Filioque clause - Revision history

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

2022-12-10T10:03:49Z

Text replacement - "--" to " — "

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:03, 10 December 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:
	"... and in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father ''and the Son''." Both "Father" (''Patre'') and "Son" (''FiliÃ³que'') are in the ablative case because they are both governed by ''ex'', the preposition meaning "from."		"... and in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father ''and the Son''." Both "Father" (''Patre'') and "Son" (''FiliÃ³que'') are in the ablative case because they are both governed by ''ex'', the preposition meaning "from."

	This phrase does ''not'' appear in the original version of the [[Nicene Creed]], which was composed in Greek by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD (Nicea is in Greek territory, near Constantinople) and revised by the Council of Constantinople (381 AD; also a Greek council--the first eight [[Councils of the Church]] were in Greece or Turkey). Constantinople added the following sentence to the Nicene Creed; note the absence of the '''Filioque clause''': "... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds ''from the Father'', with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified."		This phrase does ''not'' appear in the original version of the [[Nicene Creed]], which was composed in Greek by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD (Nicea is in Greek territory, near Constantinople) and revised by the Council of Constantinople (381 AD; also a Greek council — the first eight [[Councils of the Church]] were in Greece or Turkey). Constantinople added the following sentence to the Nicene Creed; note the absence of the '''Filioque clause''': "... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds ''from the Father'', with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified."

	== Catechism of the Catholic Church ==		== Catechism of the Catholic Church ==
Line 128:		Line 128:

	=== The Filioque makes a difference ===		=== The Filioque makes a difference ===
	Without the Filioque clause, the Father would have twins and there would be no way for us to appreciate the difference in the Father's relationship to the Son and to the Spirit. Both the Son and the Spirit would be ''from'' the Father; their relationship to each other would be unspecified and there really would be no way to tell them apart from each other--they would differ in name only.		Without the Filioque clause, the Father would have twins and there would be no way for us to appreciate the difference in the Father's relationship to the Son and to the Spirit. Both the Son and the Spirit would be ''from'' the Father; their relationship to each other would be unspecified and there really would be no way to tell them apart from each other — they would differ in name only.

	<div style="margin-left:4em">		<div style="margin-left:4em">
Line 141:		Line 141:
	\|-		\|-
	\|align="right"\|325		\|align="right"\|325
	\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.231.5D_325_AD_--_Nicaea\|Council of Nicea]] defines that the Son is "homoousion" with the Father. Latin: "consubstantial."		\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.231.5D_325_AD_ — _Nicaea\|Council of Nicea]] defines that the Son is "homoousion" with the Father. Latin: "consubstantial."
	\|-		\|-
	\|align="right"\|381		\|align="right"\|381
	\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.232.5D_381_AD_--_Constantinople\|Constantinople]] added to the [[Nicene Creed]]: "Et in SpÃritum Sanctum, DÃ³minum et vivificÃ¡ntem: Qui ex Patre procédit." There is no Filioque in the original version of the revised creed.		\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.232.5D_381_AD_ — _Constantinople\|Constantinople]] added to the [[Nicene Creed]]: "Et in SpÃritum Sanctum, DÃ³minum et vivificÃ¡ntem: Qui ex Patre procédit." There is no Filioque in the original version of the revised creed.
	\|-		\|-
	\|align="right"\|447		\|align="right"\|447
Line 159:		Line 159:
	\|-		\|-
	\|align="right"\|1274		\|align="right"\|1274
	\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.2314.5D_1274_AD_--_Lyons_II\|Lyons II]] attempts reunion with Eastern Orthodox.		\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.2314.5D_1274_AD_ — _Lyons_II\|Lyons II]] attempts reunion with Eastern Orthodox.
	\|-		\|-
	\|align="right"\|1431-1445		\|align="right"\|1431-1445
	\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.2317.5D_1431-1445_AD_--_Florence\|Florence]] attempts reunion with Eastern Orthodox. Full explanation and affirmation of the Filioque clause.<br />		\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.2317.5D_1431-1445_AD_ — _Florence\|Florence]] attempts reunion with Eastern Orthodox. Full explanation and affirmation of the Filioque clause.<br />
	"Attempts were made to reunite these Orthodox Churches with the Roman Catholic Church. At the Council of Florence (1438-45) which both Emperor John VIII and Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople attended, the theological questions were debated. The Eastern Orthodox Churches agreed to accept the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, even though they were not required to add this phrase to the Creed. While the agreement was signed and the Churches officially reunited, a large segment of the regular clergy disdained this action. Moreover, when the Moslems conquered Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mohammed II appointed Gennadios II as patriarch of Constantinople, who in turn repudiated the decrees of the Council of Florence. Once again, the two Churches were officially in schism. The domination of Islam over the territory of the East made future reunification virtually impossible."[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0246.html]		"Attempts were made to reunite these Orthodox Churches with the Roman Catholic Church. At the Council of Florence (1438-45) which both Emperor John VIII and Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople attended, the theological questions were debated. The Eastern Orthodox Churches agreed to accept the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, even though they were not required to add this phrase to the Creed. While the agreement was signed and the Churches officially reunited, a large segment of the regular clergy disdained this action. Moreover, when the Moslems conquered Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mohammed II appointed Gennadios II as patriarch of Constantinople, who in turn repudiated the decrees of the Council of Florence. Once again, the two Churches were officially in schism. The domination of Islam over the territory of the East made future reunification virtually impossible."[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0246.html]
	\|-		\|-

