Skip to content

Course 8 · Lesson 5.4

The filioque and the monarchy of the Father

13 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 8 outline

Module 1: Speaking About God

  1. What systematic theology is and what it can claim
  2. Naming God: analogy, negation and the limits of language
  3. Classical theism defined and compared with alternatives
  4. Beyond the world and present in it: transcendence and immanence

Module 2: The Classical Attributes

  1. Divine simplicity: God is not made of parts
  2. Divine immutability: does God change?
  3. Divine eternity: timeless or everlasting?
  4. Divine omniscience and human freedom

Module 3: The Trinity in Scripture and the Early Church

  1. One God: the Shema and the Old Testament background
  2. Father, Son and Spirit in the New Testament
  3. Early Trinitarian language: Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian
  4. Two early errors: modalism and subordinationism

Module 4: Arius, Athanasius and Nicaea

  1. What Arius taught and why it spread
  2. The Council of Nicaea in 325 and the word homoousios
  3. The long fight after Nicaea and the role of Athanasius
  4. Constantinople in 381 and the deity of the Holy Spirit

Module 5: The Cappadocians and the Shape of Trinitarian Thought

  1. One ousia, three hypostases: the Cappadocian vocabulary
  2. Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa
  3. Augustine and the Western tradition
  4. The filioque and the monarchy of the Father

Module 6: Creation from Nothing

  1. Creation in Scripture
  2. Rivals to creation from nothing: eternal matter and emanation
  3. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo and its development
  4. Creation, the goodness of matter and the Trinity

Module 7: Providence, Sovereignty and Evil

  1. Providence: preservation, concurrence and governance
  2. Divine sovereignty and human freedom across the traditions
  3. The problem of evil: logical and evidential forms
  4. Christian responses: free will, privation and the suffering God
  5. Evaluating the responses and living with what remains unanswered

All courses

Program / Course 8: God, Trinity, and Creation / Lesson 5.4

What you will learn

  • Explain what the filioque is and how it entered the Latin creed.
  • State the Western reasons for it and the Eastern objections, in terms each side would accept.
  • Distinguish the question of the wording added to the creed from the question of the doctrine behind it.
  • Describe recent attempts to reach understanding between the churches.

The big idea

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. In the Latin West the words and the Son (filioque) were added. The addition became one of the central disputes between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. The Western case is that the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son as from one principle, which expresses the unity of the persons. The Eastern case is that the Father alone is the source of the Godhead, and that the addition both changes the creed without a council and alters the doctrine. Protestant churches mostly kept the Western wording.

Key terms

Filioque
Latin for and from the Son. The phrase added to the Latin creed after proceeds from the Father.
Procession
The coming forth of the Spirit from the Father (John 15:26). In Western usage also from the Son.
Monarchy of the Father
The teaching that the Father is the single source or principle (arche) of the Son and the Spirit within the Godhead.
Single principle
The Western teaching that Father and Son together are one source of the Spirit, not two.
Ekporeusis
The Greek word for the Spirit’s procession in the creed. The Orthodox take it to mean origin from the Father alone.
Through the Son (dia tou Huiou)
A phrase used by some Eastern writers to describe the Spirit’s relation to the Son, for example to say that the Spirit is sent or shines forth through the Son.
Photius
Patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century who attacked the filioque as heresy.
Great Schism
The break of communion between Rome and Constantinople, traditionally dated to 1054, with many causes.

Background

The creed of Constantinople in 381 says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The words rest on John 15:26, where Jesus says the Spirit of truth proceedeth from the Father. In the Latin West, however, writers such as Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose taught that the Spirit also comes from the Son, and Augustine gave this teaching its definitive form. Local councils in Spain in the sixth century, notably at Toledo in 589, added the words and the Son to the creed in the fight against Arianism, to show the Son’s equality with the Father.

The addition spread to the Frankish kingdom, and in 809 a council at Aachen under Charlemagne defended it. Rome resisted adding the word to the creed for two centuries. Pope Leo III approved the doctrine but advised against changing the text. Rome began using the filioque in the creed only in the early eleventh century, around 1014. In the East the controversy flared when Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, denounced the Western practice in the 860s and 870s, charging that it was both an unauthorized change and a false doctrine.

