I hope that my question wont trigger any heated arguments, but here goes: does Filioque really matter, enough to keep Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox separate? If the Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2 is Holy Spirit, so that would fit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But, again, is this part of the creed enough to keep east and west separate? Would it help to remove that line entirely?

Jonathan Terroso York: (Not a priest) Yes. The issue is one of authority. The Creed was sealed at the Council of Ephesus, and it was decreed that no changes could be made to the Nicene Creed. By unilaterally changing the Creed, and disregarding the Council of Ephesus which sealed it, the pope has declared that he considers himself to be above the Ecumenical Councils, which is unacceptable from an Orthodox standpoint.Additionally, there are many theological issues with the filioque, which are not as important as the issues of authority and ecclesiology, but are nevertheless sufficient to reject it. Lossky lays those out quite well here – Docs.google.com

Felicity Backman: Jonathan Terroso York What a delightfully clear, concise response! I really appreciate it. Im afraid too few people outside of Orthodoxy comprehend the crucial importance of authority in and of the Church. What is authority?To author is to write, with these additional synonyms to round out the importance of understanding what authority really implies: author: originator, creator, instigator, founder, father, architect, designer, deviser, producer, cause, agent. Whatever the founder/writer establishes, he (or the appointed representatives, in this case those at the councils) may amend. But no one party can empower himself as a higher authority than all others in the appointed group. At least not legitimately. Thats what was done, though, and thats when the Church at Rome made itself illegitimate, in this sense of the word authority. At least thats where basic logic takes me. There IS no overlooking it, its not such a big deal. Defying the authority of the Church is, I would venture, the ultimate Big Deal. 😨

Jonathan Terroso York: Thank you! I completely agree. Many people seem to think the Filioque is an abstract theological question, when it’s actually a very concrete problem of the Roman pope actively disobeying the councils (and falling under their anathema for doing so)

Anton Usher: The Creed sealed at Ephesus was the Creed of 325 at Nicea (which just says And in the Holy Spirit), not the Creed of 382 at Constantinople which is used in the Liturgy and says proceeds from the Father.

Christian Proano: Yes, it does matter, as far as I have read, and those who know more than I.The filioque not only was an arbitrary addition to the Creed but also is raw, unfiltered, unchecked Neo-Platonism carrying assumptions and the implication that in the divine communion there is a subordination of nature making the Holy Spirit a lesser divine being, a lesser God.It converts the Spirit into an attribute that unites the Father and the Son. While we Orthodox confess the Spirit is a person and not an attribute.Under the filioque clause, in order for the Spirit to remain equal, then something else must proceed from the Son and the Spirit, or the Father and the Spirit (by necessity) thus destroying the freedom of the Godhead.If we subordinate the Spirit to a lesser God, or to an attribute, then our salvation is also reduced and incomplete, since it is not God renewing us but a lesser one. (thus bringing a new form of polytheism or pneumatic Arianism).Our Church polity is also influenced by it, instead of conciliar (Catholic) and synodical it becomes more monarchical. With an earthly person becoming the vicar of Christ with authority over the Spirit to impart authoritatively and not Eucharistically.I am sure more people can add more to it. But the filioque is not a philosophical abstract premise but has direct practical implications for our salvation, communion, and life as the Body of Christ.

Felicity Backman: Christian Proano. Wow. You do have a way with words. Very informative. Thank you.

Christian Proano: Felicity Backman Thank you, pray for me.

Jeremy Sasser-Hotz: And pray for me as well. 🙂

Felicity Backman: Christian Proano Ditto, please.

Karren Olson: Christian, thank you for this clarification & information! I did not know this!

Sebastokrator Andrew Kollias: Historically, even when it is used to mean no differently than our own doctrines, it has become a litmus test for solidarity and loyalty to the Church. Customarily, it has long since become regarded as a symptom and testimony of the fact that we are different rather than the cause of division. Practically, it has been not that we are different because the Filioque exists, but rather that the Filioque exists because we are different.

