Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Filioque

The Filioque (Latin for "and [from] the Son") is a doctrinal formula incorporated into the Nicene Creed by Western Christianity, asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from both the Father and the Son as a single principle, in contrast to the original creed's statement—affirmed by Eastern Christianity—that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. This addition, first attested in local Western councils such as Toledo in 589 AD to combat Arianism, gradually became standard in Latin liturgy and theology but was rejected in the East as an unauthorized alteration lacking ecumenical consensus. The controversy, rooted in differing interpretations of patristic texts and scriptural passages like John 15:26, intensified through exchanges such as the Photian Schism of the 9th century and contributed significantly—though not solely—to the mutual excommunications of 1054 that formalized the East-West Schism. Despite ongoing ecumenical dialogues acknowledging shared Trinitarian foundations, the Filioque remains a persistent point of division, symbolizing broader divergences in ecclesiology, authority, and pneumatology between Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

Definition and Core Theology

The Clause in the Nicene Creed

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, finalized at the First Council of Constantinople in 381, articulates the procession of the Holy Spirit in its original form as: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets." This clause emphasizes the Spirit's eternal origin solely from the Father, aligning with the creed's intent to affirm Trinitarian orthodoxy against Pneumatomachian heresies that subordinated the Spirit. In Western Christianity, the filioque clause—"and the Son"—was inserted into this procession phrase, yielding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son." This modification first appeared as an anti-Arian measure at the Third Council of Toledo in 589, where Visigothic Spain, under King Reccared I, renounced Arianism and adopted Nicene orthodoxy, specifying the Spirit's procession to underscore the Son's equality with the Father in divinity. The addition aimed to clarify intra-Trinitarian relations by affirming the Spirit's origin from both paternal and filial sources, drawing on Latin patristic traditions that interpreted John 15:26 and 16:7 as implying the Son's involvement in the Spirit's eternal sending. The filioque spread gradually in the , gaining traction among at the Council of (796) and (809), where advocated its inclusion to counter perceived Eastern ambiguities on the Son's role. initially resisted universal adoption, omitting it from the creed until 1014, when inserted it at the request of Emperor Henry II during a Roman , marking its formal liturgical use in the . This unilateral alteration, absent from the ecumenical council's text, precipitated theological tensions with Eastern churches, which viewed it as an unauthorized expansion risking subordination of the Father's unique monarchy in the .

Theological Significance of Procession

The doctrine of articulates the eternal origin of the within the as a distinct relational act from the Father's of the , wherein the is spirated or "breathed forth" as hypostasis sharing the divine . This , unlike or temporal , constitutes the 's personal subsistence without implying inequality or sequence in eternity, serving to differentiate the persons through opposed relations: the as unbegotten source, the as begotten, and the as proceeding. In this framework, underscores the immanent life of , where the 's origin reflects the divine will's ultimate expression, distinct from the of the . The theological significance of procession lies in its role as one of two internal processions in the —generation and spiration—yielding four real relations (paternity, , active and passive spiration) that ground the three persons without dividing the substance. This relational preserves Trinitarian unity amid distinction, countering subordinationist errors like by affirming the Spirit's full divinity through origin from the Father (and Son in ), rather than self-existence or . For theology, procession's significance extends to , portraying the Spirit as the interpersonal bond of love between Father and Son, eternally proceeding as their mutual caritas, which informs sacraments, , and the Church's unity under that same Spirit. In , procession's import emphasizes the Father's as sole principle (arche) without source, with the proceeding from the alone (often "through the " economically), to avoid implying two sources that might dilute the Father's unique or introduce a subordination of the . This view holds that procession safeguards the 's hypostatic as the proper "" of the , distinct from the 's begottenness, with eternal Filioque risking confusion of relations or semi-Sabellianism by overemphasizing Father-Son reciprocity at the Father's expense. Such divergences highlight procession's centrality to Trinitarian , where Western formulations prioritize perichoretic communion and Eastern ones paternal primacy, both rooted in patristic efforts to express divine mystery without analogical overreach.

Distinction from Eastern Trinitarian Formulae

The Eastern , as articulated in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 AD, affirms that the "proceeds from the ," emphasizing the 's unique role as the sole unoriginate principle (arche) or within the . This procession is understood as an eternal, hypostatic relation originating solely from the , who imparts the divine essence to the through eternal generation and to the Spirit through eternal spiration, thereby preserving the distinct personal properties of each hypostasis while maintaining the 's primacy as the fountainhead of divinity. In contrast, the Western formula incorporates the filioque clause—"and the "—indicating that the proceeds eternally from the and the as from a single principle (principium). This addition, formalized in the West by the and endorsed at the Council of in 589 AD, underscores the 's full participation in the Spirit's eternal origin to affirm intra-Trinitarian equality and the Spirit's role as the mutual love () between and , without positing two separate sources or subordinating the . The core distinction lies in the conception of divine origin: Eastern prioritizes the Father's exclusive monarchia to avoid any implication of dual principles, viewing filioque as potentially blurring hypostatic distinctions or introducing a derivative origin for the Spirit via the Son, which could undermine the Father's sole causality. Western , however, interprets the as a unified act (per filium or "through the Son" in some patristic senses), compatible with the Father's primacy but essential for safeguarding the Son's against subordinationist errors like , even as Eastern critics contend it shifts emphasis from ontological to relational symmetry.

Scriptural Foundations

Primary Biblical Texts on the Spirit's Procession

The explicit biblical reference to the procession (ekporeusis in Greek) of the occurs in John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." This verse, part of ' farewell discourse, distinguishes the eternal origin of the Spirit from the Father while noting the Son's role in sending the Spirit temporally to the disciples. Closely related texts in the same describe the 's and Son's involvement in the 's . :16-17 states: "And I will ask the , and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the of truth," emphasizing the 's in response to the Son's request. :26 adds: "But the Helper, the , whom the will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you," linking the sending explicitly to the acting "in my name." :7 further specifies: "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you," highlighting the Son's direct role in the 's advent contingent on his departure. Additional New Testament passages associate the Spirit with the Son without using the term "proceeds." In Galatians 4:6, Paul writes: "And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" portraying the Spirit as inherently connected to the Son's sonship. Similarly, Romans 8:9 equates the Spirit of God with the "Spirit of Christ": "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him." John 16:14-15 describes the Spirit's ongoing relation: "He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine, and so I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you," indicating the Spirit receives and communicates from both divine persons. These Johannine and Pauline texts constitute the core scriptural data on the Spirit's procession and relation to Father and Son, with the single explicit mention of procession tied solely to the Father, while sending and indwelling clauses involve the Son. Interpretations of these as implying eternal double procession or distinguishing economic missions from ontological origins vary across theological traditions.

Patristic Exegesis of Johannine Passages

, in his De Trinitate (composed between approximately 400 and 416 AD), exegeted as revealing the eternal processio of the from both Father and Son, positing the Spirit as the substantial love mutually proceeding from their shared essence, distinct from the Son's generation yet inseparable in origin. He reconciled the verse's emphasis on procession "from the Father" with the Son's sending role in John 14:26 and 16:7 by distinguishing temporal mission (the economic sending into the world) from eternal spiration, insisting the latter involves both persons to preserve Trinitarian against Arian . Cyril of Alexandria, in his Thesaurus de Sancta et Consubstantiali Trinitate (circa 430 AD), interpreted the Johannine discourse to affirm that the "proceeds from the Father and Son," as the Spirit's indwelling effects deification in believers, drawing from the Father's origin through the Son's mediation in verses like John 15:26 and 16:14-15, where the Spirit glorifies the Son. This exegesis underscored the Spirit's hypostatic unity with Father and Son, countering Nestorian divisions while maintaining the Father's as principal source. Among , the Great referenced :26 in On the (circa 375 AD) to denote the Spirit as "Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father," emphasizing the Father's role in origination to affirm divinity against , yet he described the Spirit's communion with the Son (e.g., as "Spirit of the Son" in Galatians 4:6, linked to Johannine sending) as implying procession through the Son in divine operations. , in Oration 31 (The Fifth Theological Oration on the , circa 380 AD), used "" (ekporeusis) from :26 to distinguish the Spirit's manner of origin from the Son's begetting, rejecting creation or subordination while affirming shared substance, with the Son's involvement in sending (John 16:7) reflecting intra-Trinitarian relations. John Chrysostom, in Homily 77 on John (circa 390 AD), focused on John 15:26's testimony of the Spirit bearing witness to Christ, portraying the procession from the Father as the basis for truth and the Son's sending as empowering apostolic mission, without explicit eternal double procession but implying the Spirit's dependence on both for redemptive work. Hilary of Poitiers, in De Trinitate (Books VI-VIII, circa 356-360 AD), connected John 16:7's sending by the Son to eternal procession, arguing the Spirit's witness to Christ's divinity necessitates origin involving the Son to avoid modalism or Arianism, framing Johannine language as guarding the Trinity's unity in essence and action. These interpretations generally upheld the Father's primacy in hypostatic origin per John 15:26 while integrating the Son's causative role in sending (John 14:26, 16:7) as mirroring eternal relations, though Eastern Fathers prioritized ekporeusis from the Father alone for procession proper, viewing Son's involvement as economic or mediatory, a nuance later accentuated in Filioque debates.

Implications for Monarchy of the Father

The doctrine of the monarchy of the Father posits the Father as the sole unoriginate principle (arche or aitia) and ultimate source within the , from whom the Son is eternally begotten and the eternally proceeds, thereby preserving the distinct hypostases while ensuring divine unity. This understanding draws from scriptural emphases on the Father's initiative in the economy of salvation, as in John 14:26 and 15:26, where the Spirit is sent by the . Critics of the Filioque, particularly in , contend that the clause's assertion of the Spirit's procession "from the Father and the Son" (ex Patre Filioque) compromises this paternal monarchy by implying two co-principles or causes in the Godhead, potentially introducing a form of dyarchy that blurs hypostatic distinctions and risks modalistic tendencies. Patriarch Photius of articulated this critique in his Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit (c. 886 AD), denouncing the Filioque as heretical for subordinating the Father's unique causality and aligning it with Arian or semi-Arian errors by elevating the Son to a causative role in the Spirit's eternal origin. Eastern formulations distinguish the Spirit's eternal ekporeusis (origin from the Father alone) from economic manifestations "through the Son," rejecting any eternal co-spiration to safeguard the Father's primacy. Western theologians, however, defend the Filioque as compatible with the Father's , interpreting procession as a single act from the Father as principium principale (principal principle), with the Son's involvement reflecting consubstantial communion rather than a separate cause. This view, rooted in Augustine's De Trinitate (c. 400-420 AD), emphasizes the Father and Son as one principle in spiration, preserving the Father's priority while accounting for the Son's role in the Spirit's temporal mission (e.g., John 16:7). Ecumenical dialogues, such as the 2003 North American Orthodox-Catholic statement, affirm mutual recognition of the Father's sourcehood but highlight persistent divergence: Orthodox insistence on the Father's exclusive eternal causality versus Catholic inclusion of the Son in , without resolving whether this constitutes a church-dividing issue.

