναι. In his Oration on the Holy Lights (XXXIX), Saint Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: "The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth (προϊέναι) from the Father indeed, but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not by Generation but by Procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι)".^[160][161]

That the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son in the sense of the Latin word procedere and the Greek προϊέναι (as opposed to the Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι) was taught by the early fifth century by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in the East^[92][162] The Athanasian Creed, probably of the middle of the fifth century,^[163] and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I,^[164][165] who declared in 446 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.^[17]

Although the Eastern Fathers were aware that in the West the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was taught, they did not generally regard it as heretical:^[166] "a whole series of Western writers, including popes who are venerated as saints by the Eastern church, confess the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son; and it is even more striking that there is virtually no disagreement with this theory."^[167]

The phrase Filioque first appears as an anti-Arian ^[168][169] interpolation in the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589), at which Visigothic Spain renounced Arianism, accepting Catholic Christianity. The practice later spread then to France, the territory of the Franks, who had adopted the Catholic faith in 496, in contrast to the other Germanic kingdoms, who followed Arianism.^[170]

First Eastern opposition

In 638, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius, with the support of the Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople, published the Ecthesis, which defined as the official imperial form of Christianity Monothelitism, the doctrine that, while Christ possessed two natures, he had only a single will.^[171][172] Before the Ecthesis reached Rome, Pope Honorius I, who had seemed to support Monothelitism, died. His successor Pope Severinus condemned the Ecthesis outright, and so was forbidden his seat until 640. His successor Pope John IV also rejected the doctrine completely, leading to a major schism between the eastern and western halves of the Chalcedonian Church.^[173]

Statement of Saint Maximus the Confessor

Meanwhile in Africa, a monk named Maximus the Confessor carried on a furious campaign against Monothelitism, and in 646 he convinced the African councils to draw up a manifesto against the doctrine. This they forwarded to the new pope Theodore I, who in turn wrote to Patriarch Paul II of Constantinople, outlining the heretical nature of the doctrine. Paul, a devoted Monothelite, replied in a letter directing the Pope to adhere to the doctrine of one will. Theodore in turn excommunicated the Patriarch in 649, declaring him a heretic,^[174] after Paul, in 647 or 648, had issued in the name of Emperor Constans II an edict known as the Typos, which banned any mention of either one or two activities or wills in Christ.^[172] The Typos, instead of defusing the situation, made it worse by implying that either doctrine was a good as the other.^[175] Theodore planned the Lateran Council of 649 but died before he could convene it, which his successor, Pope Martin I, did. The Council condemns the Ecthesis and the Typos, and Pope Martin wrote to Constans, informing the emperor of its conclusions and requiring him to condemn both the Monothelite doctrine and his own Typos.^[176] Constans responded by having Pope Martin abducted to Constantinople, where he was tried and condemned to banishment and died as a result of the torture to which he had been submitted.^[177] Maximus also was tried and banished after having his tongue and his hand cut off.^[178]

It was in this context of conflict between East and West that the Monothelite Patriarch Paul of Constantinople made accusations against Pope Theodore of Rome for speaking of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son. This expression was not inserted in the Creed, which was not yet used liturgically in Rome.

Maximus the Confessor wrote a letter in defence of the expression used by the Pope. The words with which Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 13 August 662) declared that it was wrong to condemn the Roman use of Filioque are as follows:

"They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."^[179]

Later Developments

Widespread use of the Filioque in the West led to controversy with envoys of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine V at a synod held at Gentilly in 767.^[180][181] The use of Filioque was defended by Saint Paulinus II, the Patriarch of Aquileia, at the Synod of Friuli, Italy in 796, and it was endorsed in 809 at the local Council of Aachen.^[1] At the beginning of ninth century in 808, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, since they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed.

