Filioque

FILIOQUE. - A term introduced by the Latin Church into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, usually recited at Holy Mass (« Et in Spiritum Sanctum... qui ex Patre Filioque procedit »), which was instead rejected by the Eastern dissidents as an unlawful addition, forbidden by the councils and, in part, as a cause of the division of the Church of the East from that of Rome. Because of this prejudice, in the first sessions of the Council of Florence (v.), the Greeks, headed by the Ephesian Mark Eugenikos (as well as Bessarion before he abjured the schism), wanted at all costs to begin the Trinitarian controversy from this point, against the opinion of the Latins.

Soon, however, the futility of such a controversy became clear, as long as the dogma as stated in the addition was not admitted. This was done in the later sessions, which, after serious discussions, produced as their result (consentientibus Graecis) the proclamation of the Catholic doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and therefore this definition: « We define also that the word 'F.' is only an explanation to clarify the truth still further, and that in a moment of grave need it was lawfully and most wisely inserted into the Creed » (Denz-U, 691). Such an addition is not in conflict with any prohibition, whether of Scripture or of the councils. For the decrees of the Council of Ephesus (Act., VI; Mansi, IV, 1361-64) and of that of Chalcedon (Act., V; Mansi, VII, 116) that are adduced in the case, besides the fact that they declare inviolable not the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed but the Nicene, forbid only the change of the dogmatic substance, not however the literary expression of the Creed.

The historical origin of the F. remains to this day unresolved. Its origin should be sought in Spain. Some indeed regard the Councils of Toledo as the authors of the term, although its existence can also be asserted in Spanish documents earlier than those councils. The first of all would apparently be the so-called Fides Damasi, which is neither taken from the Creed nor the work of that Pope, but of a Synod of Saragossa of the year 380. As for the Councils of Toledo, it is certain that in the first of them (of uncertain date) the F. is not found, the Libellus ad modum Symboli of Bishop Pastor, where the term appears, being a late redaction of that Synod. And then it is an incontestable fact that the Councils of Toledo, despite their essentially anti-Priscillianist character, explicitly admitted the F. into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which they transcribe (Counc. III, a. 589; XII, a. 681; XIII, a. 683; XV, a. 688; XVIII, a. 694) and into the admirable theological syntheses that they used to place before the Creed (Counc. III, a. 589; IV, a. 633; VI, a. 638; XI, a. 675; XVI, a. 693), causing that addition to spread throughout the Roman world, as a brief formula suited to expressing the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from a single principle.

The addition of the F. was introduced into the Mozarabic Spanish liturgy, which precisely in the times of the Councils of Toledo was at the zenith of its splendor. And so it was that in Spain the use began for the first time in the West of singing the Creed at Mass (with the addition of the F.), one that previously was reserved to baptismal initiation. The F. passed from Spain, principally by means of the liturgy, into Narbonensian Gaul subject to Spain, then into all of Gaul, into Germany, and finally, perhaps in the 11th century, into the Roman Church, though not without grave difficulties and strong resistance on the part of the latter.

There falls therefore the accusation of the dissidents against the F. as the reason for the Eastern schism. Here indeed are the most salient stages regarding the prudent attitude of Rome: 1) before the 9th century, the era of the first dissensions between the East and the West over the F., no document whatever of the popes can be adduced that universally imposes it. And it is unjust therefore to call into question either Pope Damasus in the 4th century, or Pelagius I in the 6th century, or St. Agatho at the end of the 7th century. 2) The Council of Gentilly and the Libri Carolini in the eighth century attacked the Second Council of Nicaea of 787 and St. Tarasius for their expression ex Patre per Filium instead of that ex Patre F. already generally admitted in the West; but Pope Adrian I vindicated the orthodoxy of that earlier traditional formula in the East. 3) There is then the whole attitude of St. Leo III opposed to the introduction of the F. in Rome, when, while always confessing in his letters the Catholic faith of the procession of the Spirit ab utroque, he not only disapproved the claims of the Latin monks of Jerusalem, who sought to introduce there the singing of the F. in the Creed according to Western usage, but also resisted analogous conclusions of the Synod of Aachen under Charlemagne, whose legates were disavowed by the Pope in the sacristy of St. Peter in the year 810 and were charged with making known at the imperial Court the will of Leo, namely that the F. not only would not be accepted at Rome but would also be abolished in the Gauls, as not necessary for the confession of the true faith.

These facts leave intact the lawfulness of the addition, it being a question of opportuneness and prudence. The Roman Church, which has accepted for the West the addition of the F. in the Creed, has not however imposed it either at the Council of Florence, or in our own days upon the Eastern Catholics.

Emanuele Candal