The Filioque fracas
Can you believe that the Christian Church fell apart over a single word?
Well it's true: The greatest row in the history of Christianity centred on a single word filioque and on the doctrine of the Trinity.
The row split the Eastern Church, which mostly became the Orthodox Church, and the Western Church, which became the Roman Catholic Church and its later Protestant offshoots. There were other matters at issue as well, but the row over 'the filioque clause' led to the Great Schism of 1054.
What the row was about
The Churches were arguing about whether the Son played any part in the origin of the Spirit as one of the persons of the Trinity from the Father, who is the only ultimate source.
The Latin word filioque, which means 'and from the son', was gradually inserted by Western churches into the Nicene Creed so that it stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the God the Father alone, as the early Church Fathers believed, but from both God the Father and God the Son.
The Eastern wing of the Church believed and believes that the Father alone had given rise to the Holy Spirit, and the idea that both Father and Son had done so was condemned as heretical.
Even today, the creed used by the Eastern Churches professes faith "in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father," without mentioning the Filioque. The Western Churches (i.e. the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches) expressly say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son."
There were fundamental problems of authority as well as of doctrine. The Eastern wing of the Church was angry that the Western wing of the Church had altered a fundamental part of the creed without their agreement - indeed without even consulting them. This didn't seem to them like the behaviour of a united church, and so the two wings eventually went their separate ways.
Many church historians think that the Western wing of the Church did behave very badly by trying to introduce such a major change to Christian belief in such a cavalier way.
The doctrine of 'dual procession'
This is the name that theologians give to the idea that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.
Proceeds?
When Christians say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son), what do they mean, and why do they use such an odd word?
The word comes from the Greek text of John 15.26, which speaks of the one "who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father". The Greek word has the sense of movement out of, and early theologians used it to show that the Spirit's origin was within the person of the Father.
Greek theologians restricted this Greek word to this particular technical use - the coming forth of the Spirit from the Father - so that it has a unique reference to the relationship of the Father and the Spirit.
The Greek theologians also thought that the way in which the Spirit comes from the Father is similar to, but significantly different from, the way the Son comes from the Father.
The equivalent Latin word is "procedure", but unlike the Greek word it doesn't include the notion of a starting point within something; it's a more general word for movement. This different meaning may have contributed in a small way to the dispute.
Latin theologians taught that the Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son, but comes from each of them in significantly different ways. These differences do not diminish the Father's role as the only cause of everything that exists.
The arguments
The arguments in the dispute are highly technical, and seem pretty dull to anyone except a theologian - but they stirred hugely passionate debates in the church because they were about something that mattered terribly - the nature of God.
To get a flavour of the passion the debate aroused, look at this comment from a 9th century Patriarch:
...dishonourable men emerged out of the darkness (that is, the West), and poured down like hail or, better, charged like wild boars upon the newly-planted vineyard of the Lord, destroying it with hoof and tusk, which is to say, by their shameful lives and corrupted dogmas.
Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs
Here are some of the arguments that were used by each side.
Against the filioque clause
The nature of God the Father is to be the sole cause of everything
God the Father is the 'First Person of the Trinity' because he gives existence to everything else
Giving life to others is what it means to be a father, it is not what it means to be a son
Jesus said only that the Spirit proceeds from the Father
'But when the Counsellor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me.'
John 15:26
The idea that the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son detracts from the separate character of each person of the Trinity, and confuses their relationships
The idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father diminishes the status of God the Father
In favour of the filioque clause:
Jesus did not say that the Spirit only proceeds from the Father
The Creed and the Bible say that the Son does give life to others:
All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
John 1:3
Jesus said that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son:
Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be unto you. As the Father has sent me, even so send I you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'
John 20:21-3
If the Spirit and the Son both proceed only from the Father, then there is no internal distinction between them in the Godhead (as opposed to their action on Earth).
The Spirit is the bond of love that unites Father and Son - this bond must proceed from both Father and Son
The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and Son as from a single principle
Moving closer
In modern times the Eastern and Western churches have moved closer together.
In December 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople revoked the excommunications of 1054 and called for an active pursuit of mutual understanding.
|