As the practice of chanting the Latin Credo at Mass spread in the West, the Filioque became a part of the Latin rite liturgy. This practice was adopted in Emperor Charlemagne's court in 798 and spread through his empire, but which, although it was in use in parts of Italy by the eighth century, was not accepted in Rome until 1014.^{[169][182][183]}

Beginning around 796 or 797, Paulinus, bishop of Aquileia, held a council for the region of Friuli (the part of Italy containing Aquileia). Paulinus was appointed the task of addressing Adoptionism and Arians as taught by a group of Spanish bishops including Elipando. Paulinus’ council spent a fair amount of time addressing the subject of the filioque, taking the position that a new council could add a valid interruption to the Creed. Paulinus primary argumentation is that the Filioque could be added and or subtracted if the addition or subtraction does not go against the Fathers’ “intention” and was “a blameless discernment.”

According to John Meyendorff,^[184] and John Romanides^[185] the Western efforts to get Pope Leo III to approve the addition of Filioque to the Creed were due to a desire of Charlemagne, who in 800 had been crowned in Rome as Emperor, to find grounds for accusations of heresy against the East. The Pope's refusal to approve the interpolation avoided arousing a conflict between East and West about this matter. Emperor Charlemagne accused the Patriarch of Constantinople (Saint Tarasios of Constantinople) of infidelity to the faith of the First Council of Nicaea, because he had not professed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father "and the Son", but only "through the Son", an accusation strongly rejected by Rome, but repeated in Charlemagne's commissioned work the Libri Carolini, books also rejected by the Pope.^[186] Pope Leo rejected the request of Charlemagne's emissaries for approval of inclusion of the Filioque in the Latin Creed used in Rome. So, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, and for another two centuries, there was no Creed at all in the Roman rite Mass.

Although he approved the Filioque doctrine,^{[1][13][187][188]} Pope Leo III in 810 opposed adding the Filioque to the Creed,^[1] and had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St Peter's, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin,^[13] adding: "I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith".^[189]

In 808 or 809 controversy arose in Jerusalem between the Greek monks of one monastery and the Frankish Benedictines of another: the Greeks reproached the latter for, among other things, singing the creed with the Filioque included.^{[13][190][191][192]} In response, the theology of the Filioque was expressed in the 809 local council of Aachen.^{[13][192][193][194]}

Photian controversy

However, controversy over the Filioque and the Frankish monks broke out in the course of the disputes between Saint Photius and Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople.^[195] In 867, Photius was Patriarch of Constantinople and issued an Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs, and called a council in Constantinople in which he charged the Western Church with heresy and schism because of differences in practices, in particular for the Filioque and the authority of the Papacy.^[196] This moved the issue from jurisdiction and custom to one of dogma. This council declared Pope Nicholas anathema, excommunicated and deposed.^[197]

Photius excluded not only "and the Son" but also "through the Son" with regard to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit: for him "through the Son" applied only to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit (the sending in time).^{[198][199][119]} He maintained that the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is "from the Father alone".^[200] This phrase was verbally a novelty^[201][202] However, Orthodox theologians generally hold that in substance the phrase was only a reaffirmation of traditional teaching.^[201][202] Sergei Bulgakov, on the other hand, declared that Photius's doctrine itself "represents a sort of novelty for the Eastern church".^[203]

Photius's importance endured in regard to relations between East and West. He is recognized as a Saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church and his line of criticism has often been echoed later, making reconciliation between East and West difficult.

At least three councils (867, 869, 879) where held in Constantinople over the deposition of Ignatius by Emperor Michael III and the his replacement by Photius. The Council of Constantinople 867 was convened by Photius, so to address the question of Papal Supremacy over all of the churches and their patriarchs and the use of the filioque.^{[204][205][206][207]}

The council of 867 was followed by the Council of Constantinople 869, which reversed the previous council and was promulgated by Rome. The Council of Constantinople in 879 restored Photius to his see. It was attended by Western legates Cardinal Peter of St Chrysogonus, Paul Bishop of Ancona and Eugene Bishop of Ostia who approved its canons, but it is unclear whether it was ever promulgated by Rome.^[208]

Adoption in the Roman Rite

It was only in 1014, at the request of the German King Henry II who had come to Rome to be crowned Emperor and was surprised at the different custom in force there, that Pope Benedict VIII, who owed to Henry his restoration to the papal throne after usurpation by Antipope Gregory VI, had the Creed, with the addition of Filioque, sung at Mass in Rome for the first time.^[169]

