« FILIOQUE ». — A term introduced by the Latin Church into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, ordinarily recited at Holy Mass (« Et in Spiritum Sanctum... qui ex Patre Filioque procedit »), but rejected by the Eastern dissidents as an illicit addition, prohibited 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, at the first sessions of the Council of Florence (v.), the Greeks, headed by the Ephesian Mark Eugenicus (as well as Bessarion before he abjured the schism), insisted at all costs on beginning the Trinitarian controversy here, contrary to the opinion of the Latins.
It was soon established, however, that such a controversy was futile unless the dogma expressed by the addition were admitted. This was done at the later sessions, which, after serious discussions, resulted (consentientibus Graecis) in the proclamation of Catholic doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and consequently in this definition: « We further define that the word ‘F.’ is only an explanation intended to clarify the truth still more, 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 contrary to 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), which are cited in this connection, besides declaring inviolable not the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed but the Nicene Creed, prohibit only alteration of the dogmatic substance, not the literary expression of the Creed.
The historical origin of the F. has so far remained 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 affirmed in Spanish documents preceding those councils. The earliest would apparently be the so-called Fides Damati, which is neither taken from the Creed nor the work of that Pope, but rather of a Synod of Saragossa of the year 380. As for the Councils of Toledo, it is certain that the F. is not found in the first of them (of uncertain date), since the Libellus ad modum Symboli of Bishop Pastor, in which the term appears, is a late redaction of that Synod. It is furthermore an incontestable fact that the Councils of Toledo, notwithstanding their essentially anti-Priscillianist character, explicitly admitted the F. into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that they transcribe (Council III, 589; XII, 681; XIII, 683; XV, 688; XVIII, 694), and into the admirable theological summaries that they used to place before the Creed (Council III, 589; IV, 633; VI, 638; XI, 675; XVI, 693), thereby causing that addition to spread throughout the Roman world as a brief and suitable formula for expressing the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one single principle.
The addition of the F. was introduced into the Spanish Mozarabic liturgy, which precisely at the time of the Councils of Toledo was reaching the zenith of its splendour. Thus it was in Spain that, for the first time in the West, the practice began of singing the Creed at Mass (with the addition of the F.), whereas previously it had been reserved for baptismal initiation. From Spain, chiefly through the liturgy, the F. passed into Narbonese Gaul, which was subject to Spain, and thence throughout Gaul, into Germany, and finally, perhaps in the eleventh century, into the Roman Church, though not without serious difficulties and strong resistance on the part of the latter.
The accusation of the dissidents that the F. was the cause of the Eastern schism therefore collapses. Here, in fact, are the most significant stages concerning Rome’s prudent attitude: 1) before the ninth century, the period of the first disagreements between East and West on account of the F., no document of the popes can be cited that universally imposed II. It is therefore unjust to implicate either Pope Damasus in the fourth century, Pelagius I in the sixth century, or St Agatho at the
end of the seventh 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 because of their expression ex Patre per Filium instead of ex Patre F., which was already generally accepted in the West; but Pope Hadrian I vindicated the orthodoxy of that earlier traditional formula in the East. 3) There is also the entire attitude of St Leo III, opposed to the introduction of the F. in Rome. Although he always confessed in his letters the Catholic faith in the procession of the Spirit ab utroque, he not only disapproved the claims of the Latin monks of Jerusalem, who intended to introduce there the singing of the F. in the Creed according to Western usage, but also resisted the analogous conclusions of the Synod of Aachen under Charlemagne. Its legates were repudiated by the Pope in the sacristy of St Peter’s in the year 810 and were instructed to make Leo’s will known at the imperial court: namely, that the F. would not only be accepted in Rome but would also be abolished in Gaul, as unnecessary for the confession of the true faith.
These facts leave intact the lawfulness of the addition, since it is a matter of expediency and prudence. The Roman Church, which accepted the addition of the F. to the Creed for the West, did not impose it on the Council of Florence, nor in our own day on the Eastern Catholics.