From e0a29379e21047fbdcafef4fdab4ba54fda54473 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Van Baak Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:01:44 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Add 2003 Filioque statement --- src/page/ecumen/index.md | 1 + src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2003-filioque.md | 817 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 818 insertions(+) create mode 100644 src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2003-filioque.md diff --git a/src/page/ecumen/index.md b/src/page/ecumen/index.md index 5890246..4946758 100644 --- a/src/page/ecumen/index.md +++ b/src/page/ecumen/index.md @@ -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) diff --git a/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2003-filioque.md b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2003-filioque.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..15614a7 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/page/ecumen/naoctc-2003-filioque.md @@ -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