Since then the Filioque phrase has been included in the Creed throughout all the Latin Rite except where Greek is used in the liturgy.,^{[10][209][10][210]} although it was never adopted by Eastern Catholic Churches.^[15]

"Filioque" is not the only phrase that the Western Christian Churches have added to the text of the Nicene Creed as drawn up by the Council of Constantinople: the Western text also has "Deum de Deo" ("God from God").^[211] The Armenian Apostolic Church, one of the Churches of Oriental Orthodoxy communion which is out of communion with both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches since the Council of Chalcedon in 451, has in its version of the Nicene Creed many more additions, specifying its belief more precisely. Examples include the phrase "By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance", the specification that Jesus ascended into heaven and is to come again "with the same body", and the amplification of "who spoke by the prophets" into "Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints."^[212]

Controversy over the phrase contributed to the East-West Schism of 1054 and, despite agreements among participants at the Second Council of Lyon (1274) reunion had not been achieved.^[2] The council of Lyons (1274) sought to impose acceptance of the Filioque on Eastern Christians.^[213]

The council required Eastern churches wishing to be reunited with Rome to accept the Filioque as a legitimate expression of the faith, while it did not require those Christians to change the recitation of the creed in their liturgy.^[36]

The council of Lyons also condemned "all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one. "^{[13][213][214]}

East-West controversy

Eastern opposition to the Filioque strengthened with the East-West Schism of 1054. Two councils were held to heal the break discussed the question.

The Second Council of Lyon (1274) accepted the profession of faith of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos in the Holy Spirit, "proceeding from the Father and the Son"^[215] and the Greek participants, including Patriarch Joseph I of Constantinople sang the Creed three times with the Filioque addition. Most Byzantine Christians feeling disgust and recovering from the Latin Crusaders' conquest and betrayal,^[216] refused to accept the agreement made at Lyon with the Latins. In 1282, Emperor Michael VIII died and Patriarch Joseph I's successor, John XI, who had become convinced that the teaching of the Greek Fathers was compatible with that of the Latins, was forced to resign, and was replaced by Gregory II, who was strongly of the opposite opinion.

Another attempt at reunion was made at the fifteenth-century Council of Florence, to which Emperor John VIII Palaiologos, Ecumenical Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East had gone in the hope of getting Western military aid against the looming Ottoman Empire. Thirteen public sessions held in Ferrara from 8 October to 13 December 1438 the Filioque question was debated without agreement. The Greeks held that any addition whatever, even if doctrinally correct, to the Creed had been forbidden by the Council of Ephesus, while the Latins claimed that this prohibition concerned meaning, not words.^[217]

During the council of Florence in 1439, accord continued to be elusive, until the argument prevailed among the Greeks themselves that, though the Greek and the Latin saints expressed their faith differently, they were in agreement substantially, since saints cannot err in faith; and by 8 June the Greeks accepted the Latin statement of doctrine. On 10 June Patriarch Joseph II died. A statement on the Filioque question was included in the Laetentur Caeli decree of union, which was signed on 5 July 1439 and promulgated the next day, with Mark of Ephesus being the only bishop to refuse his signature.^[217]

The Eastern Church refused to consider the agreement reached at Florence binding, since the death of Joseph II had for the moment left it without a Patriarch of Constantinople. There was strong opposition to the agreement in the East, and when in 1453, 14 years after the agreement, the promised military aid from the West still had not arrived and Constantinople fell to the Turks, neither Eastern Christians nor their new rulers wished union between them and the West.