Patristic Witness

Testimonies from Eastern Fathers

Eastern , while consistently affirming the Father as the sole arche (principle) of the Godhead's hypostatic processions, frequently employed language indicating the Holy Spirit's intimate relation to the in the economy of salvation and even in eternal origination. This included phrases such as "through the " (dia tou Huiou), which some later Western theologians interpreted as supporting the Filioque clause, though Eastern tradition maintained a distinction between the Spirit's eternal ekporeusis from the Father alone and its manifestation or sending through the . St. Basil the Great (c. 330–379), in his treatise On the Holy Spirit, articulated that the Spirit is united to the Father through the Son, stating: "Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity." This reflects Basil's emphasis on the Spirit's procession involving the Son's mediation without implying a double arche. Basil further connected the Spirit's sanctifying role to the Son's agency, drawing from Johannine texts where the Spirit is sent by both Father and Son. St. (c. 329–390), in his Fifth Theological Oration, described the Spirit's procession as proceeding from the but analogized the Trinity's relations by noting the Spirit as a "middle term" between the Unbegotten and the Begotten , implying a relational dependence on the without subordinating the 's . Gregory wrote: "The is truly Spirit, coming forth from the indeed, but not after the manner of the , for it is not by generation but by procession (ekporeusis)." Yet, in other contexts, he affirmed the 's full participation in divine operations, including the Spirit's mission. St. (c. 580–662) directly addressed the Filioque in his Letter to Marinus (c. 645–648), defending the Western practice against Eastern objections. He explained that the confess the Spirit's procession "from the through the " in the eternal sense (transeuntem), not as a separate cause alongside the , but as the Son's participation in the 's spiration, preserving the 's sole . Maximus stated: "The proceeds from the and rests in the ," and affirmed the Roman creed's orthodoxy when understood this way, marking the earliest recorded Greek-Latin dialogue on the issue. St. (c. 675–749), synthesizing earlier Cappadocian thought in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, taught that the "goes forth (proion) from the " hypostatically but "receives from the " and is manifested through Him. He wrote: "We say that the ...comes forth from the , not by generation...but by ," while elsewhere noting the Spirit's eternal rest in the and economic through Him, rejecting any notion of two origins but allowing for the Son's instrumental role. This formulation influenced later Byzantine theology, though it was invoked by both sides in Filioque disputes.

Testimonies from Western Fathers

(c. 155–240 AD), in Adversus Praxean (c. 213 AD), articulated an early Western understanding of the Holy Spirit's origin as proceeding from the through the , stating: "I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the through the ." This formulation emphasized the Spirit's derivation in relation to both divine persons while maintaining the 's primacy as source, countering modalist interpretations that blurred Trinitarian distinctions. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310–367 AD), in De Trinitate (c. 356–360 AD), described the as receiving existence from the through the , praying: "May I receive your who takes his being from you through your only ." In , he further affirmed the 's consubstantiality by linking its to the shared divine nature of and , writing that the "proceeds from the " yet operates inseparably with the 's mission. Hilary's anti-Arian context underscored this relational dynamic to affirm the 's full divinity without subordinating it to the alone. Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397 AD), in De Spiritu Sancto (c. 381 AD), explicitly connected the Spirit's procession to both Father and Son, declaring: "The , when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate the Son from the Father." argued from :26 and 16:7 that the Son's role in sending the Spirit reflects an eternal origin, not merely a temporal mission, thereby safeguarding Trinitarian unity against Pneumatomachian denials of the Spirit's divinity. His liturgical influence in the West helped embed this theology in creedal recitations by the late . Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), in De Trinitate (c. 399–419 AD), provided the most systematic Western exposition, asserting in Book 15: "The proceeds from the as , and, by the gift of this , from the Son also." He reasoned from scriptural missions (e.g., John 14–16) that the Spirit's eternal procession mirrors the temporal sending, proceeding principally from the yet "from both" as the bond of love between them, countering any implication of two sources by emphasizing the 's . Augustine's mutual indwelling (circumincessio) framework integrated the Filioque into Latin Trinitarianism, influencing subsequent Western theology despite Eastern reservations about its formulation. These patristic testimonies, rooted in anti-heretical defenses, consistently affirm the Spirit's procession involving the Son without diminishing the Father's unique role, predating formal creedal additions by centuries.

Reconciling Apparent Divergences

![Maximus the Confessor][float-right] Apparent divergences in patristic testimonies regarding the Holy Spirit's procession arise from terminological and contextual variances between Eastern and Western traditions, rather than fundamental doctrinal opposition. Eastern authors, safeguarding the Father's unique arche (source or principle) of the Godhead, reserved ekporeusis for origin from the Father alone while frequently employing dia tou Huiou (through the Son) to denote the Spirit's relation to the Son in unity with the Father. Western theologians, addressing Arian subordinationism, used processio to express the Spirit's consubstantial origin from Father and Son as a single principle (ex Patre Filioque), emphasizing intra-Trinitarian equality without denying paternal primacy. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662), a Greek theologian in Western exile, provided an early reconciliation in his Letter to Marinus (c. 649), defending the Latin insertion against Byzantine objections. He clarified that "and the Son" signifies the Spirit's substantial origin from the Father through the Son's eternal mediation, preserving the Father as sole cause while attributing to the Son a participatory role in spiration derived from his begottenness. Maximus stated: "By nature the Holy Spirit... takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten," thus interpreting the Filioque as compatible with Eastern formulae and rejecting any implication of dual sources. This harmonization draws support from Eastern , including (c. 376–444), who described the Spirit as proceeding "from God [the Father] and... through the Son," and as the one "who proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son." (c. 310–403) affirmed the Spirit "from the Father... through the Son," while himself echoed Cappadocian precedents like Gregory of Nyssa's (c. 335–395) references to the Spirit's procession "through" the Son's agency. These phrases indicate an eternal, hypostatic involvement of the Son, aligning with Western intent when distinguished from the Father's unoriginate causality. Western figures like (354–430) framed procession as the consubstantial bond of Father and Son, with the Spirit as their mutual gift, yet consistently upheld the Father as originating principle (principium). Patristic reconciliation thus posits that divergences reflect anti-heretical emphases—Eastern focus on against , Western against —without contradicting the shared affirmation of the Father's primacy and the Son's co-eternal role in the Spirit's origin. Subsequent ecumenical analyses, reviewing these texts, conclude substantial patristic agreement on the Father as sole Trinitarian arche, rendering the Filioque a permissible clarification rather than innovation when properly construed.

Historical Origins and Western Adoption

Anti-Arian Contexts in the Early West

In the and its successor kingdoms, posed a persistent challenge following the (325 AD), as Germanic tribes like the adopted the heresy, which denied the Son's consubstantial divinity with the Father by portraying him as a created subordinate. Western theologians countered this by emphasizing the shared procession of the from Father and Son, thereby affirming the Son's equality in divinity and avoiding any implication of Trinitarian hierarchy that Arians exploited. This doctrinal strategy drew on earlier Latin patristic traditions, such as (c. 310–367 AD), who in De Trinitate argued that the Spirit's with Father and Son necessitated a procession involving both to refute Arian claims of the Son's inferiority. Ambrose of (c. 340–397 AD) further developed this in De Spiritu Sancto, asserting that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" to underscore the unity of divine essence against Arian divisions, influencing anti-Arian efforts in and . (354–430 AD) provided the most systematic Western exposition in De Trinitate (Books 15), where he described the Spirit as the bond of love proceeding principally from the Father but eternally from the Son as well, explicitly to guard against Arian that might extend to the Spirit. These formulations prioritized causal realism in Trinitarian relations, ensuring the Son's uncreated status without diminishing the Father's . The practical application culminated in Visigothic Spain, where Arian rulers had suppressed until King Reccared I's conversion in 587 AD. At the Third Council of (589 AD), attended by 57 bishops, the Filioque was interpolated into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan during the mass, explicitly to combat residual by declaring the "proceeds from the and the (filioque)," thus affirming Trinitarian . This local addition, ratified in canons affirming orthodoxy, marked the creed's first documented Western alteration for anti-heretical purposes, with subsequent synods like IV (633 AD) and XI (675 AD) reinforcing it amid ongoing conversions of Arian . Such contexts reveal the Filioque's emergence not as speculative innovation but as a targeted response to Arian threats in regions like and parts of , where empirical pressures from heretical monarchies necessitated explicit creedal safeguards; Eastern sources, less exposed to these Germanic Arian strongholds, did not adopt similar insertions contemporaneously. While effective against —which waned in the by the 7th century—these developments later fueled East-West tensions, as the clause's local origins contrasted with the ecumenical Creed's original form.

Earliest Liturgical and Creedal Insertions

The earliest documented insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan took place at the Third Council of on May 5, 589, convened by Visigothic King after his renunciation of in favor of Nicene . This addition, rendering the procession article as "et in Spiritum Sanctum... qui ex Patre Filioque procedit," served to combat Arian tendencies that subordinated the by affirming the Spirit's eternal origin from both Father and Son, thus underscoring Trinitarian . The council's acts preserved the full amended , which was proclaimed to integrate the converted Arian into the Catholic faith, marking the first local creedal modification in the West without ecumenical authority. Prior to 589, no extant Western creedal texts or conciliar records attest to the Filioque's inclusion, despite earlier Latin patristic endorsements of the Spirit's procession per Filium (through the Son) by figures like Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–397) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430); these supported the doctrine theologically but did not alter the 381 Creed's wording. The Toledo insertion arose in the specific anti-Arian context of Visigothic Spain, where Arianism had dominated since the 5th century, prompting the clause's use to equate the Son's role in spiration with the Father's to preclude any diminishment of divine unity. Liturgically, the Filioque entered usage concurrently with the 589 , appearing in the Creed's recitation during and other rites in Hispania's churches to standardize anti-Arian profession among and . Subsequent synods reinforced this: the Fourth Council of Toledo (633) reiterated the clause in its creedal exposition, while the Eighth (653) mandated its inclusion in baptismal formularies, extending its liturgical footprint across the . These developments remained regionally confined, with no evidence of adoption in or until later centuries, reflecting a gradual Western assimilation driven by local doctrinal needs rather than universal mandate.

