08 — The Filioque

The argumentative payload of the collection, and a §4.1 section throughout: the Filioque is a doctrine the Orthodox Church has examined and not received, and this section confesses that. The Western position is nevertheless reported accurately and at its strongest — including that Latin theology distinguishes processio from ἐκπόρευσις, does not intend two causes, and has officially conceded that the Father alone is the principle without principle — and the objection is then shown to stand anyway.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox

Contents

File Description
what-was-added-and-when.md The documented chronology: Spain and the disputed date of Toledo III; the Libri Carolini and Aachen 809; Pope Leo III’s acceptance of the doctrine, refusal of the addition, and the silver shields; Rome’s adoption in 1014; Photius’ Encyclical and Mystagogy, with the translation cited correctly; the councils of union at Lyons and Florence and their repudiation at Blachernae and after; and the modern sequence from 1848 through Klingenthal, the 1995 clarification, and 2003
why-it-is-not-a-verbal-difference.md The Latin case in seven points, in its own words and at its strongest, including the 1995 concessions quoted verbatim and Maximus’ Letter to Marinus with a structured note on its scope; then the canonical objection (Ephesus, 879–880, and Rome’s own two-century resistance); then the theological objection in three steps — that Florence defines the origination of the Spirit’s subsistent being, that “one principle” locates spirating in the shared essence, and that this displaces the monarchy of the Father as the ground of unity; per Filium as a different proposition, not a softened one; and four honest concessions, Bolotov’s theses among them

The Discipline of This Section

Where the Church has judged, this section confesses. The Creed of 381 is the confession of the whole Church; the addition was made by a part of it; the Orthodox Church has not received the doctrine the addition carries. Nothing here presents the question as evenly balanced.

The other side is reported as it states itself. Rome does not teach two causes and has condemned the proposition; the 1995 clarification concedes the monarchy of the Father in Greek terms and refuses the interpolation into the Greek Creed. All of this is quoted rather than paraphrased, because the Orthodox argument is stronger against the real position than against a caricature of it — the lesson this repository already drew in 08 — The Terms of the Chalcedon collection.

The argument is dogmatic, not civilizational. It rests on the Cappadocians, Photius, and the Damascene, and on the texts of Lyons, Florence, and 1995. It does not rest on the thesis that the Filioque is the source of Western ecclesiology, spirituality, or philosophy. That thesis is contested among Orthodox and belongs to Section 09.

See Also