Recent discussion

Orthodox theologian Vasily Bolotov published in 1898 his "Thesen über das Filioque", in which he maintained that the Filioque, like Photios's "from the Father alone", was a permissible theological opinion (a theologoumenon, not a dogma) that cannot be an absolute impediment to reestablishment of communion.^[145][218] This thesis was supported by Orthodox theologians Sergei Bulgakov, Paul Evdokimov and I. Voronov, but was rejected by Vladimir Lossky.^[145]

Several Orthodox theologians have considered the Filioque anew, with a view to reconciliation of East and West. Theodore Stylianopoulos provided in 1986 an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion.^[219] Twenty years after writing the first (1975) edition of his book, The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia said that he had changed his mind and had concluded that "the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences": "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" may both have orthodox meanings if the words translated "proceeds" actually have different meanings.^[220] For some Orthodox, then, the Filioque, while still a matter of conflict, would not impede full communion of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches if other issues were resolved. But many Orthodox consider that the Filioque is in flagrant contravention of the words of Christ in the Gospel,.^[221] has been specifically condemned by the Orthodox Church, and remains a fundamental heretical teaching which divides East and West.

Eastern Orthodox Christians also object that, even if the teaching of the Filioque can be defended, its interpolation into the Creed is anti-canonical.^[221] The Roman Catholic Church, which like the Eastern Orthodox Church considers the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils to be infallible, "acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church",^[10] but considers permissible additions that elucidate the teaching without in any way contradicting it,^[222] and that do not claim to have, on the basis of their insertion, the same authority that belongs to the original. It allows liturgical use of the Apostles' Creed as well of the Nicene Creed, and sees no essential difference between the recitation in the liturgy of a creed with orthodox additions and a profession of faith outside the liturgy such that of the Patriarch of Constantinople Saint Tarasius, who developed the Nicene Creed as follows: "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father through the Son".^[10]

Some theologians have even envisaged as possible acceptance of Filioque by the Eastern Orthodox Church (Vladimir Lossky) or of "from the Father alone" by the Roman Catholic Church (André de Halleux).^[145]

The Roman Catholic view that the Greek and the Latin expressions of faith in this regard are not contradictory but complementary has been expressed as follows:

At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). … This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.^[16]

For this reason, the Roman Catholic Church has refused the addition of καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the formula ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον of the Nicene Creed in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek with the Greek verb "έκπορεύεσθαι".^[10]

At the same time, the Eastern Catholic Churches, although they do not use the Filioque in the Creed, are in full communion with Rome, which accepts the Filioque in both liturgy and dogma.^[223]

Importance of Saint Maximus in Ecumenical Relations

The study published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity^[10] says that, according to Saint Maximus, the phrase "and from the Son" does not contradict the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father as first origin (ἐκπόρευσις), since it concerns only the Holy Spirit's coming (in the sense of the Latin word processio and Saint Cyril of Alexandria's προϊέναι) from the Son in a way that excludes any idea of subordinationism.^[224]

Orthodox theologian and Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizioulas, says: "For Saint Maximus the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the ἐκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) but the προϊέναι (proienai) of the Spirit."^[225]

Metropolitan John Zizioulas also wrote:

"As Saint Maximus the Confessor insisted, however, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a "cause" other than the Father. The notion of "cause" seems to be of special significance and importance in the Greek Patristic argument concerning the Filioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a "cause" (aition) in the procession of the Spirit, this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque."^[226] This is precisely what Saint Maximus said of the Roman view, that "they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession".

In this regard, the letter of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on "The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit"^[10] upholds the monarchy of the Father as the "sole Trinitarian Cause [aitia] or principle [principium] of the Son and the Holy Spirit" While the Council of Florence proposed the equivalency of the two terms "cause" and "principle" and therefore implied that the Son is a cause (aitia) of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, the letter of the Pontifical Council distinguishes

between what the Greeks mean by 'procession' in the sense of taking origin from, applicable only to the Holy Spirit relative to the Father (ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon), and what the Latins mean by 'procession' as the more common term applicable to both Son and Spirit (ex Patre Filioque procedit; ek tou Patros kai tou Huiou proion). This preserves the monarchy of the Father as the sole origin of the Holy Spirit while simultaneously allowing for an intratrinitarian relation between the Son and Holy Spirit that the document defines as 'signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father through and with the Son to the Holy Spirit'."^[227]