Carolingian Promotion and Liturgical Standardization

The , under (r. 768–814), actively promoted the Filioque clause as part of broader efforts to unify doctrine and liturgy in the Frankish realms, viewing it as essential to anti-Arian Trinitarian orthodoxy inherited from earlier Western traditions. At the in 794, convened by , Frankish and Italian bishops condemned —a Christological associated with bishops like Elipandus of —but also implicitly endorsed the Filioque by upholding the double procession of the in opposition to perceived Eastern ambiguities, as reflected in the reception of the Opus Caroli Regis (or Libri Carolini), a theological treatise attributed to Theodulf of that critiqued the Second (787) while defending Western . This synod's decisions reinforced the clause's doctrinal legitimacy in Germanic territories, marking an early Carolingian assertion of theological independence from Byzantine influence. By 798, the Filioque was incorporated into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed recited in Charlemagne's court chapel at , serving as a model for liturgical practice amid the emperor's centralization of religious uniformity. Charlemagne's promotion extended to missionary and educational reforms, where the augmented Creed appeared in texts like the Libri Carolini, emphasizing the Spirit's procession ex Patre Filioque to safeguard the of the Son with the Father against Arian remnants. This usage spread through imperial capitularies and monastic scripts, aligning with of York's advocacy for standardized creedal recitation in Carolingian schools and palaces. Liturgical standardization accelerated under and his successors, as the adapted the —imported to supplant Gallican diversities—while retaining the Filioque, which was absent from papal liturgies in . The of in 809, convened by Charlemagne's son , saw Frankish bishops petition to authorize universal adoption of the clause; Leo affirmed its theological validity but declined to alter the Creed's text to preserve ecumenical harmony, instead inscribing version (without Filioque) on silver shields in . Despite papal reticence, Carolingian reforms disseminated the augmented Creed via uniform sacramentaries and lectionaries, embedding it in masses across the empire by the mid-9th century, as evidenced in surviving manuscripts like the Sacramentary of Gellone (ca. 790–800). This process, driven by imperial edicts and synodal decrees, entrenched the Filioque in Western Latin rites, diverging from Eastern practices and foreshadowing inter-church tensions.

Eastern Responses and Early Disputes

Initial Byzantine Critiques

The earliest recorded Byzantine reservations regarding the Filioque emerged during the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, convened primarily to address Iconoclasm but also touching on creedal fidelity. Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, in his epistolary profession of faith submitted to Pope Adrian I prior to the council, articulated the procession of the Holy Spirit as occurring "from the Father through the Son," employing the Greek preposition dia to denote mediation or manifestation rather than co-origination in the eternal ekporeusis (procession). This formulation preserved the Father's unique role as the sole arche (principle) of divinity, aligning with patristic emphases on the monarchy of the Father while avoiding any implication of dual sources within the Godhead. The council's horos (definition of faith) recited the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 in its unaltered form, declaring the "who proceedeth from the Father" without appending Filioque, and reinforced prior conciliar prohibitions against modifying , as established at in 431. This adherence implicitly critiqued Western liturgical insertions of the clause, which had appeared in since 589 and spread among , as deviations risking confusion of Trinitarian hypostases—potentially equating the Son's role in spiration with the Father's unipersonal causality. Byzantine participants viewed such additions as procedurally illicit, absent universal consent, though theological compatibility was not yet outright denied; Tarasius' dia tou Uiou echoed earlier Eastern fathers like , interpreting Western intent as economic rather than ontological . These positions elicited Western backlash, notably from Charlemagne's theologians in the Libri Carolini (c. 790) and the Council of (794), which repudiated Nicaea II partly for allegedly reverting to a "" creed deficient in affirming the Spirit's et Filioque. Byzantine responses remained measured, prioritizing the Creed's symbolic unity over confrontation, but underscored a growing wariness of Frankish innovations as threats to the patristic on divine (order), where the Father's monopatric origin safeguarded against Arian-like or semi-Sabellianism. By the early , as Carolingian promotion intensified—culminating in the Synod of Aachen (809)—these critiques laid groundwork for sharper polemics, focusing on empirical fidelity to conciliar texts over speculative Latin .

Photian Schism and 9th-Century Polemics

The emerged in 858 when Emperor deposed Patriarch I of and appointed the lay scholar Photius as patriarch, prompting opposition from , who viewed the deposition as irregular and supported Ignatius's partisans. convened a in in 863 that declared Photius's elevation invalid and excommunicated him unless he resigned, escalating tensions over patriarchal legitimacy and jurisdictional rights. The dispute intensified with the conversion of Bulgarian ruler I in 864, as Boris sought ecclesiastical independence; both and vied for influence over the Bulgarian church, with insisting on Latin liturgical practices including the with the Filioque clause. In response, Photius issued an in 867 to the Eastern patriarchs, cataloging Western "errors" such as enforced , fasting on Saturdays, and the Filioque addition to the , arguing that the latter implied two sources for the and contradicted the original conciliar text from 381. Photius contended that the Filioque undermined the monarchy of the Father as the sole principle of the Godhead, a position rooted in Cappadocian , and accused the of doctrinal without ecumenical consent. That same year, a council in under Photius and Emperor deposed and excommunicated , explicitly condemning the Filioque as heretical alongside papal interference in Eastern affairs and the Bulgarian mission. The polemics of the era centered on Photius's theological critiques, particularly in his later work Mystagogy of the (c. 880s), where he systematically refuted the Filioque by appealing to scriptural —such as John 15:26—and patristic authorities like , asserting that procession (ekporeusis) pertains solely to the Father's hypostatic origin of the Spirit, distinct from the Spirit's economic sending through the Son. Western defenders, including Nicholas's legates, maintained the Filioque's compatibility with orthodoxy as an explication of the Son's eternal , but the schism's immediate resolution was political: Nicholas's in 867, Michael's , and Ignatius's in 869–870, followed by a Fourth Council of (recognized as ecumenical by the East) that anathematized Photius. Photius was reinstated in 877 after Ignatius's death, and a in 879–880, attended by papal legates, conditionally reconciled with while prohibiting unilateral creedal alterations, including the Filioque, though enforcement lapsed amid ongoing jurisdictional frictions. These events marked the Filioque's elevation from a regional usage to a of East-West , with Photius's arguments framing subsequent Byzantine resistance as a defense of conciliar tradition against perceived Latin . Despite the schism's partial healing by 880, the doctrinal rift persisted, foreshadowing deeper 11th-century estrangements.

Preconditions for the Great Schism

The resolution of the in the late temporarily eased overt hostilities, but underlying doctrinal divergences over the Filioque persisted, exacerbated by the Western churches' continued liturgical use of the clause despite Eastern prohibitions. The Council of Constantinople (879–880), recognized by the Eastern Church as the Eighth and initially approved by , explicitly reaffirmed the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 without additions and anathematized any alterations to its text, implicitly condemning the Filioque insertion as a violation. This council, attended by over 400 bishops and aimed at reconciling Photius with , underscored the East's commitment to preserving the creed's integrity as established by the first two ecumenical councils, viewing unilateral Western modifications as heretical innovations that risked subverting the monarchy of the Father in Trinitarian procession. In the , however, resistance to inserting the Filioque into the Roman waned over the subsequent century, even as earlier popes had prioritized unity. (r. 795–816), while affirming the theological validity of the Filioque against Arian interpretations, refused its creedal addition and had the original without the clause engraved on silver shields displayed in to demonstrate fidelity to ecumenical tradition. Similarly, Pope John VIII's endorsement of the 879–880 council explicitly forbade tampering with the 's wording. Yet, by the early , Frankish and Germanic influences prevailed; during the coronation of on February 14, 1014, in under , the Filioque was chanted in the for the first time in papal , marking Rome's adoption despite prior papal cautions. This shift, driven by alignment with Carolingian traditions and anti-Arian emphases, alienated Eastern observers who perceived it as a direct breach of conciliar agreements and an assertion of Western autonomy over shared doctrinal symbols. These developments entrenched the Filioque as a flashpoint amid broader ecclesiopolitical strains, including Byzantine territorial losses in Italy to Norman incursions and papal assertions of primacy. By the 1040s, as Western missionaries expanded into Slavic territories under Byzantine influence, reports of Latin creedal practices fueled Byzantine critiques, with figures like Patriarch Michael I Cerularius viewing the clause not merely as a theological error implying dual procession but as symptomatic of Western overreach in amending ecumenical formularies without consensus. The failure to convene a joint council to address these grievances, coupled with the West's liturgical standardization of the Filioque across major sees, eroded possibilities for doctrinal compromise, priming the mutual excommunications of 1054 where Cardinal Humbert explicitly condemned Eastern rejection of the clause as heretical. Thus, the Filioque evolved from a regional Western safeguard against Arianism into a symbol of irreconcilable differences in authority, tradition, and Trinitarian formulation, contributing causally to the schism's preconditions by highlighting the absence of shared mechanisms for resolving creedal disputes.

