Add 2003 Filioque statement
This commit is contained in:
parent
ce606b5f45
commit
e0a29379e2
|
@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ Any errors are my own.
|
|||
## 2000s
|
||||
|
||||
* Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — [Note on the expression "Sister Churches"](./cdf-2000-sister.html)
|
||||
* North American Consultation — [The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?](./naoctc-2003-filioque.html)
|
||||
* St Irenaeus Working Group — [Paderborn Communiqué](./sijocwg-2004-paderborn.html)
|
||||
* St Irenaeus Working Group — [Athens Communiqué](./sijocwg-2005-athens.html)
|
||||
* St Irenaeus Working Group — [Chevetogne Communiqué](./sijocwg-2006-chevetogne.html)
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,817 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement
|
||||
date: 2003-10-25
|
||||
author: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
|
||||
source: https://www.usccb.org/resources/filioque-a-church-dividing-issue.pdf
|
||||
source: https://www.assemblyofbishops.org/ministries/ecumenical-and-interfaith-dialogues/orthodox-catholic/filioque-a-church-dividing-issue
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
From 1999 until 2003, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation has focused its
|
||||
discussions on an issue that has been identified, for more than twelve centuries, as one of the root
|
||||
causes of division between our Churches: our divergent ways of conceiving and speaking about
|
||||
the origin of the Holy Spirit within the inner life of the triune God. Although both of our
|
||||
traditions profess “the faith of Nicaea” as the normative expression of our understanding of God
|
||||
and God’s involvement in his creation, and take as the classical statement of that faith the revised
|
||||
version of the Nicene creed associated with the First Council of Constantinople of 381, most
|
||||
Catholics and other Western Christians have used, since at least the late sixth century, a Latin
|
||||
version of that Creed, which adds to its confession that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the
|
||||
Father” the word *Filioque*: “and from the Son”. For most Western Christians, this term continues
|
||||
to be a part of the central formulation of their faith, a formulation proclaimed in the liturgy and
|
||||
used as the basis of catechesis and theological reflection. It is, for Catholics and most Protestants,
|
||||
simply a part of the ordinary teaching of the Church, and as such, integral to their understanding
|
||||
of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. Yet since at least the late eighth century, the presence of this
|
||||
term in the Western version of the Creed has been a source of scandal for Eastern Christians,
|
||||
both because of the Trinitarian theology it expresses, and because it had been adopted by a
|
||||
growing number of Churches in the West into the canonical formulation of a received ecumenical
|
||||
council without corresponding ecumenical agreement. As the medieval rift between Eastern and
|
||||
Western Christians grew more serious, the theology associated with the term Filioque, and the
|
||||
issues of Church structure and authority raised by its adoption, grew into a symbol of difference,
|
||||
a classic token of what each side of divided Christendom has found lacking or distorted in the
|
||||
other.
|
||||
|
||||
Our common study of this question has involved our Consultation in much shared research,
|
||||
prayerful reflection and intense discussion. It is our hope that many of the papers produced by
|
||||
our members during this process will be published together, as the scholarly context for our
|
||||
common statement. A subject as complicated as this, from both the historical and the theological
|
||||
point of view, calls for detailed explanation if the real issues are to be clearly seen. Our
|
||||
discussions and our common statement will not, by themselves, put an end to centuries of
|
||||
disagreement among our Churches. We do hope, however, that they will contribute to the growth
|
||||
of mutual understanding and respect, and that in God’s time our Churches will no longer find a
|
||||
cause for separation in the way we think and speak about the origin of that Spirit, whose fruit is
|
||||
love and peace (see Gal 5.22).
|
||||
|
||||
## [I. The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures](#1) {#1}
|
||||
|
||||
In the Old Testament “the spirit of God” or “the spirit of the Lord” is presented less as a divine
|
||||
person than as a manifestation of God’s creative power – God’s “breath” (*ruach YHWH*) -
|
||||
forming the world as an ordered and habitable place for his people, and raising up individuals to
|
||||
lead his people in the way of holiness. In the opening verses of Genesis, the spirit of God “moves
|
||||
over the face of the waters” to bring order out of chaos (Gen 1.2). In the historical narratives of
|
||||
Israel, it is the same spirit that “stirs” in the leaders of the people (Jud 13.25: Samson), makes
|
||||
kings and military chieftains into prophets (I Sam 10.9-12; 19.18-24: Saul and David), and
|
||||
enables prophets to “bring good news to the afflicted” (Is 61.1; cf. 42.1; II Kg 2.9). The Lord
|
||||
tells Moses he has “filled” Bezalel the craftsman “with the spirit of God,” to enable him to
|
||||
fashion all the furnishings of the tabernacle according to God’s design (Ex 31.3). In some
|
||||
passages, the “holy spirit” (Ps 51.13) or “good spirit” (Ps 143.10) of the Lord seems to signify
|
||||
his guiding presence within individuals and the whole nation, cleansing their own spirits (Ps.
|
||||
51.12-14) and helping them to keep his commandments, but “grieved” by their sin (Is 63.10). In
|
||||
the prophet Ezekiel’s mighty vision of the restoration of Israel from the death of defeat and exile,
|
||||
the “breath” returning to the people’s desiccated corpses becomes an image of the action of
|
||||
God’s own breath creating the nation anew: “I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live...”
|
||||
(Ezek 37.14).
|
||||
|
||||
In the New Testament writings, the Holy Spirit of God (*pneuma Theou*) is usually spoken of in a
|
||||
more personal way, and is inextricably connected with the person and mission of Jesus. Matthew
|
||||
and Luke make it clear that Mary conceives Jesus in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit,
|
||||
who “overshadows” her (Mt 1.18, 20; Lk 1.35). All four Gospels testify that John the Baptist –
|
||||
who himself was “filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb” (Lk 1.15) – witnessed the
|
||||
descent of the same Spirit on Jesus, in a visible manifestation of God’s power and election, when
|
||||
Jesus was baptized (Mt 3.16; Mk 1.10; Lk 3.22; Jn 1.33). The Holy Spirit leads Jesus into the
|
||||
desert to struggle with the devil (Mt 4.1; Lk 4.1), fills him with prophetic power at the start of his
|
||||
mission (Lk 4.18-21), and manifests himself in Jesus’ exorcisms (Mt 12.28, 32). John the Baptist
|
||||
identified the mission of Jesus as “baptizing” his disciples “with the Holy Spirit and with fire”
|
||||
(Mt 3.11; Lk 3.16; cf. Jn 1.33), a prophecy fulfilled in the great events of Pentecost (Acts 1.5),
|
||||
when the disciples were “clothed with power from on high” (Lk 24.49; Acts 1.8). In the narrative
|
||||
of Acts, it is the Holy Spirit who continues to unify the community (4.31-32), who enables
|
||||
Stephen to bear witness to Jesus with his life (8.55), and whose charismatic presence among
|
||||
believing pagans makes it clear that they, too, are called to baptism in Christ (10.47).
