 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Filioque is atheological formula of greatdogmatic and historical importance. On the one hand, it expresses the Procession of theHoly Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; on the other, it was the occasion of theGreek schism. Both aspects of the expression need further explanation.
Thedogma of the double Procession of theHoly Ghost from Father andSon as one Principle is directly opposed to theerror that theHoly Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from theSon. Neitherdogma norerror created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-calledPneumatomachi, were condemned by the localCouncil of Alexandria (362) and byPope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that theHoly Ghost derives His origin from theSon alone, bycreation. If thecreed used by theNestorians, which was composed probably byTheodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions ofTheodoret directed against the ninthanathema byCyril of Alexandria, deny that theHoly Ghost derives Hisexistence from or through theSon, they probably intend to deny only thecreation of theHoly Ghost by or through theSon, inculcating at the sametime His Procession from both Father andSon. At any rate, if the double Procession of theHoly Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.
The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of theHoly Ghost we find in the seventh century among theheretics ofConstantinople whenSt. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against theMonothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of theMonothelites.
In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of theHoly Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in theSynod of Gentilly nearParis, held in thetime ofPepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of ninth century, John, a Greekmonk of themonastery of St. Sabas, charged themonks of Mt. Olivet withheresy, they had inserted the Filioque into theCreed. In the second half the same century,Photius, thesuccessor of theunjustlydeposedIgnatius,Patriarch ofConstantinople (858), denied the Procession of theHoly Ghost from theSon, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into theConstantinopolitan creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by thePatriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by thePatriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed theGreek schism.
The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of theHoly Ghost from the Father andSon, and the denial of theprimacy of theRoman Pontiff constitute even today the principalerrors of theGreek church. While outside theChurchdoubt as to the double Procession of theHoly Ghost grew into open denial, inside theChurch thedoctrine of the Filioque was declared to be adogma offaith in theFourth Lateran Council (1215), theSecond council of Lyons (1274), and theCouncil of Florence (1438-1445). Thus theChurch proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching ofSacred Scripture andtradition on the Procession of theThird Person of the Holy Trinity.
As to theSacred Scripture, theinspired writers call theHoly Ghost theSpirit of theSon (Galatians 4:6), theSpirit ofChrist (Romans 8:9), theSpirit ofJesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him theSpirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and theSpirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to theHoly Ghost the same relation to theSon as to the Father.
Again, according toSacred Scripture, theSon sends theHoly Ghost (Luke 24:49;John 15:26;16:7;20:22;Acts 2:33;Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends theSon (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends theHoly Ghost (John 14:26).
Now the "mission" or "sending" of one DivinePerson by another does not mean merely that thePerson said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in thePerson sent, as theArians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightiertheologians and Fathers, the Procession of thePerson sent from thePerson Who sends.Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by theSon, nor theSon as being sent by theHoly Ghost. The veryidea of the term "mission" implies that theperson sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on theperson sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or ofprayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, theanalogy of production, is the only manner admissible inGod. It follows that the inspired writers present theHoly Ghost as proceeding from theSon, since they present Him as sent by theSon.
Finally,St. John (16:13-15) gives the words ofChrist: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, theSon has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which theHoly Ghost proceeds. Secondly, theHoly Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of theSon; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, theHoly Ghost proceeds from theSon.
The teaching ofSacred Scripture on the double Procession of theHoly Ghost was faithfully preserved inChristian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that theLatinFathers maintain theProcession of theHoly Ghost from theSon. The great work on the Trinity byPetavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops theproof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which thepatristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:
Some of the foregoingconciliar documents may be seen inHefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq.Bessarion, speaking in theCouncil of Florence, inferred thetradition of theGreek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek andLatinFathers before the ninth century were the members of the sameChurch, it is antecedently improbable that theEastern Fathers should have denied adogma firmly maintained by theWestern. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a directproof for thebelief of theGreekFathers in the double Procession of theHoly Ghost.
The onlyScriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words ofChrist as recorded inJohn 15:26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of theSon. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, theomission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse theSon promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of theHoly Ghost from theSon is not mentioned in theCreed of Constantinople, because thisCreed was directed against theMacedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of theHoly Ghost from the Father. The ambiguous expressions found in some of the early writers of authority are explained by the principles which apply to the language of the early Fathers generally.
It has been seen that theCreed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of theHoly Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers ofMacedonius who denied the Procession of theHoly Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. Butconditions were different inSpain after theGoths had renouncedArianism and professed theCatholicfaith in the ThirdSynod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to theCreed; but it appears to becertain that theCreed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the SpanishChurch after theconversion of theGoths. In 796 thePatriarch ofAquileia justified and adopted the same addition at theSynod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council ofAachen appears to have approved of it.
Thedecrees of this last council were examined byPope Leo III, who approved of thedoctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in theCreed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold inRome itself. Scholars do not agree as to the exacttime of its introduction intoRome, but most assign it to the reign ofBenedict VIII (1014-15).
TheCatholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when theCreed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the wordFilioque. On each occasion it washoped that thePatriarch ofConstantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state ofheresy andschism in which they had been living since the time ofPhotius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence onRome. But however sincere the individual Greekbishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and thebreach between East and West continues to this day.
It is a matter for surprise that so abstract a subject as the doctrine of the double Procession of theHoly Ghost should have appealed to theimagination of the multitude. But their national feelings had been aroused by the desire of liberation from the rule of the ancient rival of Constantinople; the occasion of lawfully obtaining their desire appeared to present itself in the addition of Filioque to theCreed of Constantinople. Had notRome overstepped herrights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of theFourth, of Chalcedon (451)?
It istrue that these councils had forbidden to introduce anotherfaith or anotherCreed, and had imposed the penalty ofdeposition onbishops andclerics, and ofexcommunication onmonks andlaymen for transgressing thislaw; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the samefaith or to propose the sameCreed in a clearer way. Besides, theconciliardecrees affectedindividual transgressors, as is plain from thesanction added; they did not bind theChurch as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into theCreed, but only to accept theCatholic doctrine of the double Procession of theHoly Ghost.
APA citation.Maas, A.(1909).Filioque. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
MLA citation.Maas, Anthony."Filioque."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 6.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1909.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Mary and Joseph P. Thomas.In memory of Father E. C. Joseph.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.