The Filioque in the East-West Schism and Beyond

Events of 1054 and Mutual Excommunications

In early 1054, amid escalating tensions over liturgical practices and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Pope Leo IX dispatched a legation led by Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida to Constantinople to negotiate with Patriarch Michael I Cerularius. The mission aimed to address grievances including the closure of Latin churches in the Byzantine capital, ordered by Cerularius in 1053 in retaliation for Norman suppression of Greek rites in southern Italy, as well as doctrinal differences such as the use of unleavened bread (azymes) in the Latin Eucharist. The Filioque clause emerged as one point of contention during these exchanges, with Western legates defending its inclusion in the Nicene Creed as a safeguard against Arianism, while Eastern clergy viewed the unilateral Western addition—without the approval of an ecumenical council—as a violation of the Council of Ephesus's (431) prohibition on altering the creed. Negotiations collapsed due to mutual intransigence; Cerularius declined to grant the legates a formal audience, dismissing their overtures as presumptuous, while Humbert perceived the patriarch's stance as defiant toward papal authority. On July 16, 1054, during the in the , Humbert dramatically deposited a of excommunication on the altar, anathematizing Cerularius and his for alleged errors including , rejection of , and—specifically—the "omission" of the Filioque from the creed, framing it as a departure from Trinitarian faith. This accusation inverted the historical sequence, as the Filioque had been interpolated into Western creedal recitations centuries earlier, prompting Eastern critiques of innovation rather than deletion; contemporaries noted the bull's charges as encompassing a of practices like and fasting on Saturdays, with the Filioque serving more as rhetorical reinforcement than the precipitating crisis. Cerularius convened a synod on July 20, 1054, which promptly excommunicated Humbert, the legate Frederick of Lorraine, and their associates, condemning the bull as invalid and its authors as heretics for imposing Latin customs and the Filioque without conciliar consensus. The exchanges highlighted deeper fissures over authority—the West's assertion of Roman supremacy versus the East's collegial model of pentarchy—but the Filioque symbolized irreconcilable approaches to doctrinal development, with the East insisting on unchanging tradition and the West on adaptive clarification. These acts did not immediately sever all communion, as local churches continued interrelations for centuries, but they crystallized the schism, later formalized as the enduring East-West divide.

Medieval Western Affirmations

The Filioque clause, affirming the procession of the from the Father and the Son as one principle, received explicit conciliar endorsement in the Western Church during the 13th century. The , convened by from November 11 to 30, 1215, incorporated the clause into its revised creed, declaring the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" to safeguard Trinitarian orthodoxy against heresies like those of , while emphasizing the of the divine persons. This affirmation built on prior liturgical use but marked a formal dogmatic integration, reflecting the clause's role in Western to underscore the Son's eternal equality with the Father without implying two sources of divinity. The Second Council of Lyons, held in 1274 under , further entrenched the Filioque by requiring its acceptance as a condition for ecclesial union with the Eastern Church, stating in its that the "proceeds eternally from the and from the , not as from two principles but as from one." This council's decree, ratified amid negotiations with Byzantine envoys, highlighted the Western view of the clause as essential to rejecting , though it failed to achieve lasting reconciliation. Medieval scholastic theologians provided rigorous philosophical defenses rooted in Augustine's legacy and patristic exegesis. Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109), in his treatise De Processione Spiritus Sancti, argued from Scripture (e.g., John 15:26, 16:14) and reason that the Spirit's procession involves the Son as co-principle, maintaining the Father's monarchy while ensuring intra-Trinitarian relations of origin without division. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), in Summa Theologica (I, q. 36), elaborated this by distinguishing the Father's paternity from the Son's filiation, positing the Spirit's eternal spiration from both as a single act of divine will, countering objections that it implied two fathers or temporal procession. Aquinas drew on biblical texts like Romans 8:9 and Galatians 4:6 to affirm the Spirit as the mutual love (bond of charity) between Father and Son, a view influential in Dominican and Franciscan schools despite Eastern critiques. These affirmations, disseminated through universities like Paris and Oxford, solidified the Filioque as a cornerstone of Latin Trinitarianism by the late Middle Ages.

Council of Florence and Failed Unions

The (1438–1445), formally transferred from to on January 10, 1439, addressed the Filioque amid broader efforts to reunite the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, prompted by Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaeologus's request for Western military assistance against the . Debates on the Filioque clause specifically occurred between March 4 and March 15, 1439, where Latin theologians, including figures like John of Torquemada and , defended the eternal procession of the from both the Father and the Son by citing patristic sources such as and , while Eastern delegates, led initially by of , contested it as an unauthorized addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that implied two sources within the Godhead. Under pressure from financial dependencies and the emperor's directives, the Greek delegation conceded, with key figures like signing agreements affirming the doctrine. The union's dogmatic core regarding the Filioque was enshrined in the Decretum pro Graecis, incorporated into Pope Eugene IV's bull Laetentur Caeli promulgated on July 6, 1439, which declared: "the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration." This decree, signed by the emperor, 16 Orthodox bishops (out of about 33 present), and other delegates, explicitly recognized the Western formulation's legitimacy while maintaining the Father's monarchy (primacy) in the Trinity, ostensibly reconciling differences by framing the Son's role as derivative from the Father. Patriarch Joseph II had died on June 10, 1439, before the signing, but his prior acquiescence was noted; the document also addressed purgatory, azymes (unleavened bread in the Eucharist), and papal primacy, tying Filioque acceptance to broader submission to Rome. Despite formal ratification, the union failed to take root in the East due to widespread rejection upon the delegates' return to Constantinople in late 1439 and 1440. Emperor John VIII attempted enforcement through imperial decree, but faced vehement opposition from clergy and laity, spearheaded by Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus, the sole prominent bishop who refused to sign and publicly denounced the Filioque as heretical innovation violating the Third Ecumenical Council's (381) prohibition on creed alterations. Anti-Latin riots and synodal condemnations ensued; by 1443, a local council in Constantinople repudiated the agreements, citing coerced concessions, doctrinal incompatibility (e.g., the Filioque's perceived subordination of the Spirit), and unfulfilled Western aid promises amid ongoing Ottoman advances. The union's collapse was exacerbated by the 1453 fall of Constantinople, after which Patriarch Gennadios II Scholarios, formerly anti-unionist, formalized Orthodox rejection, viewing Florence as a capitulation driven by desperation rather than theological conviction. Subsequent union attempts, such as the 1442 Decretum pro Jacobitis for Syrian (affirming Filioque procession alongside other doctrines like ), similarly faltered, with Eastern acceptances proving ephemeral due to grassroots resistance and geopolitical failures—e.g., no substantial relief materialized, reinforcing perceptions of pragmatic betrayal over sincere reconciliation. These "failed unions" underscored the Filioque's role not merely as a verbal dispute but as emblematic of irreconcilable ecclesial authorities and Trinitarian causal frameworks, where Western emphasis on intra-Trinitarian relations clashed with Eastern stress on the Father's unipersonal origin.

Doctrinal Stances of Christian Communions

Roman Catholic Position and Rationale

The Roman Catholic Church doctrinally maintains that the proceeds eternally from the Father and from the Son (filioque), as from a single principle and by a single spiration, thereby expressing the perfect unity and consubstantial communion within the . This position, confessed in the Latin version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed since the sixth century in the West, was dogmatically defined at the (1438–1445), which decreed: "The ... has his nature and his subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration... [The Father] has, through generation, given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father; the Son also therefore has eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that from him the proceeds." The rationale for this teaching rests on safeguarding the full divinity and equality of the Son with the Father, countering potential subordinationist interpretations that might diminish the Son's role in the Godhead. By affirming the filioque, the Church emphasizes that the Spirit's reflects the relational bond of love between Father and Son, with the Son actively involved in the Spirit's eternal origin without implying two sources or a in the divine essence. This formulation draws from Western patristic tradition, particularly St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who in De Trinitate described the as the mutual love (caritas) proceeding from Father and Son, stating: "The is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, not such that he is not also the Spirit of the Father alone or of the Son alone, but he is the Spirit of both." Other Latin Fathers, such as St. (c. 310–367) and St. (c. 340–397), similarly articulated the Son's involvement in the Spirit's to refute , which subordinated the Son by limiting his divine agency. Scripturally, the doctrine is grounded in passages depicting the Son's active role in the Spirit's mission, interpreted as reflecting eternal relations: Jesus promises to send the Spirit from the (John 15:26), who proceeds from the Father but is the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6; Romans 8:9), and whom the Son breathes upon the apostles (John 20:22), symbolizing divine authority. The Church holds that this eternal procession does not contradict the Father's (sole ultimate source) but explicates it through the Son, as the Father communicates all divine attributes to the Son except paternity. Historically, the clause's liturgical insertion in the , approved by local councils like (589) and endorsed by (d. 816) doctrinally while deferring on recitation, served to combat recurring Arian tendencies in Visigothic and Carolingian realms, ensuring Trinitarian without altering the Creed's original meaning. The maintains that the filioque is a legitimate development of , compatible with Eastern expressions when properly understood, as clarified in modern documents like the 1995 Vatican clarification to the Eastern Churches.

Eastern Orthodox Rejection and Arguments

The rejects the Filioque clause as a theological innovation that alters the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan of 381, which specifies the Spirit's "from the " without reference to the . This rejection stems from adherence to the creed as affirmed by the ecumenical councils, viewing the Western addition—first appearing in around 589 to counter —as an unauthorized modification prohibited by of the Council of Ephesus (431), which forbids alterations to the creed. Photius I of Constantinople, in his Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit (c. 867–870), provided the foundational Orthodox critique, arguing that the Filioque introduces two principles or causes within the Godhead, thereby eroding the monarchia of the Father as the sole unoriginate source (arche anarche) from whom the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit eternally proceeds. Photius contended that this duality compromises the unity of the divine essence and confuses the hypostatic distinctions, making the Spirit's origin dependent on the Son and risking subordinationism or a quasi-dyadic structure alien to patristic Trinitarianism. He drew on scriptural exegesis of John 15:26, interpreting "proceeds from the Father" as denoting the Spirit's eternal ekporeusis (procession) exclusively from the Father, distinct from the economic sending through the Son in the Incarnation. Subsequent Orthodox theologians, such as the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa), reinforced this by emphasizing the Father's unique causality: the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession serve to distinguish the persons without implying co-causality. Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) and later figures like Vladimir Lossky echoed Photius, asserting that the Filioque blurs the taxis (order) of the Trinity, potentially implying the Spirit as a "bond" between Father and Son rather than a co-equal person with procession as its proper hypostatic character. This view prioritizes the Greek patristic tradition over Latin developments like Augustine's mutual indwelling (perichoresis), which Orthodox see as compatible only if subordinated to the Father's monarchy. Ecclesiologically, the rejection underscores the need for conciliar consensus; Eastern councils, such as that of 879–880 under , explicitly anathematized the addition, affirming the creed's integrity and warning against innovations that could fracture the Church's unity. Orthodox doctrine thus maintains that true Trinitarian faith requires preserving the Father's sole principality to safeguard against Arian-like subordination or Sabellian confusion, even as the West defends the clause against perceived Spirit-neglect.