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "Ã©" to "é"

2022-12-10T09:47:34Z

Text replacement - "Ã©" to "é"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:47, 10 December 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The phrase appears in the version of the [[Nicene Creed]] used in the Roman Catholic Church and many other western Christian denominations. The full Latin sentence in which it appears is:		The phrase appears in the version of the [[Nicene Creed]] used in the Roman Catholic Church and many other western Christian denominations. The full Latin sentence in which it appears is:

	"Et in SpÃritum Sanctum, DÃ³minum et vivificÃ¡ntem: Qui ex Patre ''FiliÃ³que'' ~~procÃ©dit~~."		"Et in SpÃritum Sanctum, DÃ³minum et vivificÃ¡ntem: Qui ex Patre ''FiliÃ³que'' procédit."

	"... and in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father ''and the Son''." Both "Father" (''Patre'') and "Son" (''FiliÃ³que'') are in the ablative case because they are both governed by ''ex'', the preposition meaning "from."		"... and in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father ''and the Son''." Both "Father" (''Patre'') and "Son" (''FiliÃ³que'') are in the ablative case because they are both governed by ''ex'', the preposition meaning "from."
Line 144:		Line 144:
	\|-		\|-
	\|align="right"\|381		\|align="right"\|381
	\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.232.5D_381_AD_--_Constantinople\|Constantinople]] added to the [[Nicene Creed]]: "Et in SpÃritum Sanctum, DÃ³minum et vivificÃ¡ntem: Qui ex Patre ~~procÃ©dit~~." There is no Filioque in the original version of the revised creed.		\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.232.5D_381_AD_--_Constantinople\|Constantinople]] added to the [[Nicene Creed]]: "Et in SpÃritum Sanctum, DÃ³minum et vivificÃ¡ntem: Qui ex Patre procédit." There is no Filioque in the original version of the revised creed.
	\|-		\|-
	\|align="right"\|447		\|align="right"\|447

Mxmsj: /* Links */

2018-05-07T11:08:27Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:08, 7 May 2018
Line 175:		Line 175:
	* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia]		* [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia]
	* [[Councils of the Church]]		* [[Councils of the Church]]
			* [http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm "The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement"]

	== Feedback ==		== Feedback ==

Mxmsj: /* Scriptural Evidence */

2016-03-30T10:58:57Z

Scriptural Evidence

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:58, 30 March 2016
Line 24:		Line 24:

	== Scriptural Evidence ==		== Scriptural Evidence ==
	~~(To be developed ...)~~
	Jesus sometimes talks about the Father sending the Spirit and at other times says He Himself will send the Spirit.		Jesus sometimes talks about the Father sending the Spirit and at other times says He Himself will send the Spirit.

