Religion Filioque, or, the Schism that keeps on Schisming

[LordSunhawk]

For those who don't know, the Filioque Controversy is *the* oldest active schismatic controversy left, and one that is still constantly simmering away.

It has to do with the Nicene Creed, specifically the part about the Holy Spirit.

'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son' is the Roman Catholic construction, 'and the Son' being the Filioque of the schism title.

For the Greek Orthodox, the Creed leaves out 'and the Son'. Because the Creed was written in Greek, and the Greek term that is translated to 'proceeds' is... a very complicated word that means much much more than just proceeds. But there is no direct translation, especially into Latin, which is the source of all the silliness.

 

[Scottty]

First, we need an explanation of what exactly the people who composed the creed meant by saying that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father.

Then we can discuss intelligently whether the concept is Biblical at all.

 

[HistoryMinor]

The technicalities don't really matter, it was just the last of a long running tendency of the orthodox churches (which were basically ran by the patriarch of Constantinople because he was closest to the Basilieus) not submitting to the Bishop of Rome. They didn't care that the Pope had just spent centuries struggling against the Arian heresy.

 

[Deleted member]

The bottom line is that in Greek the term Filioque means originates from the Father and Son, which is heresy as both west and east agree that the Holy Spirit originates only from the Father. So adding the Filioque to the Greek language Creed would be heretical; it was basically a demand of the Popes, as an act of aggrandisement, that the Greek Church accept a heretical and nonsensical formulation of the Creed to make it comply with the Latin version in strict reading.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Actually, the Popes did NOT demand it be added to the Creed in Greek, indeed the Filioque was until the 11th century not added in Rome itself as a mark of respect for the Orthodox (even as the Popes generally considered the entire thing to be ridiculous because Hello, translation issues). The rest of Western Christendom however did add the Filioque and eventually the Popes went with it, but still never demanded that the Eastern churches use it, since the Eastern churches did the creed in the original Greek which didn't need it to match up with accepted Trinitarian dogma.

The root of it all is that in the Greek the term used means, roughly 'proceeds from and is created by', while the Latin is just 'proceeds from'. The former is in accordance with the doctrine that the Holy Spirit, like the Son, comes from the Father alone, while being both separate and united with the Father in the mystery of the Trinity. Since the Holy Spirit is poured out (proceeds) from both the Father and the Son in scripture, however, for the Latin without the additional 'and is created by' meaning of the Greek in order to counter Arianism you need the Filioque. The Catholic Creed doesn't even touch on the Father creating the Spirit, merely asserts that it proceeds from both the Father and the Son in accordance with Scripture.

 

[Deleted member]

The Second Council of Lyon saw the Greek Patriarch forced to sing the Creed three times with the Filioque included, which is a pretty blatant requirement that the Orthodox use the Filioque...

 

[LordSunhawk]

2nd Lyons was in the 13th century, and the entire Filioque situation there was pushed primarily by Michael VIII (the Byzantine emperor) who sought to break the power of the Patriarch (which was a threat to his throne) and convince Western Christendom to more vigorously support the Byzantines.

 

[Scottty]

The impression I'm getting here is that the people pushing this stuff didn't really give a flying hoot about which version was right, or even what any of it actually meant - it was all just a "respect muh authority!" play.

It's all rubbish anyway. The Holy Spirit is not something created by, or proceeding from, God. The Holy Spirit is God, just as much as the Father and the Son. One eternal Being in three Persons.

So both versions of the Nicene creed contain blatant error. Arian error.
No wonder they can't understand the concept of the Trinity.

 

[Deleted member]

The impression I'm getting here is that the people pushing this stuff didn't really give a flying hoot about which version was right, or even what any of it actually meant - it was all just a "respect muh authority!" play.

It's all rubbish anyway. The Holy Spirit is not something created by, or proceeding from, God. The Holy Spirit is God, just as much as the Father and the Son. One eternal Being in three Persons.