Oriental Orthodox Perspectives

The , including the , Apostolic, , Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox traditions, uniformly reject the Filioque clause as an unauthorized addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan promulgated in 381 AD. These churches adhere strictly to the original creed's formulation that the "proceeds from the ," viewing the Western insertion of "and the " as a post-conciliar that lacks ecumenical consensus and risks theological distortion. This rejection stems from fidelity to the patristic witness and scriptural exegesis, particularly John 15:26, which specifies the Spirit's procession "from the Father" without reference to the Son as a co-principle of origin. Oriental Orthodox theologians argue that the Filioque disrupts the monarchy of the Father as the sole unoriginate source within the Trinity, potentially implying two origins for the Spirit and subordinating the third Person to a derivative role from both Father and Son. For instance, in the Armenian tradition, Saint Gregory of Tatev (14th century) explicitly critiqued emanation from both Father and Son as incompatible with the Cappadocian Fathers' emphasis on the Father's unique causality. Similarly, Coptic sources emphasize that the clause alters the creed's pneumatological balance, echoing early Eastern concerns without introducing novel Miaphysite-specific interpretations. In ecumenical contexts, such as the 2017 Agreed Statement between Anglican and Oriental Orthodox representatives, the churches affirmed the Filioque's erroneous nature for introducing and violating the 's Trinitarian taxis (order). Syriac Orthodox perspectives align, reciting the sans Filioque in and , prioritizing the 381 formulation as inviolable. This stance persists without significant internal variation, as the Filioque debate postdated the 451 Chalcedonian schism and thus did not factor into Oriental Orthodox self-definition, though it reinforces their broader commitment to conciliar against unilateral creedal amendments.

Assyrian Church of the East Views

The adheres to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as affirmed in its original form from the in 381, stating that the "proceeds from the Father" without the later Western addition of filioque ("and the Son"). This creed was formally adopted by the church at the of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410, predating the filioque's introduction in at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. The church's liturgical texts and doctrinal statements consistently recite the procession as from the Father alone, emphasizing the Father's monarchy as the sole unoriginate source within the . This position reflects the church's East Syrian theological tradition, which maintains continuity with pre-Chalcedonian patristic sources like those of and Narsai, who describe the 's eternal origin from the Father while acknowledging the Son's role in the temporal mission of the without implying a double eternal procession. Unlike the Roman Catholic affirmation of filioque as clarifying the 's consubstantiality with Father and Son, the view prioritizes the 's original wording to avoid any perceived risk of subordinating the or blurring the distinct hypostatic properties of the divine persons. The church has not engaged extensively in modern filioque polemics, given its historical separation from both and Byzantine communions, but its adherence to the unaltered underscores a commitment to conciliar fidelity over unilateral modifications.

Protestant Traditions and Variations

Most Protestant denominations, emerging from the Western Christian tradition during the Reformation, have historically affirmed the Filioque clause as part of the Nicene Creed, viewing it as a biblically grounded safeguard for the eternal relations within the Trinity and the Son's role in the Spirit's procession. This acceptance stems from the Reformers' retention of patristic and medieval Western theology, including Augustine's emphasis on the Spirit as the bond of love between Father and Son, without subordinating the Father as the sole principle. Confessional documents like the Augsburg Confession (1530) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) implicitly endorse double procession by upholding the Western Creed's formulation. Lutheran theology maintains the Filioque doctrinally, with defending it against Eastern critiques as consistent with Scripture (e.g., John 15:26 and 16:7) and essential to avoid implying the Spirit's independence from the Son. The Lutheran Confessions affirm the Spirit's procession ex patre filioque, rejecting any notion of two ultimate sources in the while emphasizing the Father's through eternal generation of the Son. Recent ecumenical dialogues, such as the 2024 Lutheran World Federation-Orthodox joint statement, acknowledge compatibility in substance but permit omission of the clause in joint recitations to foster unity, without altering confessional commitment. Reformed traditions, including Presbyterian and Calvinist bodies, robustly endorse the Filioque as integral to Trinitarian orthodoxy, with John Calvin arguing in his Institutes (1536) that the Spirit proceeds from both as from one principle, preserving divine unity and countering Arian-like subordinationism. The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) and Belgic Confession (1561) reflect this by reciting the creed with the clause, grounding it in texts like Galatians 4:6 where the Spirit is sent by the Son. While some contemporary Reformed voices debate its creedal necessity for ecumenism, the clause remains a pastoral tool for emphasizing the Spirit's Christocentric mission in sanctification and worship. Anglican positions show variation, with the (1571) affirming Western Trinitarianism compatible with Filioque, though the of 1978 recommended its omission from the in favor of the original 381 text to advance dialogue, prioritizing over doctrinal addition. The adopted this resolution in 1994 for ecumenical settings, yet many Anglican provinces, including the , retain the clause in and to uphold the Son's eternal involvement in spiration. This flexibility reflects Anglican , balancing Western heritage with , though critics argue omission risks diluting scriptural emphasis on the Spirit's procession through the Son (John 20:22). Non-creedal Protestant groups, such as Baptists and many evangelicals, place less emphasis on the Nicene Creed itself but affirm the underlying doctrine through sola scriptura, interpreting passages like Romans 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11 to support the Spirit's intimate relation to both Father and Son without implying temporal sequence. These traditions view Filioque controversies as secondary to personal faith, yet confessional subsets (e.g., Reformed Baptists) explicitly include it in statements of faith to guard against modalism or unitarian tendencies. Overall, Protestant variations prioritize biblical exegesis over historical insertion debates, with ecumenical omissions rare outside formal dialogues.

Modern Reexaminations and Ecumenism

Linguistic and Philosophical Clarifications

In modern , linguistic clarifications have emphasized the distinction between the Greek term ekporeusis (ἐκπόρευσις), denoting the hypostatic or principal procession of the from the alone as the sole , and the broader Latin term processio, which encompasses both the eternal intra-Trinitarian relations and the economic manifestation of the Spirit in the world through the . This nuance, articulated in the 1995 clarification by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, holds that the Latin Filioque does not imply a double procession from two co-equal principles but expresses the Son's consubstantial participation in the Father's unique ekporeusis of the Spirit, aligning with patristic witnesses like who interpreted Western usage as preserving the Father's monarchy. Philosophically, these discussions reject any subordinationist of the Filioque that would diminish the Father's , instead framing the as safeguarding the full and relational unity of the against Arian tendencies by affirming the Spirit's eternal reception from the as well, without positing the Son as a causal source equivalent to the . The 2003 Agreed Statement of the North American -Catholic Theological Consultation further posits that, when understood as referring to the Spirit's procession from the Father through the in the Latin sense—distinct from hypostatic —the Filioque need not divide churches, as both traditions affirm the Father's primacy and the perichoretic communion of the persons. However, participants in such dialogues have qualified acceptance, insisting that any reformulation must prioritize the Cappadocian emphasis on the Father's unipersonal causality to avoid implying dyarchy in the .

20th-Century Theological Dialogues

In the wake of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), which emphasized , Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogues intensified, addressing longstanding issues including the Filioque clause. These efforts sought to clarify whether doctrinal differences were irreconcilable or stemmed from linguistic, cultural, and historical misunderstandings. A pivotal early 20th-century development occurred in 1979 with the Klingenthal Memorandum, produced by Catholic and theologians. This document argued that the Filioque, when properly interpreted, aligns with Eastern patristic teaching on the Holy Spirit's procession "through the Son," without implying a dual procession that undermines the Father's unique role as source (). It emphasized that Western formulations aimed to safeguard the Son's equality with the Father against , rather than to innovate theologically, though it critiqued the unilateral addition to the Creed without Eastern consent. The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, established in 1965, turned its attention to the Filioque in 1999, building on prior ecumenical frameworks like the 1979 Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue. Discussions from 1999 to 2000 highlighted convergences: both traditions affirm the Father's primacy in the and the Spirit's eternal relation to the Son, interpreting "proceeds" (ekporeusis) in the as distinct from the Spirit's manifestation or sending (pempsis) in time. Orthodox participants maintained that the Filioque risks blurring hypostatic distinctions if taken literally as eternal procession from two principles, while Catholics clarified it as an economic expression of intra-Trinitarian communion. These dialogues underscored procedural concerns over substance: the Western insertion of the Filioque into the 381 without an violated canonical norms, exacerbating divisions despite underlying theological compatibility. Participants recommended reciting the original in bilingual settings to foster unity and urged re-examination of mutual anathemas from councils like Lyons II (1274). Such efforts reflected a shift from polemics to mutual comprehension, though full resolution remained elusive due to entrenched liturgical practices.

Recent Ecumenical Statements and Shifts

In 2003, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation issued an agreed statement titled "The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?" on October 25, unanimously concluding that the clause, when properly understood through historical and theological clarifications, does not constitute an insurmountable doctrinal barrier to unity between the two traditions. The statement recommended that Roman Catholics omit the Filioque from recitations of the Nicene Creed in ecumenical settings or when celebrating with Eastern Christians, while affirming its legitimacy as a Western theological expression of the same Trinitarian faith held by the Orthodox; it further urged Orthodox to recognize this Western usage without requiring its adoption in the East. This marked a significant ecumenical shift toward viewing the Filioque as a matter of complementary linguistic and cultural formulations rather than essential disagreement on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Subsequent practices reflected these recommendations, with Popes Benedict XVI and Francis omitting the Filioque during joint liturgical recitations with Orthodox leaders, such as Benedict's 2008 Creed with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and similar instances under Francis to foster mutual understanding without altering official Catholic dogma. These gestures, however, have not prompted doctrinal changes; the Catholic Church maintains the Filioque as defined at the Council of Florence (1439), while Orthodox jurisdictions continue to reject its insertion into the Creed as unilateral and potentially disruptive to the Father's monarchy in the Trinity. In 2024, the and representatives of the released a joint statement on the Filioque following their Joint Commission's plenary session in , , in May, affirming shared belief in the Holy Spirit's full and while attributing historical differences to anti-Arian emphases versus Eastern concerns over the Father's unique . The document proposed renewed adherence to the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan (without Filioque) in joint worship to promote healing, building on over four decades of and anticipating the 1700th anniversary of the in 2025, though it stopped short of resolving confessional variances in creed usage. Broader Catholic-Orthodox dialogues through the Joint International Commission have since prioritized issues like primacy and over the Filioque, with no equivalent binding agreements post-2003, indicating persistent tensions despite ecumenical overtures; reiterated in October 2024 a hope for "reconciled differences" on such matters, emphasizing love over doctrinal uniformity as a path forward. These developments reflect a trend of through clarification but underscore that official positions remain unchanged, with the Filioque continuing to symbolize deeper ecclesiological divides.