|
||||
|
||||
In his farewell discourse in the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as one who will
|
||||
continue his own work in the world, after he has returned to the Father. He is “the Spirit of
|
||||
truth,” who will act as “another advocate (parakletos)” to teach and guide his disciples
|
||||
(14.16-17), reminding them of all Jesus himself has taught (14.26). In this section of the Gospel,
|
||||
Jesus gives us a clearer sense of the relationship between this “advocate,” himself, and his
|
||||
Father. Jesus promises to send him “from the Father,” as “the Spirit of truth who proceeds from
|
||||
the Father” (15.26); and the truth that he teaches will be the truth Jesus has revealed in his own
|
||||
person (see 1,14; 14.6): “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
|
||||
All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to
|
||||
you.” (16.14-15)
|
||||
|
||||
The Epistle to the Hebrews represents the Spirit simply as speaking in the Scriptures, with his
|
||||
own voice (Heb 3.7; 9.8). In Paul’s letters, the Holy Spirit of God is identified as the one who
|
||||
has finally “defined” Jesus as “Son of God in power” by acting as the agent of his resurrection
|
||||
(Rom 1.4; 8.11). It is this same Spirit, communicated now to us, who conforms us to the risen
|
||||
Lord, giving us hope for resurrection and life (Rom 8.11), making us also children and heirs of
|
||||
God (Rom 8.14-17), and forming our words and even our inarticulate groaning into a prayer that
|
||||
expresses hope (Rom 8.23-27). “And hope does not disappoint us because God’s love has been
|
||||
poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.” (Rom 5.5)
|
||||
|
||||
## [II. Historical Considerations](#2) {#2}
|
||||
|
||||
Throughout the early centuries of the Church, the Latin and Greek traditions witnessed to the
|
||||
same apostolic faith, but differed in their ways of describing the relationship among the persons
|
||||
of the Trinity. The difference generally reflected the various pastoral challenges facing the
|
||||
Church in the West and in the East. The Nicene Creed (325) bore witness to the faith of the
|
||||
Church as it was articulated in the face of the Arian heresy, which denied the full divinity of
|
||||
Christ. In the years following the Council of Nicaea, the Church continued to be challenged by
|
||||
views questioning both the full divinity and the full humanity of Christ, as well as the divinity of
|
||||
the Holy Spirit. Against these challenges, the fathers at the Council of Constantinople (381)
|
||||
affirmed the faith of Nicaea, and produced an expanded Creed, based on the Nicene but also
|
||||
adding significantly to it.
|
||||
|
||||
Of particular note was this Creed’s more extensive affirmation regarding the Holy Spirit, a
|
||||
passage clearly influenced by Basil of Caesaraea’s classic treatise *On the Holy Spirit*, which had
|
||||
probably been finished some six years earlier. The Creed of Constantinople affirmed the faith of
|
||||
the Church in the divinity of the Spirit by saying: “and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of
|
||||
life, who proceeds (*ekporeuetai*) from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped
|
||||
and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.” Although the text avoided directly calling
|
||||
the Spirit “God,” or affirming (as Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus had done) that the Spirit
|
||||
is “of the same substance” as the Father and the Son – statements that doubtless would have
|
||||
sounded extreme to some theologically cautious contemporaries - the Council clearly intended,
|
||||
by this text, to make a statement of the Church’s faith in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit,
|
||||
especially in opposition to those who viewed the Spirit as a creature. At the same time, it was not
|
||||
a concern of the Council to specify the manner of the Spirit’s origin, or to elaborate on the
|
||||
Spirit’s particular relationships to the Father and the Son.
|
||||
|
||||
The acts of the Council of Constantinople were lost, but the text of its Creed was quoted and
|
||||
formally acknowledged as binding, along with the Creed of Nicaea, in the dogmatic statement of
|
||||
the Council of Chalcedon (451). Within less than a century, this Creed of 381 had come to play a
|
||||
normative role in the definition of faith, and by the early sixth century was even proclaimed in
|
||||
the Eucharist in Antioch, Constantinople, and other regions in the East. In regions of the Western
|
||||
churches, the Creed was also introduced into the Eucharist, perhaps beginning with the third
|
||||
Council of Toledo in 589. It was not formally introduced into the Eucharistic liturgy at Rome,
|
||||
however, until the eleventh century – a point of some importance for the process of official
|
||||
Western acceptance of the *Filioque*.
|
||||
|
||||
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 that the Spirit came forth “from the
|
||||
Father through the Son” is asserted by a number of earlier Latin theologians, as part of their
|
||||
insistence on the ordered unity of all three persons within the single divine Mystery (e.g.,
|
||||
Tertullian, *Adversus Praxean* 4 and 5). Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century,
|
||||
emphasizes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and
|
||||
power (*ibid*. 2), which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by
|
||||
the Son to the Spirit (*ibid*. 8). Hilary of Poitiers, in the mid-fourth century, in the same work
|
||||
speaks of the Spirit as ‘coming forth from the Father’ and being ‘sent by the Son’ (*De Trinitate*
|
||||
12.55); as being ‘from the Father through the Son’ (*ibid*. 12.56); and as ‘having the Father and
|
||||
the Son as his source’ (*ibid*. 2.29); in another passage, Hilary points to John 16.15 (where Jesus
|
||||
says: “All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from
|
||||
what is mine and declare it to you”), and wonders aloud whether “to receive from the Son is the
|
||||
same thing as to proceed from the Father” (*ibid*. 8.20). Ambrose of Milan, writing in the 380s,
|
||||
openly asserts that the Spirit “proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son,” without ever
|
||||
being separated from either (*On the Holy Spirit* 1.11.20). None of these writers, however, makes
|
||||
the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize
|
||||
the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father
|
||||
alone is the source of God’s eternal being. *[Note: This paragraph includes a stylistic revision in*
|
||||
*the reference to Hilary of Poitiers that the Consultation agreed to at its October 2004 meeting.]*
|
||||
|
||||
The earliest use of Filioque *language* in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated
|
||||
for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council
|
||||
anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon
|
||||
11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the
|
||||
Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that
|
||||
the Greek equivalent of *Filioque* was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently
|
||||
understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the
|
||||
Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in
|
||||
imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the *Filioque* spread
|
||||
throughout Gaul.
|
||||
|
||||
Nearly a century later, a council of English bishops was held at Hatfield in 680 under the
|
||||
presidency of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury, a Byzantine asked to serve in England by
|
||||
Pope Vitalian. According to the Venerable Bede (*Hist. Eccl. Gent. Angl.* 4.15 [17]), this Council
|
||||
explicitly affirmed its faith as conforming to the five Ecumenical Councils, and also declared that
|
||||
the Holy Spirit proceeds “in an ineffable way (*inenarrabiliter*)” from the Father and the Son.
|
||||
|
||||
By the seventh century, three related factors may have contributed to a growing tendency to
|
||||
include the *Filioque* in the Creed of 381 in the West, and to the belief of some Westerners that it
|
||||
was, in fact, part of the original creed. First, a strong current in the patristic tradition of the West,
|
||||
summed up in the works of Augustine (354-430), spoke of the Spirit’s proceeding from the
|
||||
Father and the Son. (e.g., *On the Trinity* 4.29; 15.10, 12, 29, 37; the significance of this tradition
|
||||
and its terminology will be discussed below.) Second, throughout the fourth and fifth centuries a
|
||||
number of credal statements circulated in the Churches, often associated with baptism and
|
||||
catechesis. The formula of 381 was not considered the only binding expression of apostolic faith.
|
||||
Within the West, the most widespread of these was the Apostles’ Creed, an early baptismal creed,
|
||||
which contained a simple affirmation of belief in the Holy Spirit without elaboration. Third,
|
||||
however, and of particular significance for later Western theology, was the so-called Athanasian
|
||||
Creed (*Quicunque*). Thought by Westerners to be composed by Athanasius of Alexandria, this
|
||||
Creed probably originated in Gaul about 500, and is cited by Caesarius of Arles (+542). This text
|
||||
was unknown in the East, but had great influence in the West until modern times. Relying
|
||||
heavily on Augustine’s treatment of the Trinity, it clearly affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from
|
||||
the Father and the Son. A central emphasis of this Creed was its strong anti-Arian Christology:
|
||||
speaking of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father *and* the Son implied that the Son was not
|
||||
inferior to the Father in substance, as the Arians held. The influence of this Creed undoubtedly
|
||||
supported the use of the *Filioque* in the Latin version of the Creed of Constantinople in Western
|
||||
Europe, at least from the sixth century onwards.
