Historical Facts

 

The Nicene creed was originally adopted by the first council of Nicaea in 325.  While forms of the creed had been in use earlier, this was the first authorization by a council.  The version of the Nicene creed adopted by this council differed from the creed in use today in that it ended abruptly with the words ‘and the Holy Ghost’.  Also, it added an anathema against Arianism [5, vol. 1, p. 25].  All of the bishops at this council were from the east, save one from Spain [5, vol.1, p. 25].

 

Most works attribute the authorization of the creed in use by the Eastern Church today to the Council of Constantinople in 381 (for example, [4, p. 347]), but there is no actual authentic evidence that this enlarged version of the creed was accepted by this council [5, vol. 1, p. 25] (all of the bishops present at this council were from the east [5, vol. 1, p. 25]).  It should be noted here that Gregory of Nazianzus openly discussed the procession of the Spirit equally from the Father and the Son at this council [2, p. 282].  While the form used today by the Eastern Church was probably adopted at this council, it certainly was adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 [5, vol. 1, p. 25].

 

In 589, at the Third Council of Toledo (at which, apparently, no eastern bishops were present), the word filioque was first inserted into the creed [4, p. 348][5, vol. 2, p. 26].  This change was motivated by an ancient western creed called the Quicunque vult (the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made or created or begotten, but proceeding) and the teachings of Augustine [4, p. 348].  Later (in the early 800s), Pope Leo III approved the filioque doctrine, but insisted that the creed remain unchanged.  The use of the filioque word, however, continued to grow in the west (due at least in part to the efforts of Charlemagne) [4, p. 349][5, vol. 2, p. 26].

 

The next significant event with respect to the Nicean creed occurred in 784 with Tarasius’ (patriarch of Constantinople)  addition of the words ‘through the Son’ to the creed.  This addition was contained in his profession of faith, and the change was accepted by the second council of Nicaea in 787 [4, p. 347-348].

 

Efforts to reunite the Eastern and Western churches began with the Council of Lyons in 1274 and continued with the Council of Florence in 1434 (both councils authorized the word filioque [4, p. 349]). At the Council of Florence, a vigorous discussion erupted between the eastern and western bishops over words spoken by Basil claiming that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son [2, p. 282].  After much debate, the eastern delegates accepted the filioque addition to the creed (at least in the west), and made other concessions.  The following quote summarizes [6, p. 311-312]:

 

The council of Ferrara, which was transferred to Florence in 1439, witnessed protracted discussion between Greeks and Latins, in which as a final result the primacy of the Pope was accepted in vague terms, which seemed to preserve the rights of the Eastern patriarchs, the Greeks retained their peculiarities of worship and priestly marriage, while the disputed filioque clause of the creed was acknowledged by the Greeks, though with the understanding that they would not add it to the ancient symbol.

 


At the conclusion of the council, the reunion of the Eastern and Western Church was joyfully proclaimed (July, 143) [6, p. 312].  The joyful reunion was not to last long, however.  The military aid that the east hoped to gain from the west (the east was struggling with the conquering Turks) never materialized and the eastern monks rejected the decisions of the council [6, p. 312].

 

My Position

 

The eastern Church has always maintained that the insertion of the word filioque into the creed was illegal, and indeed, some in the west agree (in 1874, for example, a small group of high level representatives from both the east and the west, attempting to lay the groundwork for reconciliation, adopted an admission of the illegality of the word [5, vol. 2, p. 545]).  Addressing the legality question becomes more difficult when it is realized that no precedent is readily found.  For example, the Apostle’s Creed (the ‘Creed of Creeds’ [5, vol. 1, p. 14]) was never endorsed or accepted by any council or synod [5, vol. 1, p. 25] (and this creed is universally recognized, although it is used less in the east [5, vol. 1, p. 27]).  Many creeds were only approved by local councils (or synods), and most were in use in the churches before approval.  Further, the Nicene creed itself was in use hundreds of years (and had undergone changes) before being recognized by a truly ecumenical council (the Council of Chalcedon, 451).  Even so, while the east accuses the west of changing the creed approved by the Council of Chalcedon, they themselves changed the creed at the second council of Nicaea (adding ‘through the Son’, although this change never took hold in the eastern churches).

 

Doctrinally, I believe that the teaching of the Bible is best summarized by Augustine [1, 15.26.47]:

 

The Son, is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally and (by [the Father’s] gift and with no lapse of time) commonly from both.

 

Further, I claim that the word filioque was lawfully inserted into the creed by the Council of Florence, a truly ecumenical council that reunited the East and the West (if only for a short time).  That the eastern monks rejected the decisions of the council is not relevant, it only demonstrates their disrespect for authority.

 

References

 

[1] Augustine, Bishop of Hippo; “The Trinity”.

 

[2] Bardenhewer, Otto; “Patrology”; Freiburg im Breisgau - Publisher to the Holy Apostolic See; 1908.

 

[3] Encyclopedia Britanica; 1998.

 

[4] Ferguson, McHugh, Norris, Scholer (editors); “Encyclopedia of Early Christianity”; Garland Publishing; 1990.

 


[5] Schaff, Philip; “The Creeds of Christendom”; Baker Book House; 1990.

 

[6] Walker, Williston; “A History of the Christian Church”; Charles Scribner’s Son’s;