Persistent Controversies and Truth Claims

Theological Subordinationism Risks Without Filioque

Western theologians contend that the absence of the Filioque clause in formulations of the procession of the Holy Spirit risks reviving subordinationist tendencies akin to Arianism, by potentially diminishing the Son's co-equality with the Father in the divine economy. Historically, the clause was incorporated into the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD, convened by Visigothic King Reccared I following his conversion from Arianism, to explicitly affirm the Son's full divinity and consubstantiality with the Father against lingering Arian views that portrayed the Son as a created or inferior being. The council's canon emphasized the Spirit's procession "from the Father and the Son" to preclude any interpretation isolating the Father as the sole unoriginate principle, which could imply the Son's derivation solely through generation without participatory causality in the Spirit's eternal origin. Theologically, proponents argue that without the Filioque, the Creed's silence on the Son's role in spiration might foster a monopatrism overly centered on the Father, inadvertently echoing Arian subordinationism by excluding the Son from the relational dynamics of intra-Trinitarian procession. This exclusion, they claim, undermines scriptural attestations of the Spirit being sent by the Son (e.g., John 15:26; 16:7), interpreted as reflecting eternal procession, and risks portraying the Son as lacking sovereign agency in the Godhead's unity. Catholic theologian Yves Congar, in his analysis of patristic pneumatology, affirmed that the Western Filioque served as a valid anti-Arian bulwark, compatible with Eastern criteria for upholding Trinitarian equality, as it reinforces the Son's consubstantial participation without altering the Father's monarchy. Critics from Eastern traditions counter that consubstantiality (homoousios) alone suffices to preclude subordination, rendering the Filioque unnecessary and potentially dualistic. However, Western defenders maintain the risk persists in speculative theology, where an unqualified "from the Father alone" could be misconstrued to limit the Son's eternal relation to the Spirit, thus inviting subordinationist reductions of the Son to a secondary cause rather than co-principle per filium. This concern animated early medieval Western councils, such as Toledo, where Arian influences necessitated explicit creedal safeguards to ensure doctrinal clarity amid evangelization efforts. Empirical historical data from post-Toledo Spain shows the clause's role in consolidating Nicene orthodoxy, with Arian holdouts diminishing rapidly after 589, suggesting its efficacy in countering subordinationist errors in practice.

Charges of Unilateralism and Ecclesiastical Authority

The has long charged that the Filioque's insertion into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed represented a unilateral alteration by Western ecclesiastical bodies, undertaken without consultation from the Eastern patriarchates or ratification by an . The clause first appeared in the West at the Third Council of in 589, a regional addressing among Visigothic converts in , where it was appended to affirm the Son's equality with the Father but without broader ecclesial endorsement. This local initiative spread northward through Frankish kingdoms, culminating in promotion at the Council of Aachen in 809 under , yet even then lacked universal acceptance. Pope (r. 795–816), despite personal sympathy for the theological intent, explicitly rejected incorporating the Filioque into the Roman liturgy to preserve , ordering the original —without the clause—engraved on silver tablets and displayed at the entrance of Saint Peter's Basilica around 810. Rome's formal adoption occurred later, in 1014 during the pontificate of Benedict VIII at the behest of Emperor Henry II, marking a capitulation to Western political pressures. Orthodox critics emphasize that Canon VII of the Third at (431) explicitly forbade any additions or subtractions to the , a prohibition reiterated by the Eighth (Constantinople, 879–880), rendering the Western action canonically invalid absent collective patriarchal and conciliar approval. These developments fueled accusations of overreach in ecclesiastical authority, as the West's persistence implied a unique jurisdiction to unilaterally revise a binding on the undivided , presupposing over doctrinal formulation. In the conciliar model, authority resides in the synodal of bishops, with primacy of honor for but no veto or amendatory power exceeding ecumenical councils; the Filioque's imposition, by contrast, exemplified a shift toward centralized papal , alien to Eastern tradition. Patriarch Photius I of (858–867, 877–886) articulated this critique sharply in his 867 to Eastern patriarchs, condemning the Filioque not only theologically but as an illicit innovation symptomatic of pretensions to dictate to the oikoumene, exacerbating tensions that presaged the . Subsequent Orthodox synods, such as that of in 879–880 under Photius's successor, reaffirmed the unaltered Creed and anathematized additions, underscoring the schism's roots in divergent governance paradigms rather than mere linguistic variance.

Empirical Assessment of Historical Claims

The , as issued by the in 381, explicitly states that the "proceeds from the Father," with no reference to procession from the Son, a formulation preserved in all known early manuscripts of the from both Eastern and Western traditions. Manuscript evidence confirms the absence of the Filioque clause in the creed's text at the Third Council of in 589, where it is traditionally claimed to have first appeared; instead, the clause's insertion into the is empirically traceable to the Eighth Council of in 653. This local addition in Visigothic aimed to counter by emphasizing the Son's equality with the Father in the Godhead, reflecting Western theological concerns absent in the original ecumenical . Patristic evidence for the Filioque's theology is robust among Western fathers, particularly , who in De Trinitate (composed circa 400–416) articulates the Spirit's procession from both Father and Son as a single principle, influencing subsequent Latin tradition. In contrast, Eastern fathers uniformly describe the Spirit's ekporeusis (eternal procession) as from the Father alone, often distinguishing it from the temporal mission or sending through the Son, as seen in texts by and . Claims of Eastern patristic support for eternal procession "from the Son" rely on interpretive readings of phrases like "through the Son," but no pre-seventh-century Eastern author employs the Filioque's precise formulation, indicating a lack of consensus across the undivided Church. The earliest documented East-West dispute over the clause occurs in the Confessor's Letter to Marinus (circa 645–655), where he defends the Latin practice as when understood to mean from the through the in the economy of salvation, not implying two sources or altering the 's . This qualification underscores that early Western usage, while theologically motivated against , diverged from Eastern precision on eternal origins, with no evidence of ecumenical ratification. The clause's gradual adoption in —only in 1014 under Emperor —further verifies its non-universal status in the early medieval West, contradicting claims of ancient, Church-wide acceptance. Empirical analysis of council records and liturgical manuscripts reveals the Filioque's emergence as a regional innovation, not a restoration of patristic unanimity, as its proponents sometimes assert; Eastern objections, formalized by Photius of in 867, rested on verifiable prohibitions against altering the without consensus, as decreed at in 451. While sources like the (Quicunque Vult, circa 500) prefigure the theology, this symbol was never ecumenically binding and lacks the Nicene Creed's authority, limiting its evidential weight for universal tradition. Thus, historical claims of the Filioque as an organic faithful to the fathers hold partial validity in contexts but falter under of undivided patristic and conciliar , highlighting causal tensions between anti-heretical expediency and creedal .