Jeremy Sasser-Hotz: I looked up info on Council of Ephesus and noticed that Roman Catholic Church accepts it. Sounds like RC is being schizophrenic. :-)Just so its clear, I was raised Protestant and converted to Roman Catholicism 8 years ago (Im 48 now) and lately, I find myself agreeing more with Orthodox than RC. Guess Im just being too hopeful that RC and EO would reconcile anytime soon….

Christian Proano: Nothing wrong with being hopeful, and pulling your weight, but as the Spirit leadeth 😉 you may incursion and explore EO. I was an Evangelical as well.This book is helpful, the introduction as well as the actual text: Holycrossbookstore.com

Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit
holycrossbookstore.com

Jeremy Sasser-Hotz: Thanks! Ill add it to my list of OE books to read. Ive read plenty of books on it and theyve been very helpful.

Jonathan Terroso York: Yeah they accept it and the Pope agreed to its decisions – including the canon forbidding alterations to the Creed. The RCC has a beautiful tradition, but I feel the same way. The more I learned about history, the more I struggled to reconcile what I was reading with the way the RCC conceals and contradicts its past.The RCC and Orthodox may reconcile one day, but not until the RCC returns to a patristic understanding of the papacy – most especially to the understanding that the pope is not above the Ecumenical Councils. As Pope St Gregory the Great once said, He who calls himself, or desires to be called, the universal bishop is by his arrogance the precursor to the antichrist

Jeremy Sasser-Hotz: Agreed. I dont accept the infallibility of Papacy as well as certain weird doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception (the whole time I thought it was referring to Jesus, when in reality its referring to Mary which is unscriptural.)

Christian Proano: The Orthodox Church does not accept them either yet Orthodoxy is Catholic, Eucharistic and Apostolic and Ecumenical, this is the reason I converted to Orthodoxy rather than returning to my original RCism which I was before I became evangelical.

Jeremy Sasser-Hotz: Yeah, first time I was inside an orthodox sanctuary was when I visited St. John monastery at Patmos. I was overcome as I beheld everything I saw. That was 8 years ago. Since then, Ive learned about Orthodox on and off over the years. Ive visited two local Orthodox parishes. OF course, I didnt know what was going on so I left early. But, at second parish, it was after hours and I asked permission to visit the sanctuary so I could pray alone. Oh right, Ive been inside one at Santorini. The challenge I have right now is that Im deaf and legally blind. RC is more easily accessible for me than EO, as far as I know.

Christian Proano: I hope those challenges can be overcome so that you can appreciate the liturgy of the EO.

Jeremy Sasser-Hotz: If you want, check out this blog: Orthocath.wordpress.com

Orthodox Christians Who are Deaf and Blind
orthocath.wordpress.com

Anton Usher: As mentioned in one of the other subthreads, the Creed sealed at Ephesus was the Creed of 325 at Nicea (which just says And in the Holy Spirit), not the Creed of 382 at Constantinople which is used in the Liturgy and says proceeds from the Father.

Karren Olson: Jeremy, how can you do computers and cell phones, & read books if you are blind & deaf??

Jeremy Sasser-Hotz: Oh and, thank you all for answering my question above – gives me meat to chew on. 🙂

Lana Kokayeff: Yes, it does matter. It makes the Holy Spirit a lesser member of the Trinity, whereas both, the Son and Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. It was something the Catholic church added later, with the best intentions, but the rest of the original churches were not consulted.

Jake Horner: Not to start an argument, but to (hopefully) clarify: According to the Creed the Son is (eternally) begotten of the Father, not proceeding.

Soreya Elmn: Yes it does matter. It raises 2 main issues, authoritarian and theological.By changing the Creed the Pope makes himself to be above the Councils, this is unacceptable.The theological problem comes from the changing of the Trinity. It makes the Holy Spirit a lesser agent to the Father and the Son, robbing him of his equality. Secondly, it means the Father is no longer the source of the Trinity, or makes the Son a source too (which again leads to the first problem). Both of these are heresies.