|
||||
|
||||
The use of the Creed of 381 with the addition of the *Filioque* became a matter of controversy
|
||||
towards the end of the eighth century, both in discussions between the Frankish theologians and
|
||||
the see of Rome and in the growing rivalry between the Carolingian and Byzantine courts, which
|
||||
both now claimed to be the legitimate successors of the Roman Empire. In the wake of the
|
||||
iconoclastic struggle in Byzantium, the Carolingians took this opportunity to challenge the
|
||||
Orthodoxy of Constantinople, and put particular emphasis upon the significance of the term
|
||||
*Filioque*, which they now began to identify as a touchstone of right Trinitarian faith. An intense
|
||||
political and cultural rivalry between the Franks and the Byzantines provided the background for
|
||||
the *Filioque* debates throughout the eighth and ninth centuries.
|
||||
|
||||
Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The
|
||||
Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. The translation
|
||||
proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation
|
||||
to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. Among the points of objection,
|
||||
Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did
|
||||
not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but
|
||||
confessed rather his procession from the Father *through the Son* (Mansi 13.760). The Pope
|
||||
strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this
|
||||
and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (*ibid*. 759-810). Following this exchange of
|
||||
letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called *Libri Carolini* (791-794), a work written to
|
||||
challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787
|
||||
on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood
|
||||
the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the *Filioque*
|
||||
also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word *Filioque* was part of the Creed of 381, the
|
||||
*Libri Carolini* reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,
|
||||
and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
|
||||
|
||||
While the acts of the local synod of Frankfurt in 794 are not extant, other records indicate that it
|
||||
was called mainly to counter a form of the heresy of “Adoptionism” then thought to be on the
|
||||
rise in Spain. The emphasis of a number of Spanish theologians on the integral humanity of
|
||||
Christ seemed, to the court theologian Alcuin and others, to imply that the man Jesus was
|
||||
“adopted” by the Father at his baptism. In the presence of Charlemagne, this council – which
|
||||
Charlemagne seems to have promoted as “ecumenical” (see Mansi 13.899-906) - approved the
|
||||
*Libri Carolini*, affirming, in the context of maintaining the full divinity of the person of Christ,
|
||||
that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. As in the late sixth century, the Latin
|
||||
formulation of the Creed, stating that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, was
|
||||
enlisted to combat a perceived Christological heresy.
|
||||
|
||||
Within a few years, another local council, also directed against “Spanish Adoptionism,” was held
|
||||
in Fréjus (Friuli) (796 or 797). At this meeting, Paulinus of Aquileia (+802), an associate of
|
||||
Alcuin in Charlemagne’s court, defended the use of the Creed with the *Filioque* as a way of
|
||||
opposing Adoptionism. Paulinus, in fact, recognized that the *Filioque* was an addition to the
|
||||
Creed of 381 but defended the interpolation, claiming that it contradicted neither the meaning of
|
||||
the creed nor the intention of the Fathers. The authority in the West of the Council of Fréjus,
|
||||
together with that of Frankfurt, ensured that the Creed of 381 with the *Filioque* would be used in
|
||||
teaching and in the celebration of the Eucharist in churches throughout much of Europe.
|
||||
|
||||
The different liturgical traditions with regard to the Creed came into contact with each other in
|
||||
early-ninth-century Jerusalem. Western monks, using the Latin Creed with the added *Filioque*,
|
||||
were denounced by their Eastern brethren. Writing to Pope Leo III for guidance, in 808, the
|
||||
Western monks referred to the practice in Charlemagne’s chapel in Aachen as their model. Pope
|
||||
Leo responded with a letter to “all the churches of the East” in which he declared his personal
|
||||
belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son. In that response, the
|
||||
Pope did not distinguish between his personal understanding and the issue of the legitimacy of
|
||||
the addition to the Creed, although he would later resist the addition in liturgies celebrated at
|
||||
Rome.
|
||||
|
||||
Taking up the issue of the Jerusalem controversy, Charlemagne asked Theodulf of Orleans, the
|
||||
principal author of the *Libri Carolini*, to write a defense of the use of the word *Filioque*.
|
||||
Appearing in 809, *De Spiritu Sancto* of Theodulf was essentially a compilation of patristic
|
||||
citations supporting the theology of the *Filioque*. With this text in hand, Charlemagne convened
|
||||
a council in Aachen in 809-810 to affirm the doctrine of the Spirit’s proceeding from the Father
|
||||
and the Son, which had been questioned by Greek theologians. Following this council,
|
||||
Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the *Filioque* (Mansi
|
||||
14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place
|
||||
in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term *Filioque*, and approved its use
|
||||
in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text
|
||||
of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired
|
||||
by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.
|
||||
Pope Leo stipulated that the use of the Creed in the celebration of the Eucharist was permissible,
|
||||
but not required, and urged that in the interest of preventing scandal it would be better if the
|
||||
Carolingian court refrained from including it in the liturgy. Around this time, according to the
|
||||
*Liber Pontificalis*, the Pope had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St. Peter’s,
|
||||
containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin. Despite his directives
|
||||
and this symbolic action, however, the Carolingians continued to use the Creed with the *Filioque*
|
||||
during the Eucharist in their own dioceses.
|
||||
|
||||
The Byzantines had little appreciation of the various developments regarding the *Filioque* in the
|
||||
West between the sixth and ninth centuries. Communication grew steadily worse, and their own
|
||||
struggles with monothelitism, iconoclasm, and the rise of Islam left little time to follow closely
|
||||
theological developments in the West. However, their interest in the Filioque became more
|
||||
pronounced in the middle of the 9th century, when it came to be combined with jurisdictional
|
||||
disputes between Rome and Constantinople, as well as with the activities of Frankish
|
||||
missionaries in Bulgaria. When Byzantine missionaries were expelled from Bulgaria by King
|
||||
Boris, under Western influence, they returned to Constantinople and reported on Western
|
||||
practices, including the use of the Creed with the *Filioque*. Patriarch Photios of Constantinople,
|
||||
in 867, addressed a strongly worded encyclical to the other Eastern patriarchs, commenting on
|
||||
the political and ecclesiastical crisis in Bulgaria as well as on the tensions between
|
||||
Constantinople and Rome. In this letter, Photios denounced the Western missionaries in Bulgaria
|
||||
and criticized Western liturgical practices.
|
||||
|
||||
Most significantly, Patriarch Photios called the addition of the *Filioque* in the West a blasphemy,
|
||||
and presented a substantial theological argument against the view of the Trinity which he
|
||||
believed it depicted. Photios’s opposition to the *Filioque* was based upon his view that it signifies
|
||||
two causes in the Trinity, and diminishes the monarchy of the Father. Thus, the *Filioque* seemed
|
||||
to him to detract from the distinctive character of each person of the Trinity, and to confuse their
|
||||
relationships, paradoxically bearing in itself the seeds of both pagan polytheism and Sabellian
|
||||
modalism (*Mystagogy* 9, 11). In his letter of 867, Photios does not, however, demonstrate any
|
||||
knowledge of the Latin patristic tradition behind the use of the *Filioque* in the West. His
|
||||
opposition to the *Filioque* would subsequently receive further elaboration in his Letter to the
|
||||
Patriarch of Aquileia in 883 or 884, as well as in his famous *Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit*,
|
||||
written about 886.