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement - usccb
    Oct 25, 2003 · The Filioque is the addition to the Nicene Creed, "and from the Son," which is a cause of division between Orthodox and Catholic churches.
  2. [2]
    '. . . and the Son': Basics of the 'Filioque' - Word on Fire
    Mar 20, 2025 · Filioque is a Latin construct, basically equivalent to et Filio, meaning “and the Son.” This version of the creed says that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the ...<|separator|>
  3. [3]
    The Filioque: a Church-Dividing Issue? An Agreed statement of the ...
    No clear record exists of the process by which the word Filioque was inserted into the Creed of 381 in the Christian West before the sixth century. The idea ...
  4. [4]
    The Filioque Clause - Orthodox Church in America
    Jul 11, 2012 · The Filioque clause, meaning 'from the Son', is added to the Creed in the West, stating the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, which ...
  5. [5]
    The Great Schism of 1054 by Stephen Nichols - Ligonier Ministries
    The Great Schism of 1054 was a split between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, caused by the "filioque" phrase and disagreements over the Nicene Creed.Missing: controversy | Show results with:controversy
  6. [6]
    the interpretation of the filioque clause by orthodox ecclesiology and ...
    Jan 17, 2018 · In this paper, we are going to examine the filioque clause from an Orthodox perspective and explain why the Orthodox Church does not accept the term filioque ...
  7. [7]
    The Nicene – Constantinopolitan Creed
    Apr 8, 2025 · The Nicene Creed simply states that the Church believes 'in the Holy Spirit', the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed contains the fuller statement 'and in the ...
  8. [8]
    CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Filioque - New Advent
    Filioque is a theological formula expressing the Holy Ghost's procession from both Father and Son, and was the cause of the Greek schism.
  9. [9]
    Explaining the Trinity | Catholic Answers Magazine
    Jun 20, 2014 · Thus, the Holy Spirit's procession is not intellectual and generative, but has its origin in God's will and in the ultimate act of the will, ...
  10. [10]
    What is the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit? | GotQuestions.org
    May 16, 2025 · The eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is a biblical teaching that explains the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other Persons of the Trinity.
  11. [11]
    Question 36. The person of the Holy Ghost - New Advent
    Therefore if the Holy Ghost is from the Father through the Son, it follows that the Son is first generated and afterwards the Holy Ghost proceeds; and thus the ...
  12. [12]
    What the Early Church Believed: Filioque | Catholic Answers Tract
    The Western Church commonly uses a version of the Nicene creed which has the Latin word filioque (“and the Son”) added after the declaration that the Holy ...
  13. [13]
    Filioque - OrthodoxWiki
    Filioque is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century.
  14. [14]
    [PDF] The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine
    Whether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit has been the sole dogmatic grounds for the separation of East and West.
  15. [15]
    The Filioque Dispute | Eclectic Orthodoxy - WordPress.com
    Aug 19, 2023 · The point of the creedal language of divine generation is to insist that the Son and Spirit are eternally distinct from the Father and from each other.
  16. [16]
    The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions
    In the same way, if in the Trinitarian order the Holy Spirit is consecutive to the relation between the Father and the Son, since he takes his origin from the ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] by Robert Letham Introduction The filioque clause
    Thus the Western view, in Eastern eyes, compromises the monarchy of the Father. The Greek fathers held that the Holy. Spirit is the treasure and the Son is the ...
  18. [18]
    Father, Son, and Controversy - Desiring God
    Mar 23, 2020 · In 1054, a theological controversy erupted that left the Christian world divided in two. And it focused on a single Latin word: filioque.
  19. [19]
    John 15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from ...
    But when the Advocate has arrived, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will offer testimony about me.
  20. [20]
    What Is the Procession of the Holy Spirit? - Ligonier Ministries
    Dec 17, 2024 · The Nicene Creed. This creed originates from the Council of Constantinople (381), which resolved a crisis over the doctrine of the Trinity.
  21. [21]
    St. Augustine of Hippo – Procession of the Holy Spirit ... - Erick Ybarra
    Jul 7, 2018 · “The procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. Whether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy ...
  22. [22]
    Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit
    Jn 15:26), it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, ...
  23. [23]
    CHURCH FATHERS: De Spiritu Sancto (Basil) - New Advent
    It is called Spirit of God, Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, John 15:26 right Spirit, a leading Spirit. Its proper and peculiar title is Holy ...
  24. [24]
    Gregory of Nazianzus - Credo Magazine
    Jun 22, 2020 · Building on the difference between the Son and the Spirit, Gregory uses the word “procession,” which is found in the Greek text of John 15:26.
  25. [25]
    CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 77 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)
    John 15:26-27 ; He shall be worthy of belief, for He is the Spirit of Truth. On this account He called It not ; Holy Spirit, but ; Spirit of Truth. But the, ...Missing: procession | Show results with:procession
  26. [26]
    CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book VIII (Hilary of Poitiers)
    It only remains to make sure of our conviction on the point, whether we are to believe an egress of a co-existent Being, or a procession of a Being begotten.
  27. [27]
    St. Maximos the Confessor and the Filioque Doctrine Part I
    Dec 3, 2006 · So far, we have set the stage with a key text that will allow me to see exactly how Maximos understood the filioque (in St. Martin's day) of the ...
  28. [28]
    CHURCH FATHERS: Fifth Theological Oration (Oration 31) (Gregory ...
    The Fifth Theological Oration. On the Holy Spirit. I. Such then is the account of the Son, and in this manner He has escaped those who would stone Him.
  29. [29]
    St. Maximos the Confessor on the Filioque - Eastern Catholic
    Mar 18, 2010 · This quotation from St. Maximos is the earliest patristic evidence of a Greek-Latin dispute over Latin teaching concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.
  30. [30]
    Maximus the Confessor | The Filioque - Oxford Academic
    The first reference we have to a theological debate concerning the filioque is found in Maximus the Confessor's Letter to Marinus, written in the mid-seventh ...
  31. [31]
    An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book I) - New Advent
    The Holy Spirit is one Spirit, going forth from the Father, not in the manner of Sonship but of procession; so that neither has the Father lost His property of ...
  32. [32]
    CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian) - New Advent
    In all other respects the Father did not forsake the Son, for it was into His Father's hands that the Son commended His spirit. Luke 23:46 Indeed, after so ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Hilary of Poitiers' View of the Holy Spirit - Church Society
    '8 Hilary earlier established a link between the idea of procession from the Father in relation to both the Spirit and the Son in. 6.35 and 12.41, which may ...
  34. [34]
    Augustine, the Trinity, and the Filioque-Yves Congar
    Jan 28, 2016 · Augustine notes that 'Spirit' (holy Spirit) can be applied either to the Father or to the Son or can point to the third Person. He has this to ...
  35. [35]
    The Filioque in the Eastern Fathers - Padre Peregrino
    Feb 7, 2024 · This means there's Scriptural and Patristic proof that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, even if certain Christians insist ...
  36. [36]
    Filioque | Catholic Answers Magazine
    In order to understand the filioque controversy, we have to go back to the early fourth century. A priest named Arius argued that Jesus wasn't equal to God ...
  37. [37]
    Should the Nicene Creed Drop One Clause? (The Filioque Debate)
    May 4, 2023 · Arianism taught that the Son was inferior to the Father, and it used the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father as an example of how he ...<|separator|>
  38. [38]
    THE FILIOQUE-AN HISTORICAL JOURNEY WITH A SEEMINGLY ...
    12 The first insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is said to have come about at the local council at Toledo (Spain) in 589.39 ...
  39. [39]
    Christianity 101 The Theology of the Ancient Creeds Part 6
    The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor is the Spirit ...
  40. [40]
    The Further Development of the Nicene Creed
    To counter Arianism in the Visigothic kingdom, the orthodox clerics at the Third Council of Toledo (589) added the word filioque (“and the Son”) to the Creed's ...
  41. [41]
    The Filioque from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century
    Hadrian's own letter to the bishops of Spain professed the filioque (Spiritum Sanctum … ... Felix Heinzer and Christoph Schönborn, eds., Maximus Confessor, 343–64 ...
  42. [42]
    Western Latin Liturgics | Carolingian Reforms
    ... filioque" clause. In response to disputes of heretical groups concerning the nature of the Trinity, the phrase concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit ...
  43. [43]
    The Filioque: a very basic introduction - De unione ecclesiarum
    The actual insertion of the word Filioque into the text of the Creed of Constantinople almost certainly occurred in Spain, sometime between the Third and the ...
  44. [44]
    Summary of the Filioque Controversy - Erick Ybarra - WordPress.com
    Nov 20, 2021 · * The Greeks had 2 primary arguments against the Filioque. First, that it abrogated the Monarchy of the Fathers, and second, that it forced all ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  45. [45]
    The Age of Photius (843–886) - Oxford Academic
    Photius's second patriarchate (877–886): the council of 879–880: the alleged second Photian schism. It appeared to have been understood that when Ignatius died ...Missing: 9th | Show results with:9th
  46. [46]
    https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789004393585/BP000003.pdf
  47. [47]
    The great divorce | Christian History Magazine
    The addition spread to France and Germany, where it was welcomed by Charlemagne and adopted at the Council of Frankfurt (794). Rome did not use the filioque ...Geo-Political Realities · Open Conflict · Missionary Politics
  48. [48]
    [PDF] 1 Trinity, Filioque and Semantic Ascent Christians believe that the ...
    Later in the century, it became the theological bone of contention in the Photian Schism, the fallout of a dispute between Patriarch Photios of ...Missing: articles | Show results with:articles
  49. [49]
    [PDF] THE STATIONS OF THE FILIOQUE
    Aug 20, 2023 · the ninth century that bound fast the filioque to Romes peculiar definition of papal primacy and precipitated the Photian Schism. Yet even ...Missing: 9th details
  50. [50]
    Council of Constantinople - 867 (Against Filioque)
    The Council condemns and deposes Pope Nicholas of Rome on the charges of introducing the heretical filioque clause in the creed, as used by the Pope's ...
  51. [51]
    (PDF) The Filioque: Answering the Eastern Orthodox - Academia.edu
    The Filioque controversy stands as the pivotal theological dispute that ignited the schism between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
  52. [52]
    CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Photius of Constantinople - New Advent
    He revoked the acts of the former synod (869), repeated all his accusations against the Latins, dwelling especially on the filioque grievance, anathematized all ...
  53. [53]
    (PDF) Photius and the Councils (AD 859-880) - Academia.edu
    The Filioque controversy, while pivotal, was not a central topic during the 879 council discussions. The political context heavily influenced ecclesiastical ...
  54. [54]
    Patriarch Photius and Pope Nicholas I and the Council of 879
    In this atmosphere, the criticisms that Photios had made about the insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed were taken as a clear example of the errors ...
  55. [55]
    The 8th Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (879/880) and the ...
    The Eighth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (879/880) condemn the Filioque addition to the Ecumenical Creed as canonically unacceptable and theologically ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] The-Synod-of-Constantinople-879-880-The-Oecumenical-Synods-of ...
    The Synod of. 879–880 also implicitly condemned the Filioque by publishing the full original text of the Symbol of Faith, the Nicæno-Con- stantinopolitan Creed, ...
  57. [57]
    A Church Divided: The East-West Schism of 1054 - 1517
    Jul 16, 2024 · ... Filioque issue, a matter critical to Frankish Christians, generally accepted within the West and wholly rejected in the East. The Filioque ...
  58. [58]
    1054 The East-West Schism | Christian History Magazine
    The East-West Schism was a division between Latin and Greek churches, not caused by 1054, but by different views of church authority and the way each church ...
  59. [59]
    The Orthodox Faith - Volume III - Eleventh Century - The Great Schism
    ... filioque, finally used this addition to the Creed in public worship for the first time—at the coronation of Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor. Ironically ...
  60. [60]
    Milton V. Anastos - 19. The Normans and the schism of 1054
    ... Humbert decided to excommunicate him. In his bull of excommunication,(196) he not only cited the alleged omission of Filioque as one of his grievances ...
  61. [61]
    Is the Filioque a Church-Dividing Issue? - Crossroads Initiative