	:; Matthew 10:19-20		:; Matthew 10<nowiki>:</nowiki>19-20

	::		::
Line 35:		Line 35:
	The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory (1 Peter 1:10-11).		The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory (1 Peter 1:10-11).

	:; John 4:10-14		:; John 4<nowiki>:</nowiki>10-14

	::		::

	:; John 7:37-39		:; John 7<nowiki>:</nowiki>37-39

	::		::

	:; John 14:26		:; John 14<nowiki>:</nowiki>26

	::		::

	:; John 15:26		:; John 15<nowiki>:</nowiki>26

	::		::

	:; John 16:7		:; John 16<nowiki>:</nowiki>7

	::		::

	:; Revelation 22:1		:; Revelation 22<nowiki>:</nowiki>1

	::		::

	:; Revelation 21:6		:; Revelation 21<nowiki>:</nowiki>6

	::		::

Mxmsj: /* Scriptural Evidence */

2016-03-30T10:57:56Z

Scriptural Evidence

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 (To be developed ...)
 Jesus sometimes talks about the Father sending the Spirit and at other times says He Himself will send the Spirit.
 == Development of Dogma ==

Mxmsj: /* Timeline of the dispute */

2016-03-30T10:52:55Z

Timeline of the dispute

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:52, 30 March 2016
Line 114:		Line 114:
	\|-		\|-
	\|align="right"\|589		\|align="right"\|589
	\|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Toledo Third Council of Toledo] added "filioque" to the creed.		\|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Toledo Third Council of Toledo] added "filioque" to the creed in Spain.
	\|-		\|-
	\|align="right"\|1014		\|align="right"\|1014

Mxmsj: /* Timeline of the dispute */

2016-03-30T10:52:31Z

Timeline of the dispute

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:52, 30 March 2016
Line 109:		Line 109:
	\|align="right"\|381		\|align="right"\|381
	\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.232.5D_381_AD_--_Constantinople\|Constantinople]] added to the [[Nicene Creed]]: "Et in SpÃritum Sanctum, DÃ³minum et vivificÃ¡ntem: Qui ex Patre procÃ©dit." There is no Filioque in the original version of the revised creed.		\|[[Councils_of_the_Church#.5B.232.5D_381_AD_--_Constantinople\|Constantinople]] added to the [[Nicene Creed]]: "Et in SpÃritum Sanctum, DÃ³minum et vivificÃ¡ntem: Qui ex Patre procÃ©dit." There is no Filioque in the original version of the revised creed.
			\|-
			\|align="right"\|447
			\|"Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447" [http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#247 (CCC #247).]
	\|-		\|-
	\|align="right"\|589		\|align="right"\|589

Mxmsj at 10:40, 30 March 2016

2016-03-30T10:40:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 30 March 2016
Line 7:		Line 7:
	"... and in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father ''and the Son''." Both "Father" (''Patre'') and "Son" (''FiliÃ³que'') are in the ablative case because they are both governed by ''ex'', the preposition meaning "from."		"... and in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father ''and the Son''." Both "Father" (''Patre'') and "Son" (''FiliÃ³que'') are in the ablative case because they are both governed by ''ex'', the preposition meaning "from."

	This phrase does ''not'' appear in the original version of the [[Nicene Creed]], which was composed in Greek by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD (Nicea is in Greek territory, near Constantinople) and revised by the Council of Constantinople (381 AD; also a Greek council--the first eight [[Councils of the Church]] were in Greece or Turkey). Constantinople added ~~this~~ sentence to the Nicene Creed--note the absence of the Filioque clause: "... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds ''from the Father'', with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified."		This phrase does ''not'' appear in the original version of the [[Nicene Creed]], which was composed in Greek by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD (Nicea is in Greek territory, near Constantinople) and revised by the Council of Constantinople (381 AD; also a Greek council--the first eight [[Councils of the Church]] were in Greece or Turkey). Constantinople added the following sentence to the Nicene Creed; note the absence of the '''Filioque clause''': "... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds ''from the Father'', with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified."

	== Catechism of the Catholic Church ==		== Catechism of the Catholic Church ==
Line 30:		Line 30:
	(To be developed ...)		(To be developed ...)