|
||||
|
||||
In concluding his letter of 867, Photios called for an ecumenical council that would resolve the
|
||||
issue of the interpolation of the *Filioque*, as well as illuminating its theological foundation. A
|
||||
local council was held in Constantinople in 867, which deposed Pope Nicholas I - an action
|
||||
which increased tensions between the two sees. In 863, Nicholas himself had refused to
|
||||
recognize Photios as Patriarch because of his allegedly uncanonical appointment. With changes
|
||||
in the imperial government, Photios was forced to resign in 867, and was replaced by Patriarch
|
||||
Ignatius, whom he himself had replaced in 858. A new council was convened in Constantinople
|
||||
later in 869. With papal representatives present and with imperial support, this Council
|
||||
excommunicated Photios, and was subsequently recognized in the Medieval West, for reasons
|
||||
unrelated to the *Filioque* or Photios, as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, although it was never
|
||||
recognized as such in the East.
|
||||
|
||||
The relationship between Rome and Constantinople changed when Photios again became
|
||||
patriarch in 877, following the death of Ignatius. In Rome, Pope Nicholas had died in 867, and
|
||||
was succeeded by Pope Hadrian II (867-872), who himself anathematized Photios in 869. His
|
||||
successor, Pope John VIII (872-882), was willing to recognize Photios as the legitimate Patriarch
|
||||
in Constantinople under certain conditions, thus clearing the way for a restoration of better
|
||||
relations. A Council was held in Constantinople in 879-880, in the presence of representatives
|
||||
from Rome and the other Eastern Patriarchates. This Council, considered by some modern
|
||||
Orthodox theologians to be ecumenical, suppressed the decisions of the earlier Council of
|
||||
869-870, and recognized the status of Photios as patriarch. It affirmed the ecumenical character
|
||||
of the Council of 787 and its decisions against iconoclasm. There was no extensive discussion of
|
||||
the *Filioque*, which was not yet a part of the Creed professed in Rome itself, and no statement
|
||||
was made by the Council about its theological justification; yet this Council formally reaffirmed
|
||||
the original text of the Creed of 381, without the *Filioque*, and anathematized anyone who would
|
||||
compose another confession of faith. The Council also spoke of the Roman see in terms of great
|
||||
respect, and allowed the Papal legates the traditional prerogatives of presidency, recognizing
|
||||
their right to begin and to close discussions and to sign documents first. Nevertheless, the
|
||||
documents give no indication that the bishops present formally recognized any priority of
|
||||
jurisdiction for the see of Rome, outside of the framework of the Patristic understanding of the
|
||||
communion of Churches and the sixth-century canonical theory of the Pentarchy. The difficult
|
||||
question of the competing claims of the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople to jurisdiction
|
||||
in Bulgaria was left to be decided by the Emperor. After the Council, the *Filioque* continued to
|
||||
be used in the Creed in parts of Western Europe, despite the intentions of Pope John VIII, who,
|
||||
like his predecessors, maintained the text sanctioned by the Council of 381.
|
||||
|
||||
A new stage in the history of the controversy was reached in the early eleventh century. During
|
||||
the synod following the coronation of King Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor at Rome in 1014,
|
||||
the Creed, including the *Filioque*, was sung for the first time at a papal Mass. Because of this
|
||||
action, the liturgical use of the Creed, with the *Filioque*, now was generally assumed in the Latin
|
||||
Church to have the sanction of the papacy. Its inclusion in the Eucharist, after two centuries of
|
||||
papal resistance of the practice, reflected a new dominance of the German Emperors over the
|
||||
papacy, as well as the papacy’s growing sense of its own authority, under imperial protection,
|
||||
within the entire Church, both western and eastern.
|
||||
|
||||
The *Filioque* figured prominently in the tumultuous events of 1054, when excommunications
|
||||
were exchanged by representatives of the Eastern and Western Churches meeting in
|
||||
Constantinople. Within the context of his anathemas against Patriarch Michael I Cerularios of
|
||||
Constantinople and certain of his advisors, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, the legate of
|
||||
Pope Leo IX, accused the Byzantines of improperly deleting the *Filioque* from the Creed, and
|
||||
criticized other Eastern liturgical practices. In responding to these accusations, Patriarch Michael
|
||||
recognized that the anathemas of Humbert did not originate with Leo IX, and cast his own
|
||||
anathemas simply upon the papal delegation. Leo, in fact, was already dead and his successor
|
||||
had not been elected. At the same time, Michael condemned the Western use of the *Filioque* in
|
||||
the Creed, as well as other Western liturgical practices. This exchange of limited
|
||||
excommunications did not lead, by itself, to a formal schism between Rome and Constantinople,
|
||||
despite the views of later historians; it did, however, deepen the growing estrangement between
|
||||
Constantinople and Rome.
|
||||
|
||||
The relationship between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria,
|
||||
Antioch, and Jerusalem were seriously damaged during the period of the crusades, and especially
|
||||
in the wake of the infamous Fourth Crusade. In 1204, Western Crusaders sacked the city of
|
||||
Constantinople, long the commercial and political rival of Venice, and Western politicians and
|
||||
clergy dominated the life of the city until it was reclaimed by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos
|
||||
in 1261. The installation of Western bishops in the territories of Constantinople, Antioch and
|
||||
Jerusalem, who were loyal to Rome and to the political powers of Western Europe, became a
|
||||
tragically visible new expression of schism. Even after 1261, Rome supported Latin patriarchs in
|
||||
these three ancient Eastern sees. For most Eastern Christians, this was a clear sign that the
|
||||
papacy and its political supporters had little regard for the legitimacy of their ancient churches.
|
||||
|
||||
Despite this growing estrangement, a number of notable attempts were made to address the issue
|
||||
of the *Filioque* between the early twelfth and mid-thirteenth century. The German Emperor
|
||||
Lothair III sent bishop Anselm of Havelberg to Constantinople in 1136, to negotiate a military
|
||||
alliance with Emperor John II Comnenos. While he was there, Anselm and Metropolitan Nicetas
|
||||
of Nicomedia held a series of public discussions about subjects dividing the Churches, including
|
||||
the *Filioque*, and concluded that the differences between the two traditions were not as great as
|
||||
they had thought (PL 188.1206B – 1210 B). A letter from Orthodox Patriarch Germanos II
|
||||
(1222-1240) to Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) led to further discussions between Eastern and
|
||||
Western theologians on the *Filioque* at Nicaea in 1234. Subsequent discussions were held in
|
||||
1253-54, at the initiative of Emperor John III Vatatzes (1222-1254) and Pope Innocent IV
|
||||
(1243-1254). In spite of these efforts, the continuing effects of the Fourth Crusade and the threat
|
||||
of the Turks, along with the jurisdictional claims of the papacy in the East, meant that these
|
||||
well-intentioned efforts came to no conclusion.
|
||||
|
||||
Against this background, a Western council was held in Lyons in 1274 (Lyons II), after the
|
||||
restoration of Constantinople to Eastern imperial control. Despite the consequences of the
|
||||
crusades, many Byzantines sought to heal the wounds of division and looked to the West for
|
||||
support against the growing advances of the Turks, and Pope Gregory X (1271-1276)
|
||||
enthusiastically hoped for reunion. Among the topics agreed upon for discussion at the council
|
||||
was the *Filioque*. Yet the two Byzantine bishops who were sent as delegates had no real
|
||||
opportunity to present the Eastern perspective at the Council. The *Filioque* was formally
|
||||
approved by the delegates in the final session on July 17, in a brief constitution which also
|
||||
explicitly condemned those holding other views on the origin of the Holy Spirit. Already on July
|
||||
6, in accord with an agreement previously reached between papal delegates and the Emperor in
|
||||
Constantinople, the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches was proclaimed, but it was
|
||||
never received by the Eastern clergy and faithful, or vigorously promoted by the Popes in the
|
||||
West. In this context it should be noted that in his letter commemorating the 700th anniversary of
|
||||
this council (1974), Pope Paul VI recognised this and added that “the Latins chose texts and
|
||||
formulae expressing an ecclesiology which had been conceived and developed in the West. It is
|
||||
understandable […] that a unity achieved in this way could not be accepted completely by the
|
||||
Eastern Christian mind.” A little further on, the Pope, speaking of the future Catholic-Orthodox
|
||||
dialogue, observed: “…it will take up again other controverted points which Gregory X and the
|
||||
Fathers of Lyons thought were resolved.”