John Woolley: It should probably be noted that filioque and the Papal dogmas are FAR from being the only things preventing Roman Catholics from being Orthodox. Roman Catholicism has been growing away from Orthodoxy in lots of different ways, for a thousand years.

Felicity Backman: Jonathan Terroso York What a delightfully clear, concise response! I really appreciate it. Im afraid too few people outside of Orthodoxy comprehend the crucial importance of authority in and of the Church. What is authority?To author is to write, with these additional synonyms to round out the importance of understanding what authority really implies: author: originator, creator, instigator, founder, father, architect, designer, deviser, producer, cause, agent. Whatever the founder/writer establishes, he (or the appointed representatives, in this case those at the councils) may amend. But no one party can empower himself as a higher authority than all others in the appointed group. At least not legitimately. Thats what was done, though, and thats when the Church at Rome made itself illegitimate, in this sense of the word authority. At least thats where basic logic takes me. There IS no overlooking it, its not such a big deal. Defying the authority of the Church is, I would venture, the ultimate Big Deal. 😨

Pater Elias Palmos: Yes. Definitely yes. The Filioque was an Arian teaching that invaded the West and was absorbed into Western Christendom when the Latin populace entered into union with the Arians.The Arians taught that all things were made through the Son (as do we Orthodox), and for this reason they taught that the Holy Spirit was a created divine like power that proceeded from the Father through the Son and into the universe.The Second Ecumenical Council in 371 AD specifically excluded this Arian doctrine by adding to the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Arians rejected this Ecumenical Council, and 200 years later, when they entered into union with the West (at the Council of Toledo – if its act are genuine), they changed the Creed to reflect their Arian teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.In no way can we accept this Arian change to the Orthodox Teaching on the Holy Spirit. The person of the Father is the Source of the Divine Nature, from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. The Divine Nature is indivisible and singular and cannot be split between Father and Son. The single divine nature is in Father, and by being begotten of the Fathers person and proceeding from the Fathers person, the Son and the Spirit respectively share in and remain of the Fathers divine nature.Thus the divine nature remains singular and indivisible, and the persons of Father, Son and Spirit differ only by the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.Confusing Father and Son as the single source of the Spirit denies the distinction in persons between Father and Son, and implies the Spirit is distinguished in nature from the Father and the Son, and is a creature made through the Son.The Spirit of Truth must be worshipped in the truth, and the true God must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth.

Jeremy Sasser-Hotz: Um, now Im confused. I thought Arian is anti-trinitarian and believed that Jesus was human, not divine/God. How can RC, a strong trinitarian, be tricked by Arian?

Pater Elias Palmos: Jeremy Sasser-Hotz The Arians of course believed in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They also believed that Christ pre-existed his incarnation as the Creator of the universe, and that he is called God and Lord. But they held that he was not of one essence with the Father.They believed the Holy Spirit was made by the Father through the Son, and would thus have used the biblical term proceed from the Father through the Son.The reason for this is because the Gospel of St John says all things were made through the Son. Thus if the Spirit is a creature, he cannot proceed from the Father alone, and must proceed from the Father through the Son.The Gothic Arians conquered all of the Western Mediterranean, and they remained there until they entered into union with the Latin populace. The primary purpose of the union was to ensure the loyalty of the Latins with respect to the Orthodox Eastern Roman Empire which continued to challenge the Western Gothic kingdoms.There was a strong political incentive for the union and to maintain an opposition to the 2nd Ecumenical Council.If you are interested in Arian theology, you can find on the internet and read the life of Wulfilas by the Arian bishop Auxentius (translated from the Latin).

Karren Olson: Wow! Peter, excellent explanation! I am learning so much that is new & getting clear information! Thanks!

Robert Bruce Hayes: I think this confused me and made it all sound more like rhetoric, sorry. I dont expect I really need to understand it though.

