Filioque¶
At first glance, the filioque clause -- "and the Son" -- seems like a minor doctrinal footnote, yet this western addition to the Nicene Creed exacerbated one of Christianity's deepest schisms, further fracturing East and West. The ancient view reveals it as more than semantics: a profound question of divine procession, authority, and our epistemic access to truth. Understanding the filioque compels us to confront how we know God, pointing inexorably to Christ as the mediator of all revelation, without whom theology devolves into human speculation.
John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.
The Controversy Explained¶
The filioque -- Latin for "and the Son" -- was inserted into the Nicene Creed's statement on the Holy Spirit: "who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]." Originally formulated at the Councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Constantinople (A.D. 381), the Creed affirmed the Spirit's procession from the Father alone, reflecting Eastern patristic consensus.
The addition of the filioque alters the Trinity's relational dynamics: implying the Spirit proceeds eternally from both Father and Son, potentially subordinating the Spirit or blurring hypostatic distinctions. "Proceeds from" suggests a directional flow, implying a "to" -- why not "to the Son" or "through the Son"? The East sees this as safeguarding the Father's monarchy as the sole source of God's will, with the Spirit proceeding through the Son, enabling our participation (as Christ is both God and man).
The clause risks depicting the Trinity as a binary procession, diminishing the Spirit's personhood. The Trinity is best understood in the relationships between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, but the Father is not begotten, and neither is the Holy Spirit -- the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, but the Father does not proceed from the Holy Spirit.
There is a sovereignty from the Father that defines the relationships between Father and Son, as well as Father and Holy Spirit -- and the confusion of the filioque is about the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit. Christ reveals that He must be at the right hand of His Father in order to send the Holy Spirit, uniting us to the Father. This echoes Scriptural truths: the Spirit is sent by the Son (John 15:26), as willed by the Father, emphasizing Christ's role in divine economy.
St. Gregory Palamas
The Spirit is from the Father, not from the Son; but through the Son He is sent to us.
Historical Addition in the West¶
The filioque emerged in the West amid theological and political pressures. First appearing in Spanish councils (e.g., Toledo, A.D. 589) to combat Arianism -- denying Christ's divinity -- it affirmed the Son's equality with the Father. By the 8th century, Charlemagne adopted it to unify his empire against Eastern influence, inserting it into the Creed without ecumenical consent.
Pope Leo III resisted this insertion, engraving the original Creed on silver plates in Rome (A.D. 809) which are still present, but by the 11th century, amid Norman influences and anti-Greek sentiments, it gained papal endorsement. The Great Schism (A.D. 1054) crystallized this: mutual excommunications partly over filioque, symbolizing Western claims to primacy.
Reformers like Luther and Calvin retained it (despite rejecting papal prinacy), viewing the filioque as patristic (citing Augustine, although Augustine explicitly stated that there are not two principles behind the Holy Spirit, but one: unified from the Father and the Son). This perpetuated the divide between East and West, ignoring Eastern concerns over unilateral alteration, rather than ecumenical consensus (i.e., ask the Holy Spirit and not the dictates of man).
Council of Toledo (589)
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son equally.
Eastern Rejection as Heresy¶
The East rejected the filioque as heretical innovation, violating the Creed's ecumenical status -- no single church could alter it unilaterally. St. Photius the Great (9th century) condemned it in his Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, arguing it introduces two causes in the Trinity, risking subordinationism or ditheism.
Patristic consensus, per the Cappadocians and St. John Damascene, holds the Father's monarchy: the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, eternally manifesting through the Son. Adding "and the Son" confuses eternal procession (hypostatic origin) with economic sending (mission in time).
Palamite councils (A.D. 1341-1351) anathematized it, affirming the essence-energies distinction: we participate in God's energies, not essence, preserving mystery. The East sees the addition of the filioque as rational overreach, imposing Western scholasticism on divine ineffability.
St. Photius the Great
If the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, then there are two principles in the Trinity, which is intolerable.
Note that even St. Augustine, whose writings are supportive of the filioque, would have agreed with Eastern criticism; St. Augustine explicitly stated that there cannot be two principles in the Trinity, but a single unified principle.
Theological Implications¶
The filioque is an ancient and unsolved controversy and should invite deep humility and very careful consideration: "proceeds from" implies relational flow, suggesting alternatives like "through the Son" -- emphasizing the Spirit's cooperation with Christ. This aligns with Christ as the way, truth, and life: the Spirit, love between Father (Will) and Son (Word), mediates our access to God as it makes explicit the relationships within the Trinity, which was revealed to us (by Christ) so that we (limited and mortal) may come to know God (transcendent and eternal).
The Trinity is the first principle from which logic and epistemology arise -- how we know truth, personified in Christ. Without the filioque's balance, theology risks imbalance: Western emphasis on unity may overshadow persons; Eastern emphasis on monarchy preserves distinction.
Most theological controversies resolve in the person of Christ: the Spirit of Truth, both God and man, who bridges infinite and finite. We know the transcendent only through Him, our epistemic mediator.
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Resolution in Christ¶
Like all theological rifts, the filioque finds resolution in Christ Jesus, without whom we lose epistemic relation to the transcendent. We cannot know truth without a mediator -- the Spirit of Truth incarnate, relating as uncreated God and created man.
The East's rejection upholds patristic fidelity; the West's addition combats heresy. Yet, unity lies in Christ: the recipient ("to") of the Spirit, embodying divine love (from the Father to the Son). Through Christ, we transcend debates, participating in Trinitarian life.
As a seeker of truth, let the filioque debate drive you closer to Christ, where divisions heal in incarnate love.
For further reflection, watch this discussion on the filioque.
Ephesians 4:5-6
One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.