|
||||
|
||||
At the Eastern Council of Blachernae (Constantinople) in 1285, in fact, the decisions of the
|
||||
Council of Lyons and the pro-Latin theology of former Patriarch John XI Bekkos (1275-1282)
|
||||
were soundly rejected, under the leadership of Patriarch Gregory II, also known as Gregory of
|
||||
Cyprus (1282-1289). At the same time, this council produced a significant statement addressing
|
||||
the theological issue of the *Filioque*. While firmly rejecting the “double procession” of the Spirit
|
||||
from the Father and the Son, the statement spoke of an “eternal manifestation” of the Spirit
|
||||
*through* the Son. Patriarch Gregory’s language opened the way, at least, towards a deeper, more
|
||||
complex understanding of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in both the East
|
||||
and the West. (see below) This approach was developed further by Gregory Palamas
|
||||
(1296-1359), in the context of his distinction between the essence and the energies of the divine
|
||||
persons. Unfortunately, these openings had little effect on later medieval discussions of the origin
|
||||
of the Spirit, in either the Eastern or the Western Church. Despite the concern shown by
|
||||
Byzantine theologians, from the time of Photios, to oppose both the idea of the *Filioque* and its
|
||||
addition to the Latin creed, there is no reference to it in the *Synodikon of Orthodoxy*, a collection
|
||||
containing more than sixty anathemas representing the doctrinal decisions of Eastern councils
|
||||
through the fourteenth century.
|
||||
|
||||
One more attempt was made, however, to deal with the subject authoritatively on an ecumenical
|
||||
scale. The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445) again brought together representatives from
|
||||
the Church of Rome and the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, to
|
||||
discuss a wide range of controversial issues, including papal authority and the *Filioque*. This
|
||||
Council took place at a time when the Byzantine Empire was gravely threatened by the
|
||||
Ottomans, and when many in the Greek world regarded military aid from the West as
|
||||
Constantinople’s only hope. Following extensive discussions by experts from both sides, often
|
||||
centered on the interpretation of patristic texts, the union of the Churches was declared on July 6,
|
||||
1439. The Council’s decree of reunion, *Laetentur caeli*, recognized the legitimacy of the Western
|
||||
view of the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from a single principle and
|
||||
in a single spiration. The *Filioque* was presented here as having the same meaning as the position
|
||||
of some early Eastern Fathers that the Spirit exists or proceeds “through the Son.” The Council
|
||||
also approved a text which spoke of the Pope as having “primacy over the whole world,” as
|
||||
“head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christians.” Despite Orthodox
|
||||
participation in these discussions, the decisions of Florence – like the union decree of Lyons II -
|
||||
were never received by a representative body of bishops or faithful in the East, and were
|
||||
formally rejected in Constantinople in 1484.
|
||||
|
||||
The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the fracturing effect of the Protestant Reformation in the
|
||||
West, as well as subsequent Latin missions in the former Byzantine world and the establishment
|
||||
of Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, led to a deepening of the schism, accompanied
|
||||
by much polemical literature on each side. For more than five hundred years, few opportunities
|
||||
were offered to the Catholic and Orthodox sides for serious discussion of the *Filioque*, and of the
|
||||
related issue of the primacy and teaching authority of the bishop of Rome. Orthodoxy and
|
||||
Roman Catholicism entered into a period of formal isolation from each other, in which each
|
||||
developed a sense of being the only ecclesiastical body authentically representing the apostolic
|
||||
faith. For example, this is expressed in Pius IX’s encyclical *In Suprema Petri Sede* of January 6,
|
||||
1848, and in Leo XIII’s encyclical *Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae* of June 20, 1894, as well as
|
||||
the encyclical of the Orthodox Patriarchs in 1848 and the encyclical of the Patriarchate of
|
||||
Constantinople of 1895, each reacting to the prior papal documents. Ecumenical discussions of
|
||||
the *Filioque* between the Orthodox Churches and representatives of the Old Catholics and
|
||||
Anglicans were held in Germany in 1874-75, and were occasionally revived during the century
|
||||
that followed, but in general little substantial progress was made in moving beyond the hardened
|
||||
opposition of traditional Eastern and Western views.
|
||||
|
||||
A new phase in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church began
|
||||
formally with the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the Pan-Orthodox Conferences
|
||||
(1961-1968), which renewed contacts and dialogue. From that time, a number of theological
|
||||
issues and historical events contributing to the schism between the churches have begun to
|
||||
receive new attention. In this context, our own North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation
|
||||
was established in 1965, and the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue
|
||||
between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was established in 1979. Although a committee of
|
||||
theologians from many different Churches, sponsored by the Faith and Order Commission of the
|
||||
World Council of Churches, studied the *Filioque* question in depth in 1978 and 1979, and
|
||||
concluded by issuing the “Klingenthal Memorandum” (1979), no thorough new joint discussion
|
||||
of the issue has been undertaken by representatives of our two Churches until our own study. The
|
||||
first statement of the Joint International Commission (1982), entitled “The Mystery of the
|
||||
Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Trinity,” does briefly address the
|
||||
issue of the *Filioque*, within the context of an extensive discussion of the relationship of the
|
||||
persons of the Holy Trinity. The Statement says: “Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties
|
||||
which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son
|
||||
and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn.
|
||||
15:26) as the sole source of the Trinity, and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom.
|
||||
8:15) since he is already the Spirit of the Son (Gal.4:6), is communicated to us, particularly in the
|
||||
Eucharist, by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and eternity (Jn. 1:32).” (No. 6).
|
||||
|
||||
Several other events in recent decades point to a greater willingness on the part of Rome to
|
||||
recognize the normative character of the original creed of Constantinople. When Patriarch
|
||||
Dimitrios I visited Rome on December 7, 1987, and again during the visit of Patriarch
|
||||
Bartholomew I to Rome in June 1995, both patriarchs attended a Eucharist celebrated by Pope
|
||||
John Paul II in St. Peter’s Basilica. On both occasions the Pope and Patriarch proclaimed the
|
||||
Creed in Greek (i.e., without the Filioque). Pope John Paul II and Romanian Patriarch Teoctist
|
||||
did the same in Romanian at a papal Mass in Rome on October 13, 2002. The document
|
||||
*Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church*, issued
|
||||
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on August 6, 2000, begins its theological
|
||||
considerations on the Church’s central teaching with the text of the creed of 381, again without
|
||||
the addition of the *Filioque*. While no interpretation of these uses of the Creed was offered, these
|
||||
developments suggest a new awareness on the Catholic side of the unique character of the
|
||||
original Greek text of the Creed as the most authentic formulation of the faith that unifies Eastern
|
||||
and Western Christianity.
|
||||
|
||||
Not long after the meeting in Rome between Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch
|
||||
Bartholomew I, the Vatican published the document “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding
|
||||
the Procession of the Holy Spirit” (September 13, 1995). This text was intended to be a new
|
||||
contribution to the dialogue between our churches on this controversial issue. Among the many
|
||||
observations it makes, the text says: “The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar,
|
||||
ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as the expression of one common faith of the
|
||||
Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the
|
||||
Second Ecumenical Council. No confession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition
|
||||
can contradict this expression of faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.” Although
|
||||
the Catholic Church obviously does not consider the *Filioque* to be a contradiction of the creed
|
||||
of 381, the significance of this passage in the 1995 Vatican statement should not be minimized. It
|
||||
is in response to this important document that our own study of the *Filioque* began in 1999, and
|
||||
we hope that this present statement will serve to carry further the positive discussions between
|
||||
our communions that we have experienced ourselves.