The dispute was one of many grievances that led to the break of 1054, when legates of the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated one another. Attempts at reunion at the Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence in 1439 included acceptance of the filioque by the Greeks, but they failed to take root among the people and clergy of the East. The matter has remained a standing source of division.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: The Western case

Western theologians offered several reasons. First, Scripture calls the Spirit the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6) and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), and says that Jesus breathed on the disciples and said, receive the Holy Ghost (John 20:22). These texts, they said, show a relation between the Son and the Spirit. Second, the Latin fathers held that if the Son and the Spirit are of one substance, and they are distinguished only by their relations, then the Spirit must have a relation of origin to the Son as well as the Father, or there would be no way to tell the Son and Spirit apart. Aquinas argued this at length.

Third, the filioque was defended as a safeguard of the Son’s full divinity. If the Son is not a source with the Father of the Spirit, they argued, then the Son seems lesser than the Father. Latin theologians have added that they do not teach two sources, because the Father and Son are one in substance and one in the act of spirating the Spirit. They also say that the Father gives the Son all that he has, including the power to spirate, and that the Father remains the first source.

Step 2: The Eastern case

The Orthodox objection has two parts. The first is about authority and procedure. The creed was set by ecumenical councils, and the Council of Ephesus in 431 forbade anyone to compose a different faith. To change the creed in one region without a council of the whole church breaks that rule, whatever one thinks of the doctrine. Catholics reply that the addition clarifies and does not change the faith, and that the church has authority to explain it.

The second part is about doctrine. The Orthodox hold that the Father alone is the source of the Son and the Spirit, and that this is how the persons are distinguished. The Father’s monarchy is what keeps one God and not three. If the Spirit also comes from the Son, they argue, then there are two sources in the Godhead, or the Father’s special role is blurred, and the persons risk being reduced to relations within a single essence. Photius called this a mixture of the persons. Orthodox writers also point to the Greek word ekporeuesthai, which they say means origin and is different from sending.

Step 3: Distinguishing the questions

There are in fact three separate questions. One is whether the creed may be changed without a general council. A second is whether the doctrine that the Spirit also comes from the Son can be a legitimate teaching, and the third is how to read the Greek and Latin words for procession. Careful discussion keeps these apart.

On the second question there is some common ground. Many Eastern writers speak of the Spirit as going forth through the Son. Maximus the Confessor, defending the Latin usage in the seventh century, said that the Westerners did not make the Son a cause of the Spirit but showed the Spirit’s connection with the Son. The Catholic Church has stated that the Greek ekporeusis and the Latin processio are not exact equivalents, and that the Greek term expresses origin from the Father alone while the Latin is broader. Many Catholic and Orthodox scholars see in this the possibility of a settlement. Others on each side say that the difference of doctrine remains.

Step 4: After the Reformation and in recent dialogue

The Reformation churches inherited the Latin creed and kept the filioque. Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican confessions include it. In modern times some Protestant bodies have said that it should be considered. In 1978 the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops recommended that the phrase be omitted from the creed when it is used in ecumenical settings, and the World Council of Churches’ Faith and Order commission made a similar recommendation in 1979. These recommendations have been taken up unevenly.

In 1995 the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity published a clarification entitled The Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit. It stated that the Catholic Church does not intend to deny the Father’s role as source, and that the Eastern churches are not obliged to add the filioque. In 2003 a joint North American Orthodox-Catholic consultation suggested that the Catholic Church use the original text of the creed when the West and East pray it together. These steps have not resolved the question.

  1. Do I think the question of changing the creed is separate from the question of the doctrine?
  2. What is gained by saying the Father is the single source?
  3. What is gained by saying the Son has a part in the Spirit’s coming?
  4. How would I explain the dispute to someone who thinks it is trivial?
  5. Why might a word like ekporeuesthai matter so much?
  6. What does the dispute teach about how churches treat a creed?

Examples

Toledo, 589

At the Third Council of Toledo the Visigothic king and bishops, leaving Arianism, accepted the Nicene faith and recited the creed with the phrase and the Son. Their aim was to confess the Son’s equality. The phrase then traveled north. This shows that the addition began as a defense against Arianism, not as an attack on the East.

