Filioque

[anrmenchaca47]

Can someone tell me what year the filioque was introduced and why this addition was part of the cause of the split.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Can someone tell me what year the filioque was introduced and why this addition was part of the cause of the split.

Google is your friend. Google “Filioque” and you’ll get a lot of information - including links to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[DaveBj]

Google is your friend. Google “Filioque” and you’ll get a lot of information - including links to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[anrmenchaca47]

Well I am asking since I have a co-worker who insists that the Catholic Church split from the Orthodox Church and citing the filioque as part of the reason the schism occurred. My co-worker’s husband findings were based on the Patristic writings which led both of them to the Orthodox church. And SINCE I HAVE been “Googling,” All I can find is a site called OrthodoxWiki that explains that "The filioque was first used in Toledo, Spain in 587 and used without the consultation or agreement of the five patriarchs of the Church at that time and in direct violation of canons of the Third Ecumenical Council that prohibited unilateral alteration of the Creed by anything short of another Ecumenical Council."(OrthodoxWiki.org). Also, I have found a Catholic Answer article explaining what the filioque is but no mention of it being used in Toledo,Spain in 587. Why is that? So I’m trying to see how I, as a proud Catholic, can defend the position of the filioque to an Orthodox.

Anyway, I will continue “googling” and buying books on the early church fathers. Thanks for the advice.
.

 

[prodromos]

The Council of Toledo did not add the filioque to the creed. It was not introduced dogmatically until Charlemagne.

 

[Vico]

Can someone tell me what year the filioque was introduced and why this addition was part of the cause of the split.

The year is was dogmatically confessed was in 447 A.D. although it existed before then.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [76] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
[76] Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.

See Quam laudabiliter translation here:

thecrossreference.blogspot.com/2009/04/pope-st-leo-i-quam-laudabiliter.html

Also see USCCB:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

 

[anrmenchaca47]

The year is was dogmatically confessed was in 447 A.D. although it existed before then.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [76] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
[76] Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.

See Quam laudabiliter translation here:

thecrossreference.blogspot.com/2009/04/pope-st-leo-i-quam-laudabiliter.html

Also see USCCB:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

Well then why does my co-worker insist that it was the Catholic church that split from the orthodox citing that the church in Rome added filioque without full consent citing violation of canons of the Third Ecumenical Council?

 

[JM3]

newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

Nicholas, then, having heard both sides, decided for Ignatius, and answered the letters of Michael and Photius by insisting that Ignatius must be restored, that the usurpation of his see must cease (ibid, I, 511-16, 516-19). He also wrote in the same sense to the other Eastern patriarchs (510-11). From that attitude Rome never wavered: it was the immediate cause of the schism. In 863 the pope held a synod at the Lateran in which the two legates were tried, degraded, and excommunicated. The synod repeats Nicholas’s decision, that Ignatius is lawful Patriarch of Constantinople; Photius is to be excommunicate unless he retires at once from his usurped place.

But Photius had the emperor and the Court on his side. Instead of obeying the pope, to whom he had appealed, he resolved to deny his authority altogether. Ignatius was kept chained in prison, the pope’s letters were not allowed to be published. The emperor sent an answer dictated by Photius saying that nothing Nicholas could do would help Ignatius, that all the Eastern Patriarchs were on Photius’s side, that the excommunication of the legates must be explained and that unless the pope altered his decision, Michael would come to Rome with an army to punish him. Photius then kept his place undisturbed for four years. In 867 he carried the war into the enemy’s camp by excommunicating the pope and his Latins. The reasons he gives for this, in an encyclical sent to the Eastern patriarchs, are: that Latins

fast on Saturday
do not begin Lent till Ash Wednesday (instead of three days earlier, as in the East)
do not allow priests to be married
do not allow priests to administer confirmation
have added the filioque to the creed.
Because of these errors the pope and all Latins are: “forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God” (Hergenröther, I, 642-46). It is not easy to say what the Melchite patriarchs thought of the quarrel at this juncture. Afterwards, at the Eighth General Council, their legates declared that they had pronounced no sentence against Photius because that of the pope was obviously sufficient.

newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm

Sixth session

At the end of the sixth session, which dealt only with the case of two Nestorianizing priests, was made the famous declaration that no one must produce or compose any other creed than (para, proeter, “beyond” — “contrary to”?) the Nicene, and that anyone who should propose any such to pagans, Jews, or heretics, who wished to be converted, should be deposed if a bishop or cleric, or anathematized if a layman. This decision became later a fruitful source of objections to the decrees of later synods and to the addition of the filioque to the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed; but that creed itself would be abolished by this decree if it is taken too literally. We know of several matters connected with Pamphylia and Thrace which were treated by the council, which are not found in the Acts. St. Leo tells us that Cyril reported to the pope the intrigues by which Juvenal of Jerusalem tried at Ephesus to carve himself a patriarchate out of that of Antioch, in which his see lay. He was to succeed in this twenty years later, at Chalcedon.

 

[dochawk]

Well then why does my co-worker insist that it was the Catholic church that split from the orthodox citing that the church in Rome added filioque without full consent citing violation of canons of the Third Ecumenical Council?

The bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other (it’s a bit more complicated than that, with the lapse of authority at death, etc., but that’s effectively what happened.).

Each side saw the other as “leaving”.

Each is grievously at fault both for the propagation and continuation of the Sin of Division.

AMDG

hawk

 

[Vico]

The bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other (it’s a bit more complicated than that, with the lapse of authority at death, etc., but that’s effectively what happened.).

Each side saw the other as “leaving”.

Each is grievously at fault both for the propagation and continuation of the Sin of Division.

AMDG

hawk

The mutual lifting of the anathemas occurred on December 7, 1965, by Patriarch Athenagoras and H.H. Pope Paul VI.

It was the anathema that the Envoy of H.H. Pope Leo IX that had imposed on the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in 1054, and that of the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and the patriarchal synod of Constantinople and subsequently ratified and adopted by all eastern orthodox churches.

 

[Entwhistler]

The Melkite Church (which is Catholic) does not say the Filioque when they say the Nicene Creed. I suppose technically they aren’t saying they disagree with it. They just aren’t affirming it.

 

[dochawk]

The Melkite Church (which is Catholic) does not say the Filioque when they say the Nicene Creed. I suppose technically they aren’t saying they disagree with it. They just aren’t affirming it.

None of the east disagrees with the notion that the Spirit proceeds temporally (not in origin) from the Son.

The beef is that

1. translate back into latin with the same word for “proceed”, and it is heretical–the word used indicates procession in origin, but the latin and english don’t distinguish the way that greek does, and
2. the unilateral alteration of the creed, set forth in council, by one church.

Also, note that unlike most Eastern Catholic churches, the Melkites did NOT splinter off of an Orthodox church on the other side of the schism. Rather, they determined they should be in communion with Rome, and sought that communion–WITHOUT breaking the existing Communion with the rest of the EO. The Antioch Orthodox Church was created from those in the curia who dissented, with a new patriarch appointed by Constantinople.

There is no document governing this communion, unlike the Ukranian church, which proffered a treaty protection its rights (which is occasionally honored by Rome in practice rather than breech )

In both cases, Communion was broken by the east, not the church newly in communion with Rome. In the Ukranian case, I believe that Dual Communion lasted for some time, but don’t hold me to that.

AMDG

hawk

 

[Entwhistler]

None of the east disagrees with the notion that the Spirit proceeds temporally (not in origin) from the Son.

The beef is that

1. translate back into latin with the same word for “proceed”, and it is heretical–the word used indicates procession in origin, but the latin and english don’t distinguish the way that greek does, and
2. the unilateral alteration of the creed, set forth in council, by one church.

Also, note that unlike most Eastern Catholic churches, the Melkites did NOT splinter off of an Orthodox church on the other side of the schism. Rather, they determined they should be in communion with Rome, and sought that communion–WITHOUT breaking the existing Communion with the rest of the EO. The Antioch Orthodox Church was created from those in the curia who dissented, with a new patriarch appointed by Constantinople.

There is no document governing this communion, unlike the Ukranian church, which proffered a treaty protection its rights (which is occasionally honored by Rome in practice rather than breech )

In both cases, Communion was broken by the east, not the church newly in communion with Rome. In the Ukranian case, I believe that Dual Communion lasted for some time, but don’t hold me to that.

AMDG

hawk

Ah, that helps quite a bit. Having gone to a few Melkite Liturgies I was wondering about this.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

To deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father (double procession) is to deny the clear evidence of scripture. The Son receives all things from the Father including the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father.
Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).
But the most graphical illustration of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is in Revelation 22:1 “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.” John 7:38 explain “Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” 39 By this he meant the [Holy] Spirit.
Texts such as John 20:22 (“He breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit”), were seen by Fathers of the Church, especially Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria and Epiphanius of Cyprus as grounds for saying that the Spirit “proceeds substantially from both” the Father and the Son. Christian writers in the West, of whom Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220), Jerome (347–420), Ambrose (c. 338 – 397) and Augustine(354–430) are representatives, spoke of the Spirit as coming from the Father and the Son, while the expression “from the Father through the Son” is also found among them.
Already in the fourth century the distinction was made, in connection with the Trinity, between the two Greek verbs ἐκπορεύεσθαι (the verb used in the original Greek text of the 381 Nicene Creed) and προϊέναι. In his Oration on the Holy Lights (XXXIX), Saint Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: “The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth (προϊέναι) from the Father indeed, but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not by Generation but by Procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι)”.So proceeding is not the same as generation.
That the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and the Son in the sense of the Latin word procedere and the Greek προϊέναι (as opposed to the Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι) was taught by the early fifth century by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in the East, the Athanasian Creed (probably of the middle of the fifth century), and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo who declared in 446 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.

 

[Wesrock]

I did some searching myself, in response to this topic, and came across this article: catholicbridge.com/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.php

It speaks not only to whether the filioque doctrine is orthodox, but about whether its inclusion contradicts past councils, why the west integrated it, different contexts the west and east were using when they discussed the issue, and also about different views of the canons of Constantinople and creeds between east and west.

I can’t vouch for it’s accuracy, not being terribly familiar with the subject myself. I’m about halfway through, and there are some tame polemics directed at Orthodox (legalism on the topic and the idea of a Church-State/Culture and what it means to be one Church and one faith), and it touches on some tangential issues of disagreement between Catholic and Orthodox separate from the filioque debate. I have found it an interesting read all the same, though.

 

[Wandile]

For those who don’t know the earliest account of the Creed being altered with the filioque inclusion happened even before the Council of Toledo. It happened amongst the assyrian Christians and not Latins.

Many attribute the addition of the filioque in the creed as western in origin (Council of Toledo) but actually the first instance of this is in the east, at the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410.

The creed composed in Aramaic has the phrase “dmin aba wabra” and means “From the Father and the Son”. Thus it’s read “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of life who is from the father and the son…”