The Filoque and Church History

 

This is my second post on the Filioque. My first post addressed it according to Scripture. 

In English, most Western Christians read from their Nicaeane Creed, ''...who proceeds from the Father and the Son,'' which is a reference to the Holy Spirit. 

Historically, many Western fathers taught the Filioque such as Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, etc. Many Greek fathers, on the other hand, taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son, such as Maximus the Confessor. I encourage the reader to read many of the quotes from both the Western and Eastern fathers online concerning this topic. 

The Western Christian father, Saint Ambrose of Milan taught, ''...the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, without ever being separated from either (On the Holy Spirit 1.11.20).''

The Eastern Christian father, Saint John of Damascene said, ''The Holy Spirit is a substantial power contemplated in his own distinct hypostasis, who proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Word (de fide orthodoxo, 1, 7, PG 94).'' 

While both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic appeal to him in justifying their own views on the matter, Saint Maximus the Confessor (a notable Eastern father), was aware of the Filioque, saw differences in the debate concerning language barriers, and did not see the profession of the Spirit of God from the Son as heretical*1. 

A local council in Persia (410) taught that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The sixth-century Council of Toledo in Spain also taught this doctrine. Many centuries before the so-called Great Schism of 1054, the procession of the Spirit from the Son had already been taught by many Christians. Before it was professed at a Roman Mass in 1024 by Pope Benedict VIII, it had already gained wide acceptance throughout Western Christendom. 

Now, many Eastern Orthodox will argue against the Filioque by arguing that by 1024, the two churches were nearly split. They assert that the Western Church of the prior centuries was more orthodox in faith. They point to Pope Leo III, for instance, who at the Council of Aachen declined Charlegmagne's request to add to an already established creed of faith. Then they contrast Leo II with Benedict VIII by demonstrating a change of liturgy between the two popes. 

It may have helped fuel the fires of contention by Benedict VIII adding the Filioque into the creed at the Mass in Rome in 1054. Nevertheless, though, neither Leo nor Benedict had rejected the doctrine of the Filioque. Nor had they had excommunicated Western Churches which professed it. And yes, many Western Christians professed it in the creed long before 1054. 

As I briefly mentioned, it was taught by Ambrose, Augustine, and others (Maximus the Confessor taught the Spirit's procession through the Son). Thus, the Filioque historically did not originate only among the Western fathers, but also from those those from the East. Much of the Filioque controversy began when Photios of Constantinople and the bishop of Rome turned against one another over byzantine emperor vs. papal authority, which then turned into more as Photios criticized the Filoque as heresy. 

''But,'' one may argue, ''perhaps the Filioque is Biblical (which I demonstrated in the previous post)? However, is it canonical to be in the creed?'' 

Canonically, there are several good reasons to believe that the addition of ''proceed from the Son,'' into the Nicaeane Creed does not harm the faith as well as is not being canonically illegitimate. Here are some reasons why: 

1. Many Eastern Orthodox bring up how the Council of Ephesus (431) claimed that no new creed could be made for this change. While this has been interpreted in different ways, most importantly, Ephesesus, outside of its dogmatic decrees on faith, had had no canonical authority to impose the same disciplines on the Western Church such as the reciting of a particular creed. Thus, the Western Church is not bound by any legal decision it made towards a particular creed and no Western Christians are canonically contradicting any past council by keeping the Filioque in their version of the creed. Furthermore, It should also be noted that most Roman Catholic Christians have not interpreted this to mean an anathematization against anyone literally adding to the creed, but rather, adding what is contrary to the Creed. To many Western Christians, saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does not take away or contradict the creed's words pertaining to the Spirit proceeding from the Father. 

2. Not all ancient creeds have received recognition from ecumenical councils. This is especially true for both the Apostles' Creed and the Athanasian Creed. Both are theologically true, however, as their teachings are rooted in Scripture. The Filioque is also found in the historical western creed, the Athanasian Creed. Historically, this creed was important in both Roman Catholic and Protestant services. 

3. Pope Leo I declared the doctrine of the Filioque in his papal bull, Quam laudabiliter. Whether one or not accepts papal supremacy and papal infallibility, he exercised local authority in Italy beyond that of a typical bishop. 

4. The fifteenth-century Council of Florence was nearly universally accepted by the bishops of both East and West (with Mark of Ephesus being an exception). The phrase was also taught in the documents of the thirteenth-century councils of Fourth Lateran and Second Lyons beforehand. All of these were Western Ecumenical Councils (and some argue that Florence met all the requirements to be an ecumenical council). 

5. The Latin fathers at Florence persuaded most of the Greek fathers that the Filioque was not a new thought, but ancient to Latin Christianity. 

6. While the church in Rome did not always profession the Filioque clause in the creed, many Christians throughout Western Europe had. The seventh Council of Hatfield (680), for instance, taught its theology within its documents and the Filioque was professed in the creed by Anglo-Saxon Christians long before the Norman Conquest of the eleventh century. 