Pope Leo III and the shields

A tradition says that Pope Leo III, after the council of Aachen in 809, had the creed engraved without the filioque on silver shields in Rome. Historians are unsure of the details, but the story reflects Rome’s stance: the doctrine acceptable, the addition to the creed not advised.

Through the Son

Some Eastern fathers, including Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus, spoke of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father through the Son. Catholic writers see this as close to the filioque. Orthodox writers reply that through the Son does not make the Son a source.

Different perspectives

Catholic

The Catholic Church teaches the filioque as true doctrine, defined at Lyons and Florence. It also teaches that the Father is the source without source, and that the Son and Father spirate the Spirit as one principle. It recognizes the Greek creed without the filioque as legitimate for Eastern Catholics.

Orthodox

The Orthodox churches reject the filioque as an unauthorized addition and, in the view of most, as an erroneous doctrine. They hold to the monarchy of the Father. Some Orthodox theologians have suggested that the question of doctrine might be eased if the West accepted the original creed and explained its teaching in terms of a role of the Son in the Spirit’s manifestation.

Protestant

Lutheran, Reformed and most other Protestant churches retain the filioque, usually with little reflection on its history. Some theologians, such as Jürgen Moltmann, have urged that it be reconsidered for the sake of Christian unity and for the sake of a fuller doctrine of the Spirit.

Scholarly views

Historians point out that the dispute was entangled with politics, since the filioque was used by Frankish rulers to challenge the Byzantine emperor’s claim. Theologians differ on whether the dispute rests on real difference of doctrine or partly on different uses of words.

Why it matters

The filioque is one of the clearest cases where a difference of a single word has divided large parts of Christianity for a thousand years. Understanding it shows how doctrine, authority and history are bound together. It also shows that the question of how the persons are distinguished, which seemed settled by the Cappadocians and Augustine, was still open, and that serious believers hold different views.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: The filioque dispute is only about politics.

Correction: Politics played a role, but the doctrinal and procedural arguments are real. The Orthodox objection to two sources and the Catholic concern for the Son’s equality are both theological.

Misunderstanding: Catholics believe the Spirit has two sources.

Correction: Catholic teaching explicitly denies this. It holds that Father and Son are one principle of the Spirit, and that the Father is the source of the Godhead.

Misunderstanding: The Orthodox deny that the Spirit has any relation to the Son.

Correction: They affirm that the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and is sent by the Son. What they deny is that the Son is a cause of the Spirit’s origin.

Misunderstanding: The original Nicene Creed of 325 had the filioque.

Correction: Neither the creed of 325 nor of 381 had it. It was added in Latin lands from the sixth century.

Knowledge check

What is the filioque and when did it enter the creed?

It is the Latin phrase and from the Son, added after proceeds from the Father in the creed. It appeared in Spain, notably at the Third Council of Toledo in 589, spread to the Frankish lands and was used in Rome from about 1014. It was not part of the creeds of 325 or 381.

Give one Western argument for the filioque.

The Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son in Galatians 4:6 and Romans 8:9, and Jesus breathes the Spirit on the disciples in John 20:22. Western theologians also argued that the Son and the Spirit could be distinguished only by relations of origin, so the Spirit must have a relation of origin to the Son.

Give two Eastern objections.

First, the creed was set by ecumenical councils, so it could not be altered by one region without a general council. Second, the Father alone is the source of the Godhead, and the filioque implies two sources or blurs the Father’s distinctive role, which affects how the persons are distinguished.

What has changed in recent dialogue?

The Catholic Church in 1995 clarified that it does not deny the Father’s role as source and that Greek ekporeusis and Latin processio are not exact equivalents. Some Protestant bodies have recommended omitting the filioque in ecumenical use. No full agreement has been reached.

Think it through

  1. If the doctrine can be stated in a way both sides accept, does the wording of the creed still matter?
  2. What might it mean for a church to change a creed without the whole church?
  3. How does this dispute illustrate the connection between prayer and doctrine?

Independent assignment

Two statements

In your own notebook, write about 450 words. First, write a statement of the Catholic view of the filioque as a Catholic would, including the claim that Father and Son are one principle. Then write a statement of the Orthodox view as an Orthodox Christian would, including the monarchy of the Father. End with a paragraph on which points the two statements share. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study