Pater Elias Palmos: Robert Bruce Hayes The simple reply is that Jesus tells us in the Gospel of St John that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. We, Orthodox, understand this to mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father before all ages (outside of time and space) just as the Son is begotten of the Father. In other words, this phrase (proceeds from the Father) is not said in reference to creation but to the divine nature of the Spirit outside and beyond creation (before all ages).When Christ says that he will send the Holy Spirit, this is not talking about the Holy Spirits being but rather his mission INTO Creation. The Son sends the Spirit into Creation, but the Holy Spirit exists as true God of true God because he proceeds from the Father before all ages outside of creation.The reason why we use the word proceeds instead of begotten of the Father is because the persons of the Spirit and the Son are different persons. So we use the word proceed for the one and begotten for the other. Because their natures are identical and one, being the Fathers nature, they are only distinguished as persons in this way.In other words, we cannot know God if we do not know the Father as the Source, the Son as begotten of the Father, and the Spirit as proceeding from the Father.One must not confuse that the Spirit proceeds from the Father with him being sent into the world by the incarnate Word of God.The one phrase expresses that the divine essence of the Spirit is outside and beyond creation, and the other that the work of the Spirit is inside of creation through the temple body of the Son (in his incarnation).You should accept this because Christ says so and because the Second Ecumenical Council in 371 AD said so. The ones who disagreed at the time were Arian Christians because they denied that the Son and the Spirit had the same nature as the Father. Furthernore, because the Gospel of St John says that all things were made through the Son, so they believed that the Spirit (who is part of all things that were made according to them) was thus made by the Father through the Son. Adding the words and the Son to the procession of the Spirit from the Father was their way of affirming that the Spirit is not God as the Father is God, or even a lesser god as the Son is a lesser god compared to the Father. That religion is not Orthodoxy and is not the God we worship.The Arians conquered Rome and the entire Western Mediterranean world in the 5th century, and their kingdoms evolved into modern Europe. They are the reason why the West was no longer a part of the Roman Empire that continued in Constantinople until it fell to the Turks in 1453.The Arians eventually held a union council with the Western Latins in 589 AD at a Council in Spain after the Eastern Roman Empire had nearly succeeded in reconquering the West from them. So the Gothic Arian kings wanted to secure the loyalty of their majority Latin populace.The Filioque (and the Son) was added to the Creed by this Council held under the auspices of the Gothic Arian kings. They were willing to accept the original Nicene Creed (which even Arius the original Arian was willing to do), but not the Second Ecumenical Council, which added to the Nicene Creed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Nicene Creed had simply stated that we believe in the Spirit and nothing more. The Second Ecumenical Council clarified this by saying the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. The Second Ecumenical Council wanted to exclude Arianism from even attempting to appear as if it would accept the Orthodox Creed.Thus it is very telling that at this union council in Spain, two hundred years later, the Arians were prepared to accept the Nicene Creed and enter into union with the Church of Rome provided that they changed the Creed to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.Whether you understand the theology as to why this is unacceptable, you can see that this was an attempt by the Arian rulers to undermine the Orthodox Faith of the Second Ecumenical Council in the West, with an ideology that originated with the idea that the Spirit is a creature and thus must come into existence by coming into the world through the Son.However, the Orthodox Jesus Christ said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Orthodox Second Ecumenical Council confirmed this. Why change it to suit Arians who want to unite on their own terms? The only reason is political expedience to divide Western and Eastern Romans – and in that they succeeded. For there to be union between East and West, the offensive Arian addition must be removed. As simple as that.

Benedict Simpson: Well… Even if the filioque issue was solved tomorrow, there are so many other issues that separate us theologically that union is impossible

Marcus Loidolt: Sad, but probably true…in reality the Filioque has always been a bit of red herring in the argument…Eastern Catholics have long dropped or never adopted the Filioque at all…

Felicity Backman: Benedict Simpson… Could we say SEEMINGLY impossible? Lets not rule out Gods power to do the incomprehensible, the miraculous… We should always hope and pray for it, shouldnt we?