7. Many Eastern and Western theologians now see the Filioque as largely a misunderstanding of semantics between both East and West. 

Indeed, we can debate whether or not the Filioque should be in the creed. We cannot claim, however, that the Filioque is unbiblical, as it is affirmed in the Scriptures. It has also been widely received by many throughout church history. If its acceptance in the Creed is heretical, then the seventh-century Anglo-Saxon Council of Hatfield, along with many other Western Christians were heretical long before the Great Schism and this would imply that Eastern Orthodox Christians were in communion for centuries. 

Since the Filioque, though, is Biblical, though, and since it has been widely practiced throughout Christendom, and since it is not canonically condemned by the councils for its inclusion in the creed, Western Christians have good reason for reciting it in their services. 

                                                                           Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Filioque was not only endorsed by Western theologians long before 1054 but was believed by both Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo. Scripture, the Western tradition, and even some of the Eastern fathers endorsed belief in the Filioque. 

If the filioque was heretical, then that means the Eastern Church was in communion with a Western church that confessed it in the creed for centuries. Furthermore, the Filioque was not merely the opinion of several Western theologians but was confessed throughout all of Western Christendom centuries before the Great Schism. 

If we say that I'm not going to personally embrace a theological doctrine unless it's taught by an Ecumenical Council, then that would imply the church leaders of the seven Ecumenical Councils are themselves greater in authority than the magisterium who composed the New Testament (such as Cephas and Paul the Apostle). 

Some Eastern Orthodox, however, are correct to point out that whereas Florence understood the Son as a cause of the Spirit, these were not the teachings of either Augustine of Hippo or Maximus the Confessor. The Father alone is the cause of the Spirit, but the Spirit does have a type of processing from the Son. Perhaps to clarify terms and to protect both East and West from misunderstandings, it would be better to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The latter phrase was employed by Maximus the Confessor. I agree with the Eastern Orthodox that the Holy Spirit's existence is from the Father alone, but I disagree with some Eastern Orthodox that the Spirit has no sort of processing from the Spirit. One cause believes that the Father is the sole cause of the Godhead and yet still believes a unique procession that the Spirit enjoys from the Son. 

For all of these reasons, the Filioque is an orthodox position. While some Eastern Orthodox theologians consider it heresy, they are wrong to do so. However, some Orthodox theologians have embraced the filioque but don't recognize it as legally being within the creed, which shall be the subject of next week's post. 

In the meantime, I would recommend checking out the link concerning Augustine and the Filoque according to an Orthodox Christian who defends Augustine at the bottom of this page. 

Accepting the Filioque is required within Roman Catholic dogma. However, it is also possible to personally accept it and still be an Eastern Orthodox Christian so long as the filioque is not added to the creed. While most Eastern Orthodox theologians once regarded the Filioque as heresy, that seems to be changing. 

Today, most Eastern theologians such as Kallistos Ware now regard the Western vs. Eastern difference on the matter to be chiefly semantics and misunderstandings. Indeed, some of the theological barriers to Christendom's unity in 1054, seem now to be less about the Filioque than they were. While most Orthodox theologians generally regarded the Filioque as heresy, some Eastern Orthodox theologians now see it as harmless, and as possible for inclusion in the Nicene Creed. 

Indeed, part of the historical confusion is that the Greek word for proceeds was different than the Latin word for proceeds. But with these misunderstandings now understood more than they had been by some in time past, the once great schism between East and West while differing on other points of doctrine, seems to be closer to unity on the Filioque than they were a thousand years ago. 

Part of the historical confusion was that the Greek word ekporeusis meant to originate from a single source. For Eastern Christians, the Spirit of God receives His origin only from the Father, and the Niceane-Constantinople Creed speaks of the Spirit deriving (proceeding) His origin from the Father, but when they heard that the Christians of the West were saying that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, they wrongly believed that the west meant this in the sense that the Greek language did. 

The Filioque would imply heresy in Greek if the creed said that the Spirit ekporeusis from both the Father and the Son, as His principle origin, is only from the Father. However, the West never said otherwise. 

At the Council of Constantinople  (381), the Greek fathers, including Basil the Great, rightly understood that God the Father is the monarchy of the Godhead. But the Western Church was never denying this either. Rather, when they read in their creeds that the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, they understood the procession of the Spirit from the Son to be distinct from the Spirit's procession of the Father. Unlike the Greek word, ekporeusis, though, the Latin word, ''procedit'' does not imply one single procession from a single source as notes. 

Should the Western Church remove the Filioque from the Creed? Should the Eastern Church add it? These are debates that continue for Biblical, historical, grammatical, and canonical reasons. Nevertheless, what should be agreed upon, is that there is nothing inherently heretical about belief in the Filioque. 

Works Cited:

*1-https://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/

*2-https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2020/03/04/augustine-the-filioquist-a-preface/