The Filioque

The filioque (pronounced: filly-oh-quay) is one of those things that you've probably never heard of, but that was--and in many ways still is--a major issue in Christianity. I certainly had no idea what it was until about a year ago, and having learned a bit about it, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it is probably one of the top five most controversial subjects in all of Christian history.

The word "filioque" is Latin for "and the son." (filius means "son" and -que is a suffix meaning "and" that is attached to the end of the second of the two words it conjoins. It is considered a word of its own, which is why, for example, the motto of the Roman Republic, Senatus Populusque Romanus, is abbreviated "SPQR.") It was first inserted into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by sixth-century Spanish bishops, and eventually came to be accepted by the entire western Church, to the extreme consternation of the East. It amended the third article of the Creed to read "and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceedes from the Father and the Son..."

I first became aware of the filioque during my investigation of Roman Catholicism, and determined quickly that, as with any aspect of Trinitarian theology, its legitimacy is way beyond my ability to discern from a theological perspective, and is best left to the experts. However, I was able to look at Scripture and at history to get a sense of whether the filioque is an acceptable addition to the Creed, as the Roman Catholics and most Protestants believe, or a blunder and a travesty, as the Orthodox believe.

First a bit of background information: The first and second Ecumenical Councils composed a statement of faith outlining the very most basic and essential elements of the Christian Faith. It came to be called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, or Nicene Creed for short, and has been used as the baptismal confession ever since.

In 589, a local church council in Toledo, Spain, which was trying to suppress the Arian heresy, inserted the phrase "filioque" into the Creed in an attempt to bolster the doctrine of Christ's equality with the Father. The use of the filioque spread throughout Europe, but met sharp resistance in Rome, where Pope Leo III had the original text of the Creed engraved in Latin and Greek onto two silver tablets, which he displayed next to the tomb of St Peter along with the inscription:

HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDE (I, Leo, place here for the love and protection of the orthodox Faith)

For centuries, European churches continued to use the filioque even though Rome did not. Then, in 1014, at the coronation of Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor, Pope Benedict VIII included the filioque for the first time in a Roman Mass. This action scandalized the Eastern Churches, who removed the name of the Roman Pope from their roster of Orthodox Bishops. The West excommunicated the East. The East excommunicated the West, and the rest is history.

Now, according to Scripture, Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit, Who "proceeds from the Father" (Jn 15.26). Nowhere in Scripture is the Holy Spirit said to proceed also from the Son; however, I'm not aware that the Spirit is anywhere said not to proceed also from the Son. When I was attending RCIA last year, I asked one of the Catholic deacons about this and he told me that, because Christ said that He would send the Spirit, the correct understanding would be that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Okay, so why not word it that way, I asked. He didn't have an answer.

I'm not too proud to admit that any doctrine involving the Trinity is far too sophisticated for me to discern intellectually. When someone who knows what they're talking about tells me that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, I nod my head and say "Okay." When they tell me that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, I nod my head and say "Okay." That's about the best I can do when it comes to the theology of single versus double procession.

However, history tells me that the Creed was written and approved by two Ecumenical Councils--that is, it was approved by the whole Church...twice!!! It was then altered to include the filioque by a local council--that is, by a single diocese acting on its own. Whether their intentions were upright (and it appears that they were), there's no question that they overstepped their authority and unilaterally articulated an understanding of God that differed from that of the Church as a whole; and that was immediately rejected by the Church as a whole (including the popes of Rome themselves), only much later to gain acceptance gradually in the west.

I have read Orthodox theologians who say that the doctrine of double procession (the Spirit proceeds from two sources rather than from one) distorted the western church's understanding of the roles of the three Persons of the Trinity and led it eventually down the path to the doctrines of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, and then finally to the many-headed beast that is Protestant Christianity (not my words).

They make a strong case. But then so do the Roman Catholic theologians who oppose "the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son."

What is one to believe??

In the end, I have to cast my lot with the Church that has proven itself right with so many other doctrines, and that has clearly shown to have maintained the Faith of the Apostles more consistently than any other.

For more information:
The Filioque
The Filioque (Pelikan)
On the Question of the Filioque
One Single Source