Roman Catholic theologian Avery Dulles, writing of the Eastern fathers who, while aware of the currency of the Filioque in the West, did not generally regard it as heretical, said: "Some, such as Maximus the Confessor, a seventh-century Byzantine monk, defended it as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son."^[166]

Michael Pomazansky and John Romanides^[228] hold that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the Filioque as dogma for the whole church. While accepting as a legitimate and complementary expression of the same faith and reality the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.^[16] Maximus held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church that "the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit"^[229] and wrote a special treatise about this dogma.^{[230][231][232]} Later again at the Council of Florence in 1438, the West held that the two views were contradictory.^[233]

Greek verbs translated as "proceeds"

In 1995 the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity published in various languages a study on The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit,^[10] which pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as "proceed". The pontifical council stated that the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι indicates that the Spirit "takes his origin from the Father ... in a principal, proper and immediate manner", while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb προϊέναι in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel.

Metropolitan John Zizioulas, while maintaining the explicit Orthodox position of the Father as the single origin and source of the Holy Spirit, has declared that the recent document the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity shows positive signs of reconciliation. Zizioulas states "Closely related to the question of the single cause is the problem of the exact meaning of the Son's involvement in the procession of the Spirit. Saint Gregory of Nyssa explicitly admits a "mediating" role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Is this role to be expressed with the help of the preposition δία (through) the Son (εκ Πατρός δι'Υιού), as Saint Maximus and other Patristic sources seem to suggest?

The Vatican statement notes that this is "the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox". I would agree with this, adding that the discussion should take place in the light of the "single cause" principle to which I have just referred" and "constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the Filioque problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible".^[234]

John Romanides too, while personally opposing the Filioque, has stated that in itself, outside the Creed, the phrase is not considered to have been condemned by the 878-880 Council of Constantinople, "since it did not teach that the Son is 'cause' or 'co-cause' of the existence of the Holy Spirit"; however, it could not be added to the Creed, "where 'procession'^[235] means 'cause' of existence of the Holy Spirit".^[236]

Joint statement in the United States in 2003

The Filioque was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, in June 2002. In October 2003, the Consultation issued an agreed statement, The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?, which provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. The recommendations include:

1. That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
2. That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
3. That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
4. That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
5. That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
6. That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
7. That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the Filioque is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

Summary

The Filioque was originally proposed to stress more clearly the connection between the Son and the Spirit, amid a heresy in which the Son was taken as less than the Father because he does not serve as a source of the Holy Spirit. When the Filioque came into use in Spain and Gaul in the West, the local churches were not aware that their language of procession would not translate well back into the Greek. Conversely, from Photius to the Council of Florence, the Greek Fathers were also not acquainted with the linguistic issues.

The origins of the Filioque in the West are found in the writings of certain Church Fathers in the West and especially in the anti-Arian situation of seventh-century Spain. In this context, the Filioque was a means to affirm the full divinity of both the Spirit and the Son. It is not just a question of establishing a connection with the Father and his divinity; it is a question of reinforcing the profession of Catholic faith in the fact that both the Son and Spirit share the fullness of God's nature over and above the Ecumenical councils called to do this very thing.

Ironically, a similar anti-Arian emphasis also strongly influenced the development of the liturgy in the East, for example, in promoting prayer to "Christ Our God", an expression which also came to find a place in the West. In this case, a common adversary, namely, Arianism, had profound, far-reaching effects, in the orthodox reaction in both East and West.

Church politics, authority conflicts, ethnic hostility, linguistic misunderstanding, personal rivalry, forced conversions, large scale wars, political intrigue, unfilled promises and secular motives all combined in various ways to divide East and West.

As regards the doctrine expressed by the phrase in Latin (in which the word "procedit" that is linked with "Filioque" does not have exactly the same meaning and overtones as the word used in Greek as in Latin), any declaration by the West that it is heretical (something that not all Orthodox now insist on) would conflict with the Western doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, since it has been upheld by Councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as ecumenical and by even those Popes who, like Leo III, opposed insertion of the word into the Creed, although it can be known through reasoning, that The Blessed Trinity exists within an ordered, complementary relationship of Perfect Love through the Unity of The Holy Spirit and thus The Love between The Father and The Son must proceed from both The Father and The Son, to begin with.