Christina Catherine: In the end times the Churches will unite and there are those who will be fooled and there will be those who keep the faith pure and unchanged. ☦️☦️☦️

Jake Horner: In Orthodoxy does the Spirit proceed from the Father (ἐκ πατρός)? Or does the Spirit proceed from the Father through the Son (ἐκ πατρὸς δὶ υἱοῦ)?

Cassian Sibley: It matters immensely. The monarchial unity of the Trinity in its eternal source from the Father, from Whom the Son is begotten and from Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds is at stake. The principle of unity and union in the Trinity is personal – it is the nature of the Father that is perfectly shared by the Son and the Holy Spirit that establishes and eternally generates this unity and union. This is bedrock, Cappadocian Trinitarian theology 101, and is non-negotiable. The filioque is not found in or justified by Scripture, is no part of the original creed, and flatly wrong, making the unity of the Trinity rest in a fourth principle – an impersonal Godhead, a nature that all, as it were, happen to share. And getting rid of the clause of the creed just makes things worse – eliminating the intrinsic connection to the Father and the sharing of His nature altogether.This is not an extreme, or heated comment. It is just the Orthodox position, which has not changed concerning the matter.

Edu Mar: Thank you for stating it in such a clear manner.

James Richards: Very much so. Granted, while the average layperson may not grasp all of the nuances, it would spell theological disaster. In fact, I would argue that each one of the other differences between us can be traced at least in part to the Filioque. From penal atonement to original sin, the papacy, and immaculate conception, it all ties back to a distorted view of God stemming from the Latin West’s adoption of the Filioque. Many people might be tempted to say that theology is irrelevant to the life of the Church, but there is no such distinction within Orthodoxy. Once theology unravels, the life of the Church unravels as well, and if your theology has no bearing on the life of the Church, then you are doing it wrong. The Filioque in particular would spell disaster for the Orthodox doctrine of salvation by theosis, which is rooted in a very precise and specific understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role within the Godhead. It would also be irreconcilable with St. Gregory Palamas’ doctrine of heychasm, or “stillness” as it is translated, which represents the pinnacle of said understanding. In short, the Filioque has immense consequences for one’s understanding of the Godhead and its adoption is the reason why the West developed along the lines of Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism whereas the East developed along the lines of St. Gregory Palamas and mysticism. The former is what led to atheism and many of the theological and philosophical dilemmas facing the West today like existentialism and dialectical materialism.

Cassian Sibley: Thats painting with a very broad brush. Some of it may even be true, but it is mostly polemical commentary. It is enough that the filioque is wrong, Scripturally unjustfied, and utterly unhelpful on a practical level.

Karren Olson: James, thank you for this clarification & analysis. Its helping me understand better.

James Richards:

Serge George Mihaly Jr: Yes. It matters.

Phlo Mara: Read Saint Fotios of Constantinople letters sent to West Curch. He explains it clearly.

James Chater: I think it matters, but maybe not as much as it did when it was first introduced. The clause who proceeds from the Father was one of many added later to affirm the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit against the Arian heresy, which denied their divinity. These clauses are absent from what has always been assumed to be the earliest version of the Creed, the Apostles Creed. The added phrases are first found in the second version of the Nicene Creed, approved at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. The clause concerning the Holy Spirit, after Holy Spirit, consists of the addition: the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. The Filioque insertion, which changes the meaning to: the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father AND THE SON, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets, was added in the west but never approved in the east, leading to the schism. Actually it DOES matter, the truth always does. But perhaps Orthodox and RCs could worship together if one reverted to the Apostles Creed, where the problem does not arise.

Cassian Sibley: The Apostles Creed is not earlier. It is an abbreviated form of the Creed used for catechetical purposes in the West. It was never widely used for any reason in the East.

