Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Filioque

857 bytes added, 16:08, June 9, 2012
m
link
'''''Filioque''''' is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was added to the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] by the [[Church of Rome]] in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the [[Great Schism]] between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the [[Holy Spirit]] thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father '''''and the Son'''''."
Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the [[canons]] of the [[Third Ecumenical Council]] in 431, which forbade and [[anathema]]tized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]] in 879-880. This word was not included by the [[First Ecumenical Council|Council of Nicea]] nor of [[Second Ecumenical Council|Constantinople]], . The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and most a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. This was the position of St [[Maximus the Confessor]]. On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (''aition'') of the Spirit. The heterodox reading sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the [[Orthodox Church]] consider this inclusion latter reading to be a [[heresy]].
The description of the ''filioque'' as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great [[Church Fathers|Father]] and [[Pillars of Orthodoxy|Pillar]] of the Church, St. [[Photius the Great]], in his ''On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit''. He describes it as a heresy of [[Triadology]], striking at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.
After generations of social upheaval, strong leadership appeared in the person of Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, and his son, [[Charlemagne]], crowned as emperor in 800. Charlemagne intended to restore the Roman Empire in the West, with himself in charge, to the chagrin of the leaders of the Eastern Roman Empire, whom he referred to as "Greeks" (and thus not Romans), despite the Roman capital being in the East and the continued use by Easterners of ''Roman'' to describe themselves. Charlemagne called for a council at Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 at which Pope [[Leo III of Rome|Leo III]] forbade the use of the ''filioque'' clause and ordered that the original version of the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.
Some historians have suggested that the Franks in the 9th century pressured the Pope to adopt the ''filioque'' in order to drive a wedge between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates. It is true that the ''filioque'' had come into wide use in the West and was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed, while Rome, renowned for its stability in Orthodoxy, resisted. Similarly, unleavened bread had come to be thought of as normative for the [[Eucharist]]; diocesan priests were expected to be unmarried. In such cases, in the West, ancient tradition was forgotten. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. In these matters of discipline, the influence of the Franks is certain. They intended to exalt Charlemagne, as the new Roman Emperor. The Catholic religion, as they knew it, was to be part of the package. Meanwhile, from ca. 726 to 843, the Eastern Roman Empire, under the thumb of successive emperors, was dominated by the heresy of [[iconoclasm]]. Both Franks and Greeks, in their own way, departed from ancient tradition. Unlike the East, however, where iconoclasm was repudiated at the [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] and the use of icons later confirmed by the [[Theodora (the Iconodule9th century empress)|Empress Theodora]], the West to date never recovered from its departure.
===The "Photian" Schism===
Within a couple of generations, in 858, a new situation came to pass. The Eastern Emperor Michael III removed [[Ignatius I of Constantinople|Ignatius I]] as patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor replaced him with a layman, St. [[Photius the Great]], who was the first Imperial Secretary and Imperial Ambassador to Baghdad. However, Ignatius refused to abdicate. Michael and Photius invited Pope [[Nicholas I of Rome]] to send legates to preside over a synod in Constantinople to settle the matter. With the council, the legates confirmed the patriarchate of Photius, much to Nicholas's chagrin, who then declared that they had "exceeded their authority."
In opposition to this removal of Ignatius, the bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as legitimate patriarch. Moreover, contrary to existing canons, Photius had been ordained to the office of bishop very quickly. Some scholarship <font size="1">(who?)</font> suggests that violation of these canons was the main reason the bishop of Rome rejected the appointment of Photius. J. M. Hussey argues that the pope also wanted to regain ecclesiastic control of Bulgaria, a program in which Ignatius would not interfere, though Photius would (and did) (Hussey <i>The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire</i> Oxford History of the Christian Church 1986). This and other major actions by Nicholas to bolster his power and position as pope puts his intervention in Eastern ecclesiastical matters more firmly in the context of his general programme of the growth of papal monarchy.
Therefore, after the arrival of an embassy from Ignatius, in 862, Nicholas said that Photius was deposed, as well as the bishop who ordained him and all the clergy Photius had appointed. The sheer temerity of this action did not even generate a response from Constantinople. However, several years later in 867, Photius finally rejected the Pope's assertion, particularly because of the activities of Latin missionaries in Bulgaria, who were, as St. Photius says, turning the Orthodox Christians there away from their pure Orthodox faith and leading them into [[heresy]]&mdash;most notably, the ''filioque''. Photius' response cited the ''filioque'' as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits.
In 867 and 869-70, synods in Rome and Constantinople (the [[Robber Council of 869-870]]) restored Ignatius to his position as patriarch and deposed Photius. In 877, after the death of Ignatius, Photius again resumed office, by order of the emperor and by the request of Ignatius himself, to whom Photius had been reconciled. In 879-880, he was officially restored to his see and the ''filioque'' effectively condemned by the [[Eighth Ecumenical Council]], a council at which papal legates participated and which the current pope, [[John VIII of Rome|John VIII]], eventually confirmed. He was deposed in 886 when Leo VI took over as emperor, who had had a dispute with his father and turned his animosity for his father toward one of his father's friends, Photius. Photius spent the rest of his life as a monk in exile in Armenia; he is revered by the Orthodox today as a [[saint]], one of the great [[Pillars of Orthodoxy]]. He was the first important [[theologian ]] to accuse Rome of [[heresy]] in the matter of the ''filioque''.