|
||||
|
||||
## [III. Theological Reflections](#3) {#3}
|
||||
|
||||
In all discussions about the origin of the Holy Spirit within the Mystery of God, and about the
|
||||
relationships of Father, Son and Holy Spirit with each other, the first habit of mind to be
|
||||
cultivated is doubtless a reverent modesty. Concerning the divine Mystery itself, we can say very
|
||||
little, and our speculations always risk claiming a degree of clarity and certainty that is more than
|
||||
their due. As Pseudo-Dionysius reminds us, “No unity or trinity or number or oneness or
|
||||
fruitfulness, or any other thing that either is a creature or can be known to any creature, is able to
|
||||
express the Mystery, beyond all mind and reason, of that transcendent Godhead which in a superessential
|
||||
way surpasses all things” (*On the Divine Names* 13.3). That we do, as Christians,
|
||||
profess our God, who is radically and indivisibly one, to be the Father and the Son and the Holy
|
||||
Spirit – three “persons” who can never be confused with or reduced to one another, and who are
|
||||
all fully and literally God, singly and in the harmonious whole of their relationships with each
|
||||
other - is simply a summation of what we have learned from God’s self-revelation in human
|
||||
history, a revelation that has reached its climax in our being able, in the power of the Holy Spirit,
|
||||
to confess Jesus as the Eternal Father’s Word and Son. Surely our Christian language about God
|
||||
must always be regulated by the Holy Scriptures, and by the dogmatic tradition of the Church,
|
||||
which interprets the content of Scripture in a normative way. Yet there always remains the
|
||||
difficult hermeneutical problem of applying particular Scriptural terms and texts to the inner life
|
||||
of God, and of knowing when a passage refers simply to God’s action within the “economy” of
|
||||
saving history, or when it should be understood as referring absolutely to God’s being in itself.
|
||||
The division between our Churches on the *Filioque* question would probably be less acute if both
|
||||
sides, through the centuries, had remained more conscious of the limitations of our knowledge of
|
||||
God.
|
||||
|
||||
Secondly, discussion of this difficult subject has often been hampered by polemical distortions,
|
||||
in which each side has caricatured the position of the other for the purposes of argument. It is not
|
||||
true, for instance, that mainstream Orthodox theology conceives of the procession of the Spirit,
|
||||
within God’s eternal being, as simply unaffected by the relationship of the Son to the Father, or
|
||||
thinks of the Spirit as not “belonging” properly to the Son when the Spirit is sent forth in history.
|
||||
It is also not true that mainstream Latin theology has traditionally begun its Trinitarian
|
||||
reflections from an abstract, unscriptural consideration of the divine substance, or affirms two
|
||||
causes of the Spirit’s hypostatic existence, or means to assign the Holy Spirit a role subordinate
|
||||
to the Son, either within the Mystery of God or in God’s saving action in history.
|
||||
|
||||
We are convinced from our own study that the Eastern and Western theological traditions have
|
||||
been in substantial agreement, since the patristic period, on a number of fundamental
|
||||
affirmations about the Holy Trinity that bear on the Filioque debate:
|
||||
|
||||
* both traditions clearly affirm that *the Holy Spirit is a distinct hypostasis* or person within the
|
||||
divine Mystery, equal in status to the Father and the Son, and is not simply a creature or a way
|
||||
of talking about God’s action in creatures;
|
||||
|
||||
* although the Creed of 381 does not state it explicitly, both traditions confess the Holy Spirit to
|
||||
be God, *of the same divine substance (homoousios)* as Father and Son;
|
||||
|
||||
* both traditions also clearly affirm that the Father *is the primordial source (arch‘) and ultimate*
|
||||
*cause (aitia) of the divine being*, and thus of all God’s operations: the “spring” from which
|
||||
both Son and Spirit flow, the “root” of their being and fruitfulness, the “sun” from which their
|
||||
existence and their activity radiates;
|
||||
|
||||
* both traditions affirm that *the three hypostases or persons in God are constituted* in their
|
||||
hypostatic existence and distinguished from one another solely *by their relationships of origin*,
|
||||
and not by any other characteristics or activities;
|
||||
|
||||
* accordingly, both traditions affirm that *all the operations of God* - the activities by which God
|
||||
summons created reality into being, and forms that reality, for its well-being, into a unified and
|
||||
ordered cosmos centered on the human creature, who is made in God’s image – are *the*
|
||||
*common work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit*, even though each of them plays a distinctive role
|
||||
within those operations that is determined by their relationships to one another.
|
||||
|
||||
Nevertheless, the Eastern and Western traditions of reflection on the Mystery of God have clearly
|
||||
developed categories and conceptions that differ in substantial ways from one another. These
|
||||
differences cannot simply be explained away, or be made to seem equivalent by facile argument.
|
||||
We might summarize our differences as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
### [1) Terminology](#3.1) {#3.1}
|
||||
|
||||
The *Filioque* controversy is first of all a controversy over words. As a number of recent authors
|
||||
have pointed out, part of the theological disagreement between our communions seems to be
|
||||
rooted in subtle but significant differences in the way key terms have been used to refer to the
|
||||
Spirit’s divine origin. The original text of the Creed of 381, in speaking of the Holy Spirit,
|
||||
characterizes him in terms of John 15.26, as the one “who proceeds (*ekporeuetai*) from the
|
||||
Father”: probably influenced by the usage of Gregory the Theologian (Or. 31.8), the Council
|
||||
chose to restrict itself to the Johannine language, slightly altering the Gospel text (changing *to*
|
||||
*pneuma…ho para tou Patros ekporeuetai to: to pneuma to hagion… to ek tou Patros*
|
||||
*ekporeuomenon*) in order to emphasize that the “coming forth” of the Spirit begins “within” the
|
||||
Father’s own eternal hypostatic role as source of the divine Being, and so is best spoken of as a
|
||||
kind of “movement out of (*ek*)” him. The underlying connotation of *ekporeuesthai* (“proceed,”
|
||||
“issue forth”) and its related noun, *ekporeusis* (“procession”), seems to have been that of a
|
||||
“passage outwards” from within some point of origin. Since the time of the Cappadocian Fathers,
|
||||
at least, Greek theology almost always restricts the theological use of this term to the coming-forth
|
||||
of the Spirit from the Father, giving it the status of a technical term for the relationship of
|
||||
those two divine persons. In contrast, other Greek words, such as *proienai*, “go forward,” are
|
||||
frequently used by the Eastern Fathers to refer to the Spirit’s saving “mission” in history from the
|
||||
Father and the risen Lord.
|
||||
|
||||
The Latin word *procedere*, on the other hand, with its related noun *processio*, suggests simply
|
||||
“movement forwards,” without the added implication of the starting-point of that movement;
|
||||
thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms, including *proienai*, and is
|
||||
explicitly taken by Thomas Aquinas to be a general term denoting “origin of any kind” (*Summa*
|
||||
*Theologiae* I, q. 36, a.2), including – in a Trinitarian context - the Son’s generation as well as the
|
||||
breathing-forth of the Spirit and his mission in time. As a result, both the primordial origin of the
|
||||
Spirit in the eternal Father and his “coming forth” from the risen Lord tend to be designated, in
|
||||
Latin, by the same word, *procedere*, while Greek theology normally uses two different terms.
|
||||
Although the difference between the Greek and the Latin traditions of understanding the eternal
|
||||
origin of the Spirit is more than simply a verbal one, much of the original concern in the Greek
|
||||
Church over the insertion of the word *Filioque* into the Latin translation of the Creed of 381 may
|
||||
well have been due – as Maximus the Confessor explained (*Letter to Marinus*: PG 91.133-136) -
|
||||
to a misunderstanding on both sides of the different ranges of meaning implied in the Greek and
|
||||
Latin terms for “procession”.