James Chater: Cassian Sibley Is that so? I know that its first recorded appearance was later than the Nicene versions, but does that necessarily mean it is later?

Cassian Sibley: Its written appearance is later, and there is no evidence of it ever being used in the East, nor any evidence suggesting that it was used catechetically in the west in the preconciliar period that I know of. It has all the earmarks of a cliff notes edition of the creed.

Jeremy Sasser-Hotz: Ah, I didnt know that Eastern Orthodox doesnt use Apostles Creed. According to wiki:The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts the Nicene Creed, but does not use the Apostles Creed or the Athanasian Creed.

Cassian Sibley: Yup.

John-abouna DAlton: Yes it really matters today and always, because as the fathers explained over many centuries, downgrading Spirit and upgrading the Son as a second source of the Spirit confuses the Trinity, and results in an unbalanced spiritual life- see how the West forgot the Holy Spirit for nearly 900 years. It turns the Trinity from being the Divine Community into the tiered heirarchy which reflects the Western world view and has big consequences in the legalism and depersonalisation of the West. See Being as Communion.

John-abouna DAlton: Using a common creed that ignores the Spirit does not solve anything- the issue still remains a dangerous false teaching.

Margarit Vitrichenko: Yes. All and every heresy matters.

Nina McDonald: Following

Chris Parker: The issue is more than just line in the Creed but also how it was received, promulgated and understood in the west .(not to mention the same as understood in the west).

Jacob Good: It absolutely does. Just as much as the homoousian and homoiousian formulas matter.

Susan Mary Turvey: “Vocabulary reflects ideology.”

Ehab Bassilli: Asking does it matter in an orthodox forum is not realistic. Thats why they are orthodox. Thats what makes orthodoxy orthodoxy. Theres no compromise here. The eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox differ on chalcedon. However, if you look deeply into this , you will see that both are literally saying the same thing. Copts accept Christ has two natures and so do Greeks. Im sure this can be sorted out. No one said being orthodox means being wicked to maintain division for the sake of division. However , with the Roman Catholic church , the differences are deeper. The filique is very serious as it changes everything. And trust me , the filique is the least of your problems – there are other differences that are so deep that unity is quite hard.

Ambrose Maonaigh: Ive seen a Catholic write that it is a storm in a bucket.For the Orthodox it is a tsunami.

Ambrose Maonaigh: Rome preserved the Nicene Creed for650 years. The Creed was seen as an essential Symbol of Faith professed by all the Churches and manifesting their unity.By adopting the Toledan Creed in 1014 Rome broke unity with the Church and went into schism. Gods displeasure was swift. Only 40 years later, in 1054, Rome went out of communion with the Church and became a stand-alone Church.

Ambrose Maonaigh: It is fascinating that for almost 650 years Rome used the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed WITHOUT the filioque.From 381 AD to 1014 AD.In 1014 the German King Henry was in Rome for his coronation and he insisted that the Toledan Creed with the filioque be used at his coronation. The Pope conceded to Henry. The Toledan Creed was chanted in Rome for the first time.It is, in my opinion, disingenuous for Catholic apologists to claim an inability of the :Latin language to accurately convey the Greek meaning when no such deficiency was perceived by Rome for over 600 years.

Pater Elias Palmos: Father, what were the names of the Pope and the Patriarch (Const.) in 1014? I believe this was the first German Pope. Is that right?

Ambrose Maonaigh: I had to look it up. Benedict VIII and Sergios II

Pater Elias Palmos: Ambrose MaonaighThanks Father. This is a little known fact, with most people thinking of 1054.What is the best way to contact you? I tried the email on your FB profile. Is that not correct?

Pater Elias Palmos: Many thanks.

Pater Elias Palmos: Ambrose MaonaighIve sent an email.

Jeremy Sasser-Hotz: Thank you everyone for your contribution to this thread. Ive learned a lot here! Blessings to all of you!