Editorial Note: Last year we went line by line through the Nicene Creed in celebration of the 1700th anniversary of the start of the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. For keen readers, you probably noticed that we skipped a line. In fact we did, and for good reason as you will see in Alex’s article below.
———
Have you ever been in a situation (or heard of a situation) where just one word or one phrase affected a situation for the better or worse? Whether we think of it or not, an addition (or subtraction) of a word or a phrase can alter the course of a situation positively or negatively.
The Church has had moments in its history where just one word or phrase set off a chain reaction of events that made no small impact. For example, there was the homoousion/homoiouson controversy, where the debate about Christ’s relation with the Father literally made one iota of a difference. In this article, we will reflect on the phrase “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” along with the historical and theological controversy surrounding that one phrase.
The Nicene Creed begins its explanation of the Holy Spirit with the phrase “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life.” This is something that both the Western churches (read: Protestants and Roman Catholics) and the Eastern churches (read: Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) have in the Nicene Creed. However, where they split is in the second half of the phrase: “who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” The Western churches recite that part of the Nicene Creed with the last three words. The Eastern churches recite that part of the creed without those three words.
The former will claim that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, while the latter will claim that the Spirit only proceeds from the Father. This difference between the two traditions became prominent in the Great Schism of 1054. The question is: how did the churches arrive at that point?
For one thing, this did not happen overnight.
Before diving into the history, it is important to note that the word filioque comes from two Latin words: filius, meaning “son,” and the Latin suffix que, meaning “and.” Furthermore, to be fair, the original Greek version of the Nicene version did not contain the words “and the Son.” Church historians date the official beginning of the filioque controversy to the Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD. The Visigoths, the Gothic tribe that conquered modern Spain in the final days of the Roman empire, embraced Arianism. However, Reccared, the king of the Visigoths, converted to orthodox Christianity thanks to Bishop Leander of Seville. Both the king and the Bishop formed a council in Toledo to affirm the Nicene Creed and thus distinguish themselves from the Arians. The creed they affirmed came from a Latin rendering which featured the filioque clause. The parties thought it accurately reflected the Greek, but it didn’t, to the consternation of the Eastern Christians.
By 867 AD, the West and the East were at loggerheads over the filioque clause in what became known as the Photian Schism. Photius, the Bishop of Constantinople, condemned the Western church for inserting the filioque clause. The final straw occurred in 1054 AD when Cardinal Humbert, in the name of Pope Leo IX, excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius and vice versa; thus bringing the division between the Western church and the Eastern church, which still lingers to this day.
In a nutshell, the Eastern churches believe in a single procession of the Holy Spirit while the Western churches believe in a double procession of the Holy Spirit. As we have seen, what has seemed like an insignificant point of contention about the relations of the Godhead drastically divided the Western churches and the Eastern churches. These divisions have lasted even a millennium later.
Western and Eastern theologians throughout the centuries have mused over whether there is a single procession or a double procession of the Holy Spirit.
Anselm of Canterbury (a prominent medieval theologian in the Western Christian tradition) in his treatise “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit” says this about double procession: “For when we say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are from the Father, we profess that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are from God the Father, and that these three persons are only one God, and that the very thing is from the very same thing.”
In his book The Orthodox Way, Bishop Kallistos Ware (a prominent theologian in the Eastern Christian tradition). writes this about the procession of the Spirit, “The term indicates that the relationship between the Spirit and the Father is not the same as that between the Son and the Father; but what the exact nature of the difference may be, we are not told. This is inevitable for the action of the Holy Spirit cannot be deemed verbally. It has to be lived and experienced directly.”
Now here is the question: how do both the Western churches and the Eastern churches come to their conclusions? Beliefs like this don’t just come out of nowhere.
Theological Rationales
Both the Western churches and the Eastern churches have their rationale on whether there is a single procession of the Holy Spirit or a double procession of the Holy Spirit. The Eastern church will point to John 15:26 when Jesus describes the Holy Spirit as the one “who proceeds from the Father” (ESV). The Western church will point to Scripture passages such as John 16:7, where Jesus says, “I will send him to you” (ESV) and to John 20:22, where Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit on the apostles.
According to the Eastern church, to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father is to say that the Son is another Father; thus diminishing the Holy Spirit. The Western church would say that a double procession delineates an actual connection between the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Eastern church repudiates the filioque clause because it wants to emphasize the Father as the first member of the Trinity.The Western church emphasizes the filioque clause because it wants to emphasize that the Son is of the same nature as the Father.
It seems that both sides had their perspectives on what the errors were and what truths needed to be secured. Thus, it’s not merely a matter of one group being categorically right and the other group being categorically wrong. It seems that the issue of filioque clause vs. no filioque clause and double procession vs. single procession is more of a fine point–something that should not bring acrimony toward the universal body of Christ.
Where do we go from here?
This article will by no means end the division between Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity. Even though we differ on just three words, we are custodians of the same creed that delineates the Triune God and his Church. Furthermore, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox are Christians. We each affirm the Trinity, the hypostatic union of Christ, the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and the consummation of all things.
Those of us, including myself, who write on Reading for the Glory are part of churches that are part of the Western tradition, those that affirm the filioque clause. It seems to me that the Scriptures point to a double procession of the Holy Spirit. It points to both how the Son and the Holy Spirit connect with the Father and how the Son and the Holy Spirit connect with each other. I don’t think that we need to take an either/or approach. In fact, there are various Scripture passages that emphasize the Spirit deriving from the Father (Acts 2:17; Eph. 1:17), and there are other Scripture passages that talk about the Spirit deriving from the Son (Rom. 8:2).
We as Western Christians can affirm both of these aspects of the processions. We don’t have to display animosity to our Orthodox brethren and friends. In fact, we should not reject our Orthodox brothers and sisters. They rightly remind us that the Father is the source of the rest of the Godhead. This does not mean that they reject the Son sharing the same nature as the Father. Also for the record, in 1965, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church removed the anathemas that were intact for nearly a millenium. This was a good step in the right direction.
Kevin DeYoung states this about double procession, “The double procession underscores the critical and biblical truth that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. And given this fundamental reality, it makes sense to think that the Spirit who glorifies the Son and speaks only what the Son gives to him must also proceed from the Son in eternity.
As we observe the 1700th anniversary of the Nicene Creed, let us rejoice in the Godhead who are not only coequal, but also work with each other. Let us also pray that Christ’s Church–both the Western churches and the Eastern churches may be one just as he and the Father are one (John 17:21).
Photo Credit Unsplash.com
Like the content you see on Reading For The Glory? Consider subscribing to our newsletter to receive updates on new articles, reviews, and podcast episodes. To learn more about the good news of Jesus Christ, please click here.
We also invite you to consider supporting the ongoing ministry of RFTG.
Discover more from Reading For The Glory
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