|
||||
|
||||
### [2) The Substantive Issues](#3.2) {#3.2}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Clearly two main issues separate the Eastern and Western Churches in their history of debating
|
||||
the Filioque: one theological, in the strict sense, and one ecclesiological.
|
||||
|
||||
#### [a) Theological:](#3.2.1) {#3.2.1}
|
||||
|
||||
If “theology” is understood in its Patristic sense, as reflection on God as Trinity, the theological
|
||||
issue behind this dispute is whether the Son is to be thought of as playing any role in the origin
|
||||
of the Spirit, as a hypostasis or divine “person,” from the Father, who is the sole ultimate source
|
||||
of the divine Mystery. The Greek tradition, as we have seen, has generally relied on John 15.26
|
||||
and the formulation of the Creed of 381 to assert that all we know of the Spirit’s hypostatic
|
||||
origin is that he “proceeds from the Father,” in a way distinct from, but parallel to, the Son’s
|
||||
“generation” from the Father (e.g., John of Damascus, *On the Orthodox Faith* 1.8). However,
|
||||
this same tradition acknowledges that the “mission” of the Spirit in the world also involves the
|
||||
Son, who receives the Spirit into his own humanity at his baptism, breathes the Spirit forth onto
|
||||
the Twelve on the evening of the resurrection, and sends the Spirit in power into the world,
|
||||
through the charismatic preaching of the Apostles, at Pentecost. On the other hand, the Latin
|
||||
tradition since Tertullian has tended to assume that since the order in which the Church normally
|
||||
names the persons in the Trinity places the Spirit after the Son, he is to be thought of as coming
|
||||
forth “from” the Father “through” the Son. Augustine, who in several passages himself insists
|
||||
that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” because as God he is not inferior to the Son (*De*
|
||||
*Fide et Symbolo* 9.19; *Enchiridion* 9.3), develops, in other texts, his classic understanding that
|
||||
the Spirit also “proceeds” from the Son because he is, in the course of sacred history, the Spirit
|
||||
and the “gift” of both Father and Son (e.g., *On the Trinity* 4.20.29; *Tractate on Gospel of John*
|
||||
99.6-7), the gift that begins in their own eternal exchange of love (*On the Trinity* 15.17.29). In
|
||||
Augustine’s view, this involvement of the Son in the Spirit’s procession is not understood to
|
||||
contradict the Father’s role as the single ultimate source of both Son and Spirit, but is itself given
|
||||
by the Father in generating the Son: “the Holy Spirit, in turn, has this from the Father himself,
|
||||
that he should also proceed from the Son, just as he proceeds from the Father” (*Tractate on*
|
||||
*Gospel of John* 99.8).
|
||||
|
||||
Much of the difference between the early Latin and Greek traditions on this point is clearly due
|
||||
to the subtle difference of the Latin *procedere* from the Greek *ekporeuesthai*: as we have
|
||||
observed, the Spirit’s “coming forth” is designated in a more general sense by the Latin term,
|
||||
without the connotation of ultimate origin hinted at by the Greek. The Spirit’s “procession” from
|
||||
the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his
|
||||
“procession” from the Father, even when – as in the explanations of Anselm and Thomas
|
||||
Aquinas – the relationship of Father and Son to the Holy Spirit is spoken of as constituting “a
|
||||
single principle” of the Spirit’s origin: even in breathing forth the Spirit together, according to
|
||||
these later Latin theologians, the Father retains priority, giving the Son all that he has and making
|
||||
possible all that he does.
|
||||
|
||||
Greek theologians, too, have often struggled to find ways of expressing a sense that the Son, who
|
||||
sends forth the Spirit in time, also plays a mediating role of some kind in the Spirit’s eternal
|
||||
being and activity. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, explains that we can only distinguish the
|
||||
hypostases within the Mystery of God by “believing that one is the cause, the other is from the
|
||||
cause; and in that which is from the cause, we recognize yet another distinction: one is
|
||||
immediately from the first one, the other is through him who is immediately from the first one.”
|
||||
It is characteristic of the “mediation” (*mesiteia*) of the Son in the origin of the Spirit, he adds,
|
||||
that it both preserves his own unique role as Son and allows the Spirit to have a “natural
|
||||
relationship” to the Father. (*To Ablabius*: GNO III/1, 56.3-10) In the thirteenth century, the
|
||||
Council of Blachernae (1285), under the leadership of Constantinopolitan Patriarch Gregory II,
|
||||
took further steps to interpret Patristic texts that speak of the Spirit’s being “through” the Son in
|
||||
a sense consistent with the Orthodox tradition. The Council proposed in its *Tomos* that although
|
||||
Christian faith must maintain that the Holy Spirit receives his existence and hypostatic identity
|
||||
solely from the Father, who is the single cause of the divine Being, he “shines from and is
|
||||
manifested eternally through the Son, in the way that light shines forth and is manifest through
|
||||
the intermediary of the sun’s rays.” (trans. A. Papadakis, *Crisis in Byzantium* [St. Vladimir’s,
|
||||
1996] 219) In the following century, Gregory Palamas proposed a similar interpretation of this
|
||||
relationship in a number of his works; in his *Confession* of 1351, for instance, he asserts that the
|
||||
Holy Spirit “has the Father as foundation, source, and cause,” but “reposes in the Son” and “is
|
||||
sent – that is, manifested – through the Son.” (*ibid*. 194) In terms of the transcendent divine
|
||||
energy, although not in terms of substance or hypostatic being, “the Spirit pours itself out from
|
||||
the Father through the Son, and, if you like, from the Son over all those worthy of it,” a
|
||||
communication which may even be broadly called “procession” (*ekporeusis*) (*Apodeictic*
|
||||
*Treatise* 1: trans. J. Meyendorff, *A Study of Gregory Palamas* [St. Vladimir’s, 1974] 231-232).
|
||||
|
||||
The Greek and Latin theological traditions clearly remain in some tension with each other on the
|
||||
fundamental issue of the Spirit’s eternal origin as a distinct divine person. By the Middle Ages,
|
||||
as a result of the influence of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, Western theology almost universally
|
||||
conceives of the identity of each divine person as defined by its “relations of opposition” – in
|
||||
other words, its mutually defining relations of origin - to the other two, and concludes that the
|
||||
Holy Spirit would not be hypostatically distinguishable from the Son if the Spirit “proceeded”
|
||||
from the Father alone. In the Latin understanding of *processio* as a general term for “origin,”
|
||||
after all, it can also be said that the Son “proceeds from the Father” by being generated from him.
|
||||
Eastern theology, drawing on the language of John 15.26 and the Creed of 381, continues to
|
||||
understand the language of “procession” (*ekporeusis*) as denoting a unique, exclusive, and
|
||||
distinctive causal relationship between the Spirit and the Father, and generally confines the Son’s
|
||||
role to the “manifestation” and “mission” of the Spirit in the divine activities of creation and
|
||||
redemption. These differences, though subtle, are substantial, and the very weight of theological
|
||||
tradition behind both of them makes them all the more difficult to reconcile theologically with
|
||||
each other.
|
||||
|
||||
#### [b) Ecclesiological:](#3.2.2) {#3.2.2}
|
||||
|
||||
The other issue continually present since the late eighth century in the debate over the *Filioque* is
|
||||
that of pastoral and teaching authority in the Church – more precisely, the issue of the authority
|
||||
of the bishop of Rome to resolve dogmatic questions in a final way, simply in virtue of his office.