References

Bibliography

Much has been written on the Filioque; what follows is selective. As time goes on, this list will inevitably have to be updated.

• This article incorporates text from the public domain 1907 edition of The Nuttall Encyclopædia.
• "Filioque", article in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 614.
• David Bradshaw. Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 214–220.
• Laurent Cleenewerck. His Broken Body: Understanding and healing the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Washington, DC: Euclid University Press, 2008, pp. 321–347.
• Joseph P. Farrell. God, History, & Dialectic: The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes and Their Cultural Consequences. Bound edition 1997. Electronic edition 2008.
• Joseph P. Farrell translator The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photius Publisher: Holy Cross Orthodox Press Language: English ISBN 978-0-916586-88-1
• John St. H. Gibaut, "The Cursus Honorum and the Western Case Against Photius", Logos 37 (1996), 35–73.
• Elizabeth Teresa Groppe. Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. See esp. pp. 75–79, for a summary of Congar's work on the Filioque. Congar is widely considered the most important Roman Catholic ecclesiologist of the twentieth century. He was influential in the composition of several Vatican II documents. Most important of all, he was instrumental in the association in the West of pneumatology and ecclesiology, a new development.
• David Guretzki.Karl Barth on the Filioque. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7546-6704-9. A close examination of Karl Barth's defense of the filioque and why his position is closer to an Eastern perspective than has typically been assumed.
• Richard Haugh. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975.
• Joseph Jungmann, S.J. Pastoral Liturgy. London: Challoner, 1962. See "Christ our God", pp. 38–48.
• James Likoudis. Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism. New Rochelle, New York: 1992. An apologetic response to polemical attacks. A useful book for its inclusion of important texts and documents; see especially citations and works by Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Demetrios Kydones, Nikos A. Nissiotis, and Alexis Stawrowsky. The select bibliography is excellent. The author demonstrates that the Filioque dispute is only understood as part of a dispute over papal primacy and cannot be dealt with apart from ecclesiology.
• Bruce D. Marshall, "'Ex Occidente Lux?' Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology", Modern Theology 20:1 (January, 2004), 23–50. Reconsideration of the views of Aquinas, especially on deification and grace, as well as his Orthodox critics. The author suggests that Aquinas may have a more accurate perspective than his critics, on the systematic questions of theology that relate to the Filioque dispute.
• John Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology. New York: Fordham University Press, 1979, pp. 91–94.
• Aristeides Papadakis. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283–1289). New York: Fordham University Press, 1983.
• Aristeides Papadakis. The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994, pp. 232–238 and 379-408.
• Duncan Reid. Energies of the Spirit: Trinitarian Models in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.
• A. Edward Siecienski. The Use of Maximus the Confessor's Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439). Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.
• A. Edward Siecienski. The Filioque. History of a Doctrinal Controversy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
• Malon H. Smith, III. And Taking Bread: Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054. Paris: Beauschesne, 1978. This work is still valuable for understanding cultural and theological estrangement of East and West by the turn of the millennium. Now, it is evident that neither side understood the other; both Greek and Latin antagonists assumed their own practices were normative and authentic.
• Timothy Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Church. New edition. London: Penguin, 1993, pp. 52–61.
• Timothy [Kallistos] Ware. The Orthodox Way. Revised edition. Crestwood, New York: 1995, pp. 89–104.
• [World Council of Churches] /Conseil Oecuménique des Eglises. La théologie du Saint-Esprit dans le dialogue œcuménique Document # 103 [Faith and Order]/Foi et Constitution. Paris: Centurion, 1981.
• Sergius Bulgakov The Comforter Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (June 2004) ISBN 978-0-8028-2112-6

External links

• The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit
• Joint North American Orthodox-Catholic Statement
• Filioque at OrthodoxWiki
• full-length article at OrthodoxAnswers.org
•  "Filioque". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. 
• Christian Cyclopedia entry
• Agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consulation
• An Orthodox Response to the Filioque - Zizioulas