	The Orthodox are oddly fundamentalistic about the [[Nicene Creed]]. Their attitude seems to be that if something was not included in the original version, then it cannot be added later. The fact that a later council (Constantinople) modified and interpreted the work of Nicea suggests that we ought not to suppose in advance of investigation that nothing more needs to be said after a council has defined ~~something as~~ an article of the faith.		The Orthodox are oddly fundamentalistic about the [[Nicene Creed]]. Their attitude seems to be that if something was not included in the original version, then it cannot be added later. The fact that a later council (Constantinople, 381 AD) modified and interpreted the work of Nicea (325 AD) suggests that we ought not to suppose in advance of investigation that nothing more needs to be said after a council has defined an article of the faith.

	There is the same kind of progression in understanding and definition of dogma of the Incarnation in the third and fourth councils of the Church (Ephesus and Chalcedon). Without Constantinople, Nicea would be incomplete; without Chalcedon, Ephesus would be incomplete.		There is the same kind of progression in understanding and definition of dogma of the Incarnation in the third and fourth councils of the Church (Ephesus and Chalcedon). Without Constantinople (381 AD), Nicea (325 AD) would be incomplete; without Chalcedon (451 AD), Ephesus (431 AD) would be incomplete.

	The development of the understanding of the importance of the "filioque" seems to have taken time. Of course, if Nicea or Constantinople had said, "The Spirit proceeds solely from the Father and not from the Son," then there would have been no room for the doctrine of the Trinity to be developed as it has been in the West. The view that we should draw that doctrine from the absence of the filioque clause in those councils goes beyond the evidence. The fathers at those councils apparently didn't raise the question; the creed that they produced, therefore, does not include or exclude the filioque.		The development of the understanding of the importance of the "filioque" seems to have taken time. Of course, if Nicea or Constantinople had said, "The Spirit proceeds solely from the Father and not from the Son," then there would have been no room for the doctrine of the Trinity to be developed as it has been in the West. The view that we should draw that doctrine from the absence of the filioque clause in those councils goes beyond the evidence. The fathers at those councils apparently didn't raise the question; the creed that they produced, therefore, does not include or exclude the filioque.

Mxmsj at 17:43, 26 January 2013

2013-01-26T17:43:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 26 January 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:
	"Et in SpÃritum Sanctum, DÃ³minum et vivificÃ¡ntem: Qui ex Patre ''FiliÃ³que'' procÃ©dit."		"Et in SpÃritum Sanctum, DÃ³minum et vivificÃ¡ntem: Qui ex Patre ''FiliÃ³que'' procÃ©dit."

	"... and in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father ''and the Son''."		"... and in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father ''and the Son''." Both "Father" (''Patre'') and "Son" (''FiliÃ³que'') are in the ablative case because they are both governed by ''ex'', the preposition meaning "from."

	This phrase does ''not'' appear in the original version of the [[Nicene Creed]], which was composed in Greek by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD (Nicea is in Greek territory, near Constantinople) and revised by the Council of Constantinople (381 AD; also a Greek council--the first eight [[Councils of the Church]] were in Greece or Turkey). Constantinople added this sentence to the Nicene Creed--note the absence of the Filioque clause: "... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds ''from the Father'', with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified."		This phrase does ''not'' appear in the original version of the [[Nicene Creed]], which was composed in Greek by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD (Nicea is in Greek territory, near Constantinople) and revised by the Council of Constantinople (381 AD; also a Greek council--the first eight [[Councils of the Church]] were in Greece or Turkey). Constantinople added this sentence to the Nicene Creed--note the absence of the Filioque clause: "... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds ''from the Father'', with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified."

Mxmsj: /* Catechism of the Catholic Church */

2012-12-16T22:15:54Z

Catechism of the Catholic Church

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:15, 17 December 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:
	:: The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."		:: The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

	:; 247		:; [http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#247 CCC #247]

	:: The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.		:: The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

	:; 248		:; [http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#248 CCC #248]

	:: At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father ''and the Son'' ('''''filioque'''''). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.		:: At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father ''and the Son'' ('''''filioque'''''). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.