|
||||
Since the Council of Ephesus (431), the dogmatic tradition of both Eastern and Western
|
||||
Churches has repeatedly affirmed that the final norm of orthodoxy in interpreting the Christian
|
||||
Gospel must be “the faith of Nicaea.” The Orthodox tradition sees the normative expression of
|
||||
that faith to be the Creeds and canons formulated by those Councils that are received by the
|
||||
Apostolic Churches as “ecumenical”: as expressing the continuing and universal Apostolic faith.
|
||||
The Catholic tradition also accepts conciliar formulations as dogmatically normative, and
|
||||
attributes a unique importance to the seven Councils that are accepted as ecumenical by the
|
||||
Catholic and Orthodox Churches. However, in recognizing the universal primacy of the bishop
|
||||
of Rome in matters of faith and of the service of unity, the Catholic tradition accepts the
|
||||
authority of the Pope to confirm the process of conciliar reception, and to define what does and
|
||||
does not conflict with the “faith of Nicaea” and the Apostolic tradition. So while Orthodox
|
||||
theology has regarded the ultimate approval by the Popes, in the eleventh century, of the use of
|
||||
*Filioque* in the Latin Creed as a usurpation of the dogmatic authority proper to ecumenical
|
||||
Councils alone, Catholic theology has seen it as a legitimate exercise of his primatial authority to
|
||||
proclaim and clarify the Church’s faith. As our own common study has repeatedly shown, it is
|
||||
precisely at times in which issues of power and control have been of concern to our Churches
|
||||
that the question of the *Filioque* has emerged as a central concern: held out as a condition for
|
||||
improving relations, or given as a reason for allowing disunity to continue unhealed.
|
||||
|
||||
As in the theological question of the origin of the Holy Spirit discussed above, this divergence of
|
||||
understanding of the structure and exercise of authority in the Church is clearly a very serious
|
||||
one: undoubtedly Papal primacy, with all its implications, remains the root issue behind all the
|
||||
questions of theology and practice that continue to divide our communions. In the continuing
|
||||
discussion of the *Filioque* between our Churches, however, we have found it helpful to keep
|
||||
these two issues methodologically separate from one another, and to recognize that the mystery
|
||||
of the relationships among the persons in God must be approached in a different way from the
|
||||
issue of whether or not it is proper for the Western Churches to profess the faith of Nicaea in
|
||||
terms that diverge from the original text of the Creed of 381.
|
||||
|
||||
### [3) Continuing our Reflections](#3.2.3) {#3.2.3}
|
||||
|
||||
It has often been remarked that the theology of the Holy Spirit is an underdeveloped region of
|
||||
Christian theological reflection. This seems to hold true even of the issue of the origin of the
|
||||
Holy Spirit. Although a great deal has been written about the reasons for and against the theology
|
||||
of the *Filioque* since the Carolingian era, most of it has been polemical in nature, aimed at
|
||||
justifying positions assumed by both sides to be non-negotiable. Little effort has been made, until
|
||||
modern times, to look for new ways of expressing and explaining the Biblical and early Christian
|
||||
understanding of the person and work of the Holy Spirit, which might serve to frame the
|
||||
discussion in a new way and move all the Churches towards a consensus on essential matters that
|
||||
would be in continuity with both traditions. Recently, a number of theologians, from a variety of
|
||||
Churches, have suggested that the time may now be at hand to return to this question together, in
|
||||
a genuinely ecumenical spirit, and to seek for new developments in our articulation of the
|
||||
Apostolic faith that may ultimately win ecumenical Christian reception.
|
||||
|
||||
Recognizing its challenges, our Consultation supports such a common theological enterprise. It is
|
||||
our hope that a serious process of reflection on the theology of the Holy Spirit, based on the
|
||||
Scriptures and on the whole tradition of Christian theology, and conducted with an openness to
|
||||
new formulations and conceptual structures consonant with that tradition, might help our
|
||||
Churches to discover new depths of common faith and to grow in respect for the wisdom of our
|
||||
respective forbears. We urge, too, that both our Churches persist in their efforts to reflect –
|
||||
together and separately – on the theology of primacy and synodality within the Church’s
|
||||
structures of teaching and pastoral practice, recognizing that here also a continuing openness to
|
||||
doctrinal and practical development, intimately linked to the Spirit’s work in the community,
|
||||
remains crucially necessary. Gregory Nazianzen reminds us, in his *Fifth Theological Oration* on
|
||||
the divinity of the Holy Spirit, that the Church’s slow discovery of the Spirit’s true status and
|
||||
identity is simply part of the “order of theology (*taxis tēs theologias*),” by which “lights break
|
||||
upon us gradually” in our understanding of the saving Mystery of God. (Or. 31.27) Only if we
|
||||
“listen to what the Spirit is saying to the Churches” (Rev 3.22), will we be able to remain faithful
|
||||
to the Good News preached by the Apostles, while growing in the understanding of that faith,
|
||||
which is theology’s task.
|
||||
|
||||
## [IV. Recommendations](#4) {#4}
|
||||
|
||||
We are aware that the problem of the theology of the *Filioque*, and its use in the Creed, is not
|
||||
simply an issue between the Catholic and Orthodox communions. Many Protestant Churches,
|
||||
too, drawing on the theological legacy of the Medieval West, consider the term to represent an
|
||||
integral part of the orthodox Christian confession. Although dialogue among a number of these
|
||||
Churches and the Orthodox communion has already touched on the issue, any future resolution
|
||||
of the disagreement between East and West on the origin of the Spirit must involve all those
|
||||
communities that profess the Creed of 381 as a standard of faith. Aware of its limitations, our
|
||||
Consultation nonetheless makes the following theological and practical recommendations to the
|
||||
members and the bishops of our own Churches:
|
||||
|
||||
* that our Churches commit themselves to a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and
|
||||
person of the Holy Spirit, drawing on the Holy Scriptures and on the full riches of the
|
||||
theological traditions of both our Churches, and to looking for constructive ways of
|
||||
expressing what is central to our faith on this difficult issue;
|
||||
|
||||
* that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make
|
||||
definitive assertions about the inner life of God;
|
||||
|
||||
* that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in
|
||||
recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the
|
||||
other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;
|
||||
|
||||
* that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and
|
||||
hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the
|
||||
manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;
|
||||
|
||||
* that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological
|
||||
issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and
|
||||
doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together;
|
||||
|
||||
* that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the
|
||||
status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as
|
||||
ecumenical.
|
||||
|
||||
* that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value
|
||||
of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for
|
||||
catechetical and liturgical use.
|
||||
|
||||
* that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the
|
||||
statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second
|
||||
Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds
|
||||
eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.
|
||||
|
||||
We offer these recommendations to our Churches in the conviction, based on our own intense
|
||||
study and discussion, that our traditions’ different ways of understanding the procession of the
|
||||
Holy Spirit need no longer divide us. We believe, rather, that our profession of the ancient Creed
|
||||
of Constantinople must be allowed to become, by our uniform practice and our new attempts at
|
||||
mutual understanding, the basis for a more conscious unity in the one faith that all theology
|
||||
simply seeks to clarify and to deepen. Although our expression of the truth God reveals about his
|
||||
own Being must always remain limited by the boundaries of human understanding and human
|
||||
words, we believe that it is the very “Spirit of truth,” whom Jesus breathes upon his Church, who
|
||||
remains with us still, to “guide us into all truth” (John 16.13). We pray that our Churches’
|
||||
understanding of this Spirit may no longer be a scandal to us, or an obstacle to unity in Christ,
|
||||
but that the one truth towards which he guides us may truly be “a bond of peace” (Eph 4.3), for
|
||||
us and for all Christians.
|
||||
|
||||
Washington, DC
|
||||
October 25, 2003
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue