Filioque

It is not in the original text of the Creed, attributed to the First Council of Constantinople (381), which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father" (Greek: τὸ έκ του Πατρὸς έκπορευόμενον) without the addition "and the Son".

[8] In a similar vein, Siecienski comments that, although it was common in the 20th century to view the Filioque as just another weapon in the power struggle between Rome and Constantinople and although this was occasionally the case, for many involved in the dispute, the theological issues outweighed by far the ecclesiological concerns.

Moreover, Siecienski asserts that the question of whether the teachings of East and West were truly incompatible became almost secondary to the fact that, starting around the 8th or 9th century, Christians on both sides of the dispute began to believe that the differences were irreconcilable.

Siecienski asserts that, as much as power and authority were central issues in the debate, the strength of emotion rising even to the level of hatred can be ascribed to a belief that the other side had "destroyed the purity of the faith and refused to accept the clear teachings of the fathers on the Spirit's procession".

[19] In contrast, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen says that Eastern Orthodox believe that the absence of an explicit mention of the double procession of the Holy Spirit is a strong indication that the Filioque is a theologically erroneous doctrine.

Bulgakov concludes: "The patristic teaching of the fourth century lacks that exclusivity which came to characterize Orthodox theology after Photius under the influence of repulsion from the Filioque doctrine.

"[29][a] Regarding the Greek Fathers, whether Cappadocian or Alexandrian, there is, according to Siecienski, no citable basis for the claim historically made by both sides, that they explicitly either supported or denied the later theologies concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son.

"[47] In his Moralia in Iob, initially composed while he was apocrisarius at the imperial court of Constantinople and later edited while Pope of Rome, Gregory wrote, "But the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, in all things has Him (the Holy Spirit) both always and continually present.

Traditionally, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is attributed to the First Council of Constantinople of 381, whose participants, primarily Eastern bishops,[55] met, decided issues (legates of Pope Damasus I[56] were present).

[ ] those who [ ] compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; [ ] and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

[Those who] either [ ] put together another faith, or [ ] bring forward or [ ] teach or [ ] deliver a different Creed [ ] to [those who] wish to be converted [ ] from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, [ ] but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized.

[91] According to Sergei Bulgakov "a whole series of Western writers, including popes who are venerated as saints by the Eastern church, confess the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son; and it is even more striking that there is virtually no disagreement with this theory.

[101] The Filioque clause was confirmed by subsequent synods in Toledo and soon spread throughout the West, not only in Spain, but also in Francia, after Clovis I, king of the Salian Franks, converted to Christianity in 496; and in England, where the Council of Hatfield (680), presided over by Archbishop of Canterbury Theodore of Tarsus, a Greek,[102] imposed the doctrine as a response to Monothelitism.

Siecienski says that, in view of the widespread acceptance by then that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it would be strange if Gregory did not advocate the teaching, "even if he did not understand the filioque as later Latin theology would – that is, in terms of a 'double procession'.

In the late 8th century, a controversy arose between Bishop Elipandus of Toledo and Beatus of Liébana over the former's teaching (which has been called Spanish Adoptionism) that Christ in his humanity was the adoptive son of God.

It specifically condemned: Another attempt at reunion was made at the 15th century Council of Florence, to which Emperor John VIII Palaiologos, Ecumenical Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East had gone in the hope of getting Western military aid against the looming Ottoman Empire.

[171] The Eastern Church refused to consider the agreement reached at Florence binding,[further explanation needed] since the death of Joseph II had for the moment left it without a Patriarch of Constantinople.

[113][163] The Catholic Church recognizes that the Creed, as confessed at the First Council of Constantinople, did not add "and the Son", when it spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, and that this addition was admitted to the Latin liturgy between the 8th and 11th centuries.

[61] For this reason, even in the liturgy of Latin Church Catholics, it does not add the phrase corresponding to Filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek language text of the Creed containing the word ἐκπορευόμενον.

[191][192] Eastern Orthodox scholars who share Lossky's view include Dumitru Stăniloae, John Romanides, Christos Yannaras,[193][failed verification] and Michael Pomazansky.

[191] The "strict traditionalist" camp is exemplified by the stance of Lossky who insisted that any notion of a double procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son was incompatible with Orthodox theology.

[217][228][better source needed] The English Language Liturgical Consultation commented that "those who strongly favour retention of the Filioque are often thinking of the Trinity as revealed and active in human affairs, whereas the original Greek text is concerned about relationships within the Godhead itself.

[230] Russian theologian Boris Bolotov asserted in 1898 that the Filioque, like Photius's "from the Father alone", was a permissible theological opinion (a theologoumenon, not a dogma) that cannot be an absolute impediment to reestablishment of communion.

– discuss][t] and that it is in flagrant contravention of the words of Christ in the Gospel, has been specifically condemned by the Orthodox Church, and remains a fundamental heretical teaching which divides East and West.

During the lengthy proceedings at Ferrara-Florence, the Orthodox delegates presented a text from Maximus the Confessor that they felt could provide the key to resolving the theological differences between East and West.

[61][u] Orthodox theologian and Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizioulas, wrote that for Maximus the Confessor "the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the ἐκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) but the προϊέναι (proienai) of the Spirit".

If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a "cause" (aition) in the procession of the Spirit, this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque.

[249] Starting in the latter half of the nineteenth century, ecumenical efforts have gradually developed more nuanced understandings of the issues underlying the Filioque controversy and worked to remove them as an obstruction to Christian unity.

This accommodation on the part of Western Churches has the objective of allowing both East and West to once again share a common understanding of the Creed as the traditional and fundamental statement of the Christian faith.

[256] The enthronement ceremonies of four recent archbishops of Canterbury (Robert Runcie, George Carey, Rowan Williams, Justin Welby) included recitations of the Nicene Creed that omitted the Filioque; this has been considered to have been "a gesture of friendship toward Orthodox guests and their Communions".