What is the filioque clause
What is the filioque clause (Latin for “and the Son“)
The filioque clause (Latin for “and the Son“) is a phrase added to the Nicene Creed, a statement of Christian faith that was originally formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The Nicene Creed, in its original form, affirmed the divinity of the Father and the Son but did not include a specific statement about the Holy Spirit’s procession.
The filioque clause became a point of theological controversy and division between the Eastern and Western Christian churches, eventually contributing to the East-West Schism in 1054 AD, which led to the separation of the Roman Catholic Church (in the West) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (in the East). The primary issue revolves around the source of the Holy Spirit within the Holy Trinity.
In the Western Christian tradition (Roman Catholic Church), the Nicene Creed was modified to include the filioque clause, which asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father “and the Son.” The modified phrase in the Nicene Creed reads:
“…who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
In the Eastern Christian tradition (Eastern Orthodox Church), the original Nicene Creed, as formulated at the First Council of Nicaea, without the filioque clause, is retained:
“…who proceeds from the Father.”
The theological debate and controversy surrounding the filioque clause relate to questions about the inner relationships within the Holy Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds solely from the Father and argues that the addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed was unauthorized and represents a departure from the original creedal formulation.
The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, asserts that the inclusion of the filioque clause is a legitimate theological development that emphasizes the unity of the Father and the Son and clarifies the procession of the Holy Spirit.
The filioque controversy remains a significant point of theological difference between the two traditions and has been a source of tension and division for centuries. Efforts to reconcile this theological difference and heal the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have been ongoing but have not yet resulted in full unity.
Arguments for both points of view
Some key arguments that have been put forth by both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches regarding the filioque controversy:
Eastern Orthodox Arguments Against the Filioque
- Theological Precision: The Eastern Orthodox argue that the original Nicene Creed, without the filioque clause, is theologically precise and faithful to the biblical and patristic traditions. It emphasizes the monarchy of the Father as the ultimate source of the Trinity.
- Historical Authenticity: They contend that the Nicene Creed was formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD without the filioque clause, and any alteration to this creed constitutes an unauthorized change in the Church’s faith.
- Ecclesial Authority: Eastern Orthodox believe that the Roman Catholic Church acted unilaterally in adding the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed, asserting that it exceeded the authority of any individual bishop or local church to modify a universal creed.
- Trinitarian Theology: They argue that the filioque clause may lead to misunderstandings about the relationships within the Holy Trinity, potentially suggesting that the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father rather than co-equal.
Roman Catholic Arguments for the Filioque
- Theological Clarity: Roman Catholics argue that the filioque clause adds clarity to the understanding of the Holy Trinity. It emphasizes the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son, highlighting the unity of the Godhead.
- Historical Development: They contend that theological understanding develops over time and that the addition of the filioque clause was a legitimate theological development within the Western Church, reflecting the teachings of the early Church Fathers.
- Liturgical Consistency: In the Roman Catholic Church, the filioque clause is included in the Nicene Creed as part of the liturgy. This consistency in both belief and practice is seen as important for the Church’s unity.
- Defending Orthodoxy: Roman Catholics argue that the filioque clause helps guard against certain heretical interpretations, such as Arianism, by emphasizing the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
- Papal Authority: Supporters of the filioque assert that the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome and the highest authority in the Roman Catholic Church, had the authority to make changes to the creed for the sake of doctrinal clarification.
It’s important to note that both sides have engaged in extensive theological dialogues and discussions in an attempt to bridge this theological divide. While progress has been made, and there have been agreements on certain theological aspects related to the Holy Spirit, the filioque issue remains unresolved and continues to be a point of contention between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.
Summarized table highlighting the main arguments for and against the filioque clause in the context of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic perspectives
| Argument | Eastern Orthodox View | Roman Catholic View |
| Theological Precision | Original Nicene Creed is precise and faithful | Filioque clause adds clarity to the Trinity |
| to biblical and patristic traditions. | and emphasizes the unity of the Godhead. | |
| Historical Authenticity | Nicene Creed was formulated without the filioque | Theological understanding develops over time, and |
| clause at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. | the filioque reflects early Church Fathers’ | |
| Any alteration constitutes an unauthorized change | teachings. | |
| in the Church’s faith. | ||
| Ecclesial Authority | The Roman Catholic Church acted unilaterally in | Inclusion of the filioque clause is a legitimate |
| adding the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed. | theological development within the Western Church. | |
| Trinitarian Theology | Concern that the filioque may suggest subordination | Emphasis on the consubstantiality of the Father, |
| of the Son and the Spirit to the Father rather than | Son, and Holy Spirit helps guard against certain | |
| co-equality within the Trinity. | heretical interpretations. | |
| Historical Development | Belief in the preservation of the original Nicene | Argument that theological understanding evolves |
| Creed as an authentic expression of faith. | and develops over time, allowing for doctrinal | |
| clarification. | ||
| Liturgical Consistency | Concerned with maintaining liturgical consistency | Filioque is included in liturgy, which contributes |
| with the original Nicene Creed. | to the Church’s unity. | |
| Papal Authority | Rejection of any individual or local church altering | Argument that the Pope, as the highest authority |
| a universal creed. | in the Roman Catholic Church, had the authority | |
| to modify the creed for doctrinal clarification. |
Please note that this table provides a simplified overview of the key arguments on both sides of the filioque controversy. Theologians from both traditions have engaged in extensive discussions and nuanced debates on this topic, reflecting the complexity of the issue.
The addition of the filioque clause (“and the Son”)
The addition of the filioque clause (“and the Son”) to the Nicene Creed is attributed to the Western Christian Church, specifically the Latin-speaking churches in the Western Roman Empire. The filioque clause was gradually introduced into the Nicene Creed over a period of centuries, and its precise origin and timeline are complex.
The filioque controversy began as early as the 4th century, with some Western theologians, such as St. Ambrose of Milan, including the clause in their statements of faith. However, the precise moment when it was first officially added to the Nicene Creed in a church council is a subject of historical debate.
The filioque clause gained prominence in the Western Church during the 6th and 7th centuries. Its use became more widespread in the Western liturgy and theological writings. Pope Leo III (reigned 795–816) is often associated with its official insertion into the Nicene Creed, possibly in the late 8th century. However, it’s important to note that this act by the Pope was a point of contention and was not universally accepted by all Western churches at the time.
The filioque controversy eventually contributed to the schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 AD when it became a major theological and ecclesiastical issue. The Eastern Orthodox Church strongly opposed the addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed, considering it unauthorized and doctrinally problematic.
To this day, the filioque controversy remains one of the unresolved theological differences between the two traditions, and efforts to reconcile this issue have been ongoing but have not led to full unity.
Earliest stages of the filioque controversy
In the earliest stages of the filioque controversy, the addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed was not universally accepted in the Western Christian Church. It was a matter of theological debate and differing practices among various Western theologians and local churches.
Some Western theologians and bishops, such as St. Ambrose of Milan in the 4th century, included the filioque clause in their statements of faith as a way of emphasizing the role of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit. However, it was not initially part of the Nicene Creed as formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
The exact timeline of when and how the filioque clause was officially added to the Nicene Creed in various Western churches is complex and not well-documented. It appears to have become more widely used in the Western liturgy and theological writings during the 6th and 7th centuries.
Pope Leo III, who reigned from 795 to 816 AD, is often associated with the official insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed, possibly in the late 8th century. However, this action by the Pope was not universally accepted, and it faced opposition and controversy within the Western Church itself.
The introduction of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed gradually contributed to the theological and ecclesiastical tensions between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches, ultimately playing a significant role in the East-West Schism of 1054 AD. The Eastern Orthodox Church strongly opposed the addition of the filioque clause, considering it unauthorized and doctrinally problematic, and this remains a point of division between the two traditions to this day.
How to solve the filioque controversy
Addressing the filioque controversy, which has been a significant theological point of contention between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches for centuries, would require a thoughtful and collaborative approach involving experts and theologians from both traditions. Here is a hypothetical outline of how a council of biblical experts and theologians might work towards a resolution:
Establish a Joint Commission
The first step would be to establish a joint commission consisting of highly respected and knowledgeable theologians, biblical scholars, and church leaders from both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions.
Historical Research
The commission would conduct thorough historical research to understand the origins of the filioque controversy. This would involve examining historical documents, theological writings, and records of early church councils.
Theological Dialogue
Theologians from both sides would engage in a comprehensive and respectful dialogue to explore the theological underpinnings of the filioque clause and the objections raised by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Examination of Scripture
Biblical experts would carefully study relevant biblical passages to discern the Scriptural basis for the theology of the Holy Spirit’s procession. Key passages, such as those related to the sending of the Holy Spirit by Jesus, would be analyzed.
Patristic Sources
The commission would investigate the writings of the early Church Fathers to understand their views on the procession of the Holy Spirit and whether they supported or contradicted the filioque clause.
Theological Formulations
Theologians would explore alternative theological formulations that might bridge the theological gap. This could involve examining the compatibility of different expressions of the Holy Spirit’s procession.
Ecumenical Council or Synod
If progress is made in theological dialogue and consensus-building, the commission could recommend convening an ecumenical council or synod where representatives from both traditions would discuss and potentially modify the language of the filioque clause.
Papal and Patriarchal Approval
Any proposed changes to the Nicene Creed or theological formulations would need the approval of both the Pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as other heads of autocephalous churches.
Fostering Unity and Reconciliation
The ultimate goal would be to promote unity and reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. This might involve addressing other historical and ecclesiastical issues that have contributed to the schism.
Implementation and Education
If an agreement is reached, the implementation of any changes to liturgy, creeds, or theological formulations would need to be carefully managed. Education and communication within both traditions would be crucial.
It’s important to emphasize that resolving the filioque controversy would be a complex and challenging endeavor. Theological differences and historical tensions are deeply rooted, and any potential resolution would require mutual understanding, compromise, and a commitment to unity in faith. Additionally, such an effort would require the full support and endorsement of the highest ecclesiastical authorities within both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.