So both versions of the Nicene creed contain blatant error. Arian error.
No wonder they can't understand the concept of the Trinity.

Respectfully, that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Proceeding means in classical Greek.

 

[Scottty]

Respectfully, that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Proceeding means in classical Greek.

Which brings us back to my earlier post:

First, we need an explanation of what exactly the people who composed the creed meant by saying that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father.
Then we can discuss intelligently whether the concept is Biblical at all.

The concept I attacked there certainly seems to me to be what a lot of people think that line in the Nicene creed means.

 

[LordSunhawk]

In the original Creed, 'proceeds' (in the Greek, which I can't reproduce here since I suck at exotic characters but the 'romanized' word is ekporeuomenon) means 'originates from and is granted by' with the belief that the Holy Spirit, coequal with the Father and the Son, nonetheless is created by the Father and goes out to the Church Militant (the pilgrim church on Earth, as opposed to the Church Triumphant in heaven and the Church Suffering in purgatory) to aid in the faith, both in maintaining it and in spreading it.

The Latin, however, the word they use for 'proceeds' doesn't include the denotation of originates from, therefore in order to not fuel the Arian heresy, the Creed includes the Filioque 'from the Father and the Son' to emphasize the co-equal divinity of the Trinity. This is not a concern in the Eastern church, because they didn't face the Arian heresy as heavily, being rather more concerned with Monophysite and Monothelite heresies. Plus the Greek term is more extensive, thus doesn't need to specify 'and the Son', indeed adding that to the Greek would simply fuel those controversies that weighed most heavily in the East by seemingly dividing the Father and the Son.

In the end, it all comes down to the language used, in the Latin procedit (proceeds) has no denotation of creation, only of procession (IE being granted to mankind by), whereas the Greek does have said denotation.

Here is the Latin Creed of that section

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem
qui ex Patre Filioque procedit
Qui cum Patre, et Filio simul adoratur, et cum glorificatur.

It's semantics.

To make things more interesting... the filioque actually originated in the East, not the West, specifically by Cyril of Alexandria, and for several centuries it spread through the West as an anti-Arian measure, was taught by multiple Popes who are considered Saints by both East and West, and was in general circulation. The first instance of objections to it in the East came from Paul II, who inserted it into his side of the dueling excommunications between himself and several Popes (and said objection got slapped down hard by Maximus the Confessor who pointed out the linguistic issues, and also that Paul II was a Monothelite and thus indeed a heretic).

Then it erupted again in the West in the 8th and 9th Century because the Frankish Church never got the memo that the filioque only was part of the Latin creed, not the original creed, and the Carolingian emperors tried to use it as a club against the Byzantines, with the Popes generally calling foul and telling the Carolingians to stop trying to help, because they weren't helping. In fact, between 800 and 1000 there was no Creed sung in Roman Rite masses at all. But the Carolingians and the Franks really liked the filioque, so they kept at it quite cheerfully. Not helping was the Spanish Adoptionism heresy, which the filioque helped suppress.

Then you have Photius, who as part of his attempts to cling to the Patriarchate of Constantinople pretty much started accusing everybody else of being heretics and by virtue of being an extremely eloquent writer and being very highly educated (along with having the backing of the Emperor) pretty much ignited the filioque dumpster fire. You had dueling councils, with Photius at one point pretty much declaring all of the original Church Fathers (Cappadochian, Greek and Latin alike) as heretics because none of them agreed with his extreme monarchial view of the Father. Photius is pretty much the single largest reason that the controversy is still around, he's revered in the Eastern Church as a saint, and condemned in the Western church as a heretic.

So by 1000, the Western church finally went full filioque, and then as the fortunes of the East continued to decline, the West started getting muscular about things 'you want our help? First, follow OUR interpretation of Scripture'. Not particularly nice, but considering that the Eastern Church had been doing the exact same thing for several hundred years at that point when they were in the ascendant, well... understandable.