    ... mutual excommunication of the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. ... The Filioque figured prominently in the tumultuous events of 1054 ...
  62. [62]
    The Papal Bull of Excommunication in 1054 - Classical Christianity
    Jul 3, 2014 · The Papal Bull of Excommunication in 1054 ... Humbert, cardinal bishop of the holy Roman Church by the grace of God; Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi; ...Missing: Filioque | Show results with:Filioque
  63. [63]
    The Schism of 1054 (Chapter 7)
    Feb 28, 2025 · The council's decree that orthodoxy required belief in the filioque meant that the Eastern Church was in heresy. Charlemagne sent three ...Missing: 9th | Show results with:9th
  64. [64]
    Great Schism of 1054: Why the Church Split East and West
    May 28, 2025 · The Great Schism resulted from growing tension, political divides, language barriers, and the filioque controversy, with the immediate cause ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] The Filioque: What Is at Stake? - Concordia Theological Seminary
    Jan 2, 2025 · But the popes also defended the orthodoxy of the double procession against some Eastern objections. Although precise information is lacking, ...
  66. [66]
    The Orthodox Faith - Volume III - The Second Council of Lyons
    It was at this council that for the first time the Western Church proclaimed that the filioque must be accepted as dogma. The Union agreement that restored ...
  67. [67]
    [PDF] The Filioque Clause in the Teaching of Anselm of Canterbury — Part 2
    Anselm's filioque doctrine underscores the principle that God remains true to himself, that God is indeed in his own being what he reveals himself to be, The ...
  68. [68]
    Note on the Filioque Clause: St. Thomas Aquinas on the Procession ...
    Jun 12, 2013 · Since the ACNA is dickering with the Creed re the “filioque” clause, it's informative to look at Thomas Aquinas' analysis of the problem.
  69. [69]
    Defending the Filioque | Catholic Answers Magazine
    Filioque is Latin for “and the Son” and refers to the part of the Nicene Creed wherein Christians declare the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son ...
  70. [70]
    Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431-49 AD - Papal Encyclicals
    The council was transferred to Florence on 10 January 1439. There, in the session on 6 July 1439, the decree of union with the Greek church was approved.
  71. [71]
    CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council of Florence - New Advent
    Generally, however, it is ranked as an ecumenical council until the decree of dissolution in 1437. After its transfer to Ferrara, the first session of the ...Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
  72. [72]
    Denzinger - English translation, older numbering - patristica.net
    Decree for the Greeks * [From the Bull "Laetentur coeli," July 6, 1439] 691 [The procession of the Holy Spirit] In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the ...Missing: Caeli | Show results with:Caeli
  73. [73]
    St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence
    [7] The Pope demanded that St. Mark be deprived of his rank then and there for his refusal to sign the Act of Union. But Emperor John did not allow him to be ...<|separator|>
  74. [74]
    The Council of Florence (1438-1439) and the Problem of Union ...
    Why was the filioque such a formidable obstacle to union? What did the ... order to discuss the final act of union at the Council of Florence. Urged on ...
  75. [75]
    How Did Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem Respond to the Council ...
    Nov 7, 2024 · Most Orthodox accounts, at least in English, of why the Union of Florence was rejected center on St Mark of Ephesus' singular stand against the council.
  76. [76]
    COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438-1445: A Decree in Behalf of the ...
    COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438-1445. Ecumenical XVII (Union with the Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites). A Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites *.Missing: Decretum pro Filioque
  77. [77]
    ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445) | EWTN
    This holy synod decrees, wishes, ordains and declares that the future ecumenical council ought to be held at the due and agreed time in the city of Basel.
  78. [78]
    The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit - S I L O U A N
    Jun 21, 2019 · Saint Photios leads the reader through the Church's teaching on the Person of the Holy Spirit, and demonstrates how the Filioque does ...
  79. [79]
    A Theological Introduction to the Mystagogy of Saint Photios
    Sep 9, 2009 · When the Spirit proceeds from the Father he sets out towards the Son; the Son is the goal at which He will stop.120. Gregory's formula exposed ...
  80. [80]
    Saint Photius the Great - Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit - MYRIOBIBLOS
    a miracle testified by miracles — he saw the All-Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove. Thus, seeing the unseeable, the true ...Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
  81. [81]
    St. Photius of Constantinople - Orthodox Road
    Feb 6, 2020 · In 867, Photius sent a famous Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs and held a great council with many hundreds participating. The council ...
  82. [82]
    Oriental Orthodox agreement on the Holy Spirit signed in Dublin
    Nov 2, 2017 · Therefore, the Oriental Orthodox Churches consider the addition of Filioque as an error since it breaks the order within the Trinity and ...
  83. [83]
    We Believe - St. John Armenian Church
    The Armenian Church also believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and does not teach the western doctrine of the “Filioque.” The ...
  84. [84]
    [PDF] procession of the holy spirit
    The Orthodox Church insists on refusing the addition of the Filioque because of the early Church's experience and teach ing about the Holy Spirit are reflected ...<|separator|>
  85. [85]
    Saint Gregory of Tatev (Armenian Church) - Against those who say ...
    Oct 17, 2023 · Saint Gregory of Tatev (Armenian Church) - Against those who say the Spirit emanates from both the Father and the Son (Filioque) · Comments ...
  86. [86]
    [PDF] Lecture III: The Filioque Controversy - SUSCopts.org
    Q1: St. Cyril of Alexandria said: 'The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, for He belongs to the divine Being and inheres in it ...
  87. [87]
    The Creed | Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
    The dispute over the Filioque clause was one of the reasons for the East-West Schism. The clause had been adopted in the west , although the Third Ecumenical ...
  88. [88]
    Filioque - Tasbeha.org Community
    Filique is a part fo the creed which the Romans added, but was not accepted by the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Creed "And we believe in the holy Ghost, the Lord, ...
  89. [89]
    [PDF] Catechism The Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East By
    Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. ... This unity is fully expressed, visually, by the unity of the Nicene Creed and by communion in prayer and Sacraments.
  90. [90]
    [PDF] We Believe (ܢܢܝܢܡܝܗܡ) – The Nicene Creed - Fred Aprim
    Apr 12, 2023 · During the daily worship service in the apostolic churches, the congregation cite the Nicene Creed “We ... Assyrian Church of the East ...
  91. [91]
    Our Faith - Assyrian Church of the East - Mar Yosip Parish
    We believe in one Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father; the life-giving Spirit. We profess the Seven Sacraments of the Assyrian Church ...
  92. [92]
    Doctrine - Assyrian Church of the East
    The teaching of the Church of the East is based on the faith of the universal Church as set forth in the Nicene Creed. ... Assyrian Church of the East, holds ...Missing: Filioque | Show results with:Filioque
  93. [93]
    How different is the Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the ...
    Feb 10, 2024 · The Assyrian Church of the East claims continuity with the historical Church of the East, and it is not in communion with either the Oriental ...
  94. [94]
    Assyrian Churches: Unity in Faith
    Apr 13, 2023 · Regarding the Filioque, the Catholic Church ... Assyrian Church of the East to restore communion with the Orthodox and Miasphysite Churches.
  95. [95]
    A Pastoral Case for the Filioque Clause - The Gospel Coalition
    Apr 7, 2011 · The Bible gives us every reason to believe that the filioque clause accurately reflects God's work and Word.
  96. [96]
    The Spirit Who Proceeds | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at ...
    Aug 23, 2018 · The Western version states that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” The “and the Son” portion of the creed is also known as ...
  97. [97]
    On the Filioque - by Kjetil Kringlebotten - The Lutheran Neoplatonist
    Aug 2, 2024 · The Filioque helps us understand the relations in the Godhead. The doctrine is important in that it shows us that the Spirit is not subordinate ...
  98. [98]
    Lutheran-Orthodox Common Statement on the Filioque
    Jul 30, 2024 · The LWF and the Orthodox Church have issued a joint statement on the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, which could have impact on relations between churches.
  99. [99]
    The Filioque: What it is and Why it Matters - Reformation Chambers
    Oct 21, 2020 · The Filioque Clause is the teaching that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
  100. [100]
    The Nicene Creed: “For Us” and Filioque - Clearly Reformed
    Jan 21, 2024 · The filioque means that the Spirit glorifies Christ and leads us to worship and bow the knee to the glory of God the Father for eternity.
  101. [101]
    Anglicans encouraged to drop filioque from Nicene Creed
    Oct 13, 2015 · Earlier in 1976, the recommendation of the Anglican-(Eastern) Orthodox dialogue to omit the Filioque became Resolution 35 of the 1978 Lambeth ...
  102. [102]
    Filioque - The Episcopal Church
    The Lambeth Conference of 1988 recommended that the phrase be dropped from the Nicene Creed in Anglican churches.
  103. [103]
    The Filioque and Its Current Status [Commentary on Browne: Article V]
    Apr 26, 2023 · ... Anglican Communion should consider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed.” Notably, while the Anglican Church in North America ...
  104. [104]
    Muller On Reformed Orthodoxy On Double Procession And The ...
    Mar 22, 2014 · From the Reformed perspective, moreover, the Greek critique of the filioque, that it implied two ultimate principia or archai in the Godhead, ...<|separator|>
  105. [105]
    The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
    The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation was founded in 1965 and is sponsored by the Committee for Ecumenical Relations.
  106. [106]
    The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement - usccb
    2003. Language. English. Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, "The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed ...
  107. [107]
    Why are Syro-Malabar Catholics debating the 'Filioque' clause?
    Mar 5, 2024 · For centuries, Eastern and Western Christians have disputed the Filioque clause, the Latin phrase meaning “and from the Son” that Catholics ...
  108. [108]
    Pope Francis hopes for 'reconciled differences' with Orthodox and ...
    Oct 16, 2024 · Pope Francis noted that the later addition of the “Filioque,” Latin for “and from the Son” in the creed, sparked a dispute that “has been ...Missing: omission | Show results with:omission
  109. [109]
    Pope says he hopes for 'reconciled differences' among Christians
    Oct 16, 2024 · Pope Francis called on divided Christians to overcome their doctrinal differences and walk together in love, expressing hope especially for greater unity.
  110. [110]
    Filioque Controversy Exposed: How One Word Divided Christianity
    Theologically, they argue that the Filioque distorts the monarchy of the Father—the doctrine that the Father alone is the sole arche (source or principle) of ...
  111. [111]
    What is the filioque clause? (Nicene Creed) - Anthony Delgado
    Sep 28, 2025 · This article will explore the meaning of the filioque clause, its historical development, biblical basis, the objections raised against it, and ...1. Meaning Of The Filioque... · 2. Historical Background Of... · Key Developments<|control11|><|separator|>
  112. [112]
    Musings on a Filioque - Christian Apologetics Alliance
    Dec 18, 2013 · Orthodox opposition to the filioque is a last lingering remnant of subordinationism.” He states that the denial of the filioque is a remnant of ...Missing: prevents | Show results with:prevents
  113. [113]
    Drop The Filioque .Com - Orthodox-Reformed Bridge
    Sep 2, 2013 · Originally the Church in Spain inserted the “filioque” into the Creed after the Council of Toledo in 589 as a part of their conflict with Arians ...
  114. [114]
    Why Is the Filioque a Big Deal to Eastern Orthodox?
    Feb 1, 2023 · Does the question about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the son” really divide churches? Cy Kellett: Hello, and ...
  115. [115]
    The Insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed and a Letter of ...
    Aug 7, 2025 · In contrast, the manuscript evidence indicates it first appeared at the Eighth Council of Toledo in 653. The date of the insertion can be ...
  116. [116]
    What's the Story Behind the [Filioque Clause]? | By Tiffany Butler
    May 23, 2021 · The Clause asserts the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The 381 AD Creed stated that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.”
  117. [117]
    Filioque Refuted - Patristic Faith
    Aug 22, 2022 · This video refutes Tim Staples' article on the Filioque and the Filioque quote mine to illustrate that not only is Catholic Answers wrong on the Filioque.
  118. [118]
    When was the filioque added? (Nicene Creed) - Anthony Delgado
    Sep 28, 2025 · The filioque was first formally added at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. The historical context was deeply political. King Reccared of Spain ...
  119. [119]
    Vindicating the Filioque is an exhaustive study with an ecumenical ...
    Jun 8, 2024 · The Council of Florence in 1439 defined the filioque, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, as Catholic dogma.