===Rome capitulates to Filioquist pressure===
In the ninth century, Pope [[Leo III of Rome]] agreed with the ''filioque'' phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome, in part because of his loyalty to the received [[tradition]]. (He also knew that the Greeks resented the new Roman Empire in the West and Charlemagne in particular; the Pope wanted to preserve Church unity.) In fact, Leo had the traditional text of the Creed, without the ''filioque'', displayed publicly, having the original text engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of St. [[Apostle Peter|Peter]]. In any case, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.
Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was known in the West with the ''filioque'', after the Gospel. At this time, the papacy was very weak and very much under the influence of the Germans. For the sake of survival, the Pope needed the military support of the Emperor. This was the first time the phrase was used in the [[Mass ]] at Rome.
Thus, over nearly six centuries, dispute over the ''filioque'' had not divided the Church definitively; for the most part, in spite of cultural and linguistic conflicts, the Eastern and Western Churches remained in [[full communion]].
In 1054, however, the argument contributed to the [[Great Schism]] of the East and West, and the West went so far as to accuse the East of heresy for not including the ''filioque'' in the Creed. There were many other issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions, as well as the irascible temperament of the antagonists. These were Cardinal [[Humbert of Silva Candida|Humbert]] from Rome and Patriarch [[Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople|Michael Cerularius]] of Constantinople. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine in the ''filioque'', a related issue was the right of the Pope to make a change in the [[Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed]] on his own, apart from an [[Ecumenical Council]].
===Attempted reunions and the ''Filioque'' after the Schism===
In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas was one of the dominant Scholastic theologians. He dealt explicitly with the processions of the divine Persons in his ''Summa Theologica''. While the theology of Aquinas and other Scholastics was dominant in the Western Middle Ages, for all its apparent clarity and brilliance, it remains theology, not official [[Roman Catholic Church]] teaching.
In 1274, the Second [[Councils of Lyons|Council of Lyons]] said that the [[Holy Spirit]] proceeds from the [[God the Father|Father]] and the [[Christ|Son]], in accord with the ''filioque'' in the contemporary Latin version of the [[Nicene Creed]]. Reconciliation with the East, through this council, did not last. Remembering the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople in 1204, Orthodox Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West in terms of capitulation to Latin [[Triadology]] and [[ecclesiology]]. In 1283, Patriarch [[John XI Bekkos of Constantinople|John Beccus]], who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.
The Crusaders in question were the Venetians of the [[Fourth Crusade]], who had earlier been excommunicated for attacking other Christians. In 1204, they were getting even for a slaughter of Venetian merchants, in rioting, that took place in 1182. Pope Innocent III had sent them a letter, asking them not to attack Constantinople; after hearing of the [[Sack of Constantinople|sack of the city]], he lamented their action and disowned them. Nevertheless, the people of Constantinople had a deep hatred for the people they called the "Latins" or the "Franks," and of course the Western church's major "endowment" from the spoils carried away now still largely rests in the hands of the Vatican.
For much of the 14th century, there were two bishops, each claiming to be Pope, each excommunicating the followers of the other. The Great Western Schism concluded with yet a third individual claiming to be Pope and the Council of Constance. The East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided among itself. (In the middle of the century, about a third of Western Europe died of the Black Death. People were more concerned about the plague than about Church unity.)
===Recent discussions and statements===
Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing. The ''filioque'' clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the [[North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation]], which met at [[Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts)]] from [[June 3]] through [[June 5]], 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" ''filioque'' that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the [[Holy Spirit|Paraclete]]), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Fathers call a ''[[theologoumenon]]'', a theological opinion. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a ''theologoumenon'' a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)
Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on [[October 25]], 2003. This document ''The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?'', provides an extensive review of [[Scripture]], history, and [[theology]]. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:
#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.
*Rome resisted the inclusion of the ''filioque'' for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the ''filioque'' began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in ''filioque''. Later, however, Rome contradicted its previous more Orthodox stance by the promulgation of the ''filioque'', thus anathematizing its own spiritual forebears.
==Misspellings==Filioque is often misspelled as filoque.
==External links==
*[[Wikipedia:Filioque External Links: an Online Bibliography]]
*[http://agrinowww.orggeocities.com/trvalentine/cyberdesertorthodox/Valentinefilioque.htm History of the html FilioquePage], by Thomas Ross Valentine
*[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984], by Fr. [[John S. Romanides]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/Pelikan.htm The Filioque], by Prof. [[Jaroslav Pelikan]]
*[http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm One Single Source], by Metr. [[John Zizioulas]]
*[http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/Azkoul_filioque.pdf The Filioque: A Reply to the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation], by Fr. Michael Azkoul
 
[[Category:Church History]]
[[Category:Creeds]]
[[Category:Ecumenical Councils]]
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
[[Category:Heresies]]
 
[[it:Filioque]]
[[ro:Filioque]]
16,951
edits

Navigation menu