The following text is from a talk I delivered on the Feast of the Cross (September 14), 2023, for a Catholic-Orthodox dialogue in Duluth, MN, known as ‘Theology Uncapped.’ The discussion, titled ‘Why We Aren’t One,’ focused on the Filioque controversy and the authority of the Pope. This talk marked the first in a series of three conversations. The next discussion, centered on salvation and redemption, is scheduled for January 11, 2024. If you wish to attend, you can register for it by clicking here.
———
Now that Fr. Nick Nelson (the priest of Queen of Peace Catholic Church in Cloquet, MN) has laid the groundwork for basic early Church history, I’m going to delve into the Great Schism.
But, first, before I proceed, I want to emphasize how I perceive this dialogue. I don’t see it as a debate—a ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ scenario. Such conversations aren’t very helpful or productive in fostering unity between our two churches.
Instead, I view these discussions as informative. In other words, I’m simply stating, ‘This is how we understand ourselves.’ Whether you agree or not is perfectly fine.
Now that’s clarified, delving into the history of how the Church of Rome severed ties with the ancient Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and the rest of the Orthodox Christian world is intricate and lengthy, so a concise treatment will suffice for tonight.
It’s important to note that it wasn’t purely theological; cultural and political reasons also played significant roles. However, despite these factors, tonight’s program, ‘Why We Are Not One,’ appears to emphasize the enduring impact of theological issues. So, let’s begin.
First, some context about the renowned Filioque clause.
The governing structure of the early church was conciliar, wherein all bishops of the world convened in council to make administrative decisions or articulate the faith in response to heresies.
These ‘Ecumenical Councils,’ typically called by the Roman Emperor (who, for the most part, resided in Constantinople throughout the Roman Empire’s history), established this conciliar model as the church’s governing structure from the outset. The very first council, recorded in the Book of Acts, involved St. Paul conversing with other apostles in Jerusalem about the Gentile mission.
It was during the first two Ecumenical Councils that the ‘Nicene Creed’ was formulated. This creed aimed to serve as a universal declaration of the Christian faith, embodying what all Christians everywhere and at all times believed.
One clause of the original creed affirmed belief in “…the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father…” full stop.
Between the 6th and 9th centuries, the western church appended to the creed, eventually leading to: ” …And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” This addition of “and the Son” is known as the Filioque.
So, why is the addition of one Latin word problematic?
The first issue is what I’ll term administrative.
At the Third Ecumenical Council, the seventh canon was universally agreed upon. It decreed, “Any bishop who presents a faith other than that of Nicaea shall be estranged from the Church; if a layman does so, let him be exiled.”
For an Orthodox Christian, the inclusion of the Filioque represents precisely this: the Church of Rome asserting a faith divergent from that of Nicaea. It was unanimously agreed that altering the creed would lead to estrangement from the Church of Christ. Consequently, many Orthodox Christians view the Church of Rome as no longer part of the universal Christian faith.
At this juncture, it’s essential to discuss the authority of the pope. Some western Christians argue that the pope holds the authority to make creedal additions.
The history of the papacy is intricate. However, as I mentioned, the early church operated in a conciliar manner. When the Western Roman Empire fell, it left a power vacuum eventually filled by the Pope. (Note: The Eastern Roman Empire fell much later, in the 15th century, leading to the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople being commonly referred to as the “Roman Patriarch,” and Christians in Turkey being called “Romans” to this day.)
To refocus: As Orthodox Christians, we believe that the unity of the Church lies in its faith. Our common belief, as expressed through the Nicene Creed and the Ecumenical Councils, binds us. It’s not the institution, such as the papacy, that unites us, but our shared faith. Thus, it’s not about ‘What does Rome think?’ but rather ‘What did the Fathers teach?’
For an Orthodox Christian, while the Pope may hold the position of bishop of Rome, he doesn’t represent the entire church nor does he possess the authority to modify the creed. In the eyes of Orthodox Christians, the Pope’s authority is an innovation, deviating from apostolic tradition. Hence, the original Ecumenical declaration stands: let no bishop alter the faith established at Nicaea.
If this appears technical, consider it akin to someone altering our national anthem. One Orthodox priest illustrated this, suggesting that if someone sang, “whose dear maple leaf, through the perilous fight,” instead of the original anthem, wouldn’t you protest? Wouldn’t you point out that the essence of our anthem has been changed? The creed, articulating the Christian faith, is even more crucial. Isn’t it imperative that we uphold what the saints handed down to us? Orthodox Christians believe it is.
Leaving this aside, let’s examine the theology.
A vital aspect of the Nicene Creed was articulating the proper understanding of the Holy Trinity, undeniably a challenging subject. Allow me to attempt an explanation, drawing from Fr. Anthony Coniaris, a longstanding priest in Minneapolis.
“… Orthodox [Christians] deem the Filioque to be theological untruth. The Orthodox Church believes that God understands Himself best. Jesus Himself stated, ‘But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me’ (John 15:26). Orthodoxy has always taught what the Bible teaches: Christ sends the Spirit, but the Spirit proceeds from the Father.”
In essence, the procession defines who the Holy Spirit is (an aspect of the Holy Trinity), while the sending delineates what the Holy Spirit does (bringing salvation to the world). If these aspects are conflated, as in the Filioque, Orthodox Christians question whether God’s saving power operates in the world. To us, the Filioque implies otherwise.
Moreover, according to the Church Fathers, the Father serves as the source or origin of the Holy Trinity: the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. Consequently, the Father maintains the unity of the Godhead.
However, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from “the Father and the Son,” the Father no longer remains the unique origin, and the unity of the Trinity fractures. It also appears as if the Father’s status has been diminished.
For these reasons, Orthodox Christians view the Filioque with suspicion.
All these elements converged in 1054. The Turks posed a political threat to the Emperor in Constantinople, and the Normans posed a challenge to the Pope. The Emperor and the Pope agreed to support each other—the Emperor would concede to papal authority, and in return, the Pope would dispatch troops to aid the East.
However, when the Pope’s delegation wasn’t received by the Patriarch of Constantinople, the delegation excommunicated the Patriarch, who reciprocated with the same. Relations between East and West deteriorated further during the 4th Crusade in 1204 when soldiers chose to sack Constantinople instead of advancing to liberate Christians in the Middle East. They murdered unarmed civilians, raped women (including nuns), despoiled churches, and desecrated Orthodox Christian altars. It is these actions which many historians consider the breaking point.
Yet, there is a silver lining. In 1965, both Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras rescinded the excommunications of 1054. Furthermore, ongoing dialogues between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have suggested possible understandings of the Filioque that could be acceptable to Orthodox Christians.
Nevertheless, our churches remain in schism, unable to partake in communion with each other. Until then, at every service, Orthodox Christians continue to pray for unity: “Ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰρήνης τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου, εὐσταθείας τῶν ἁγίων τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν πάντων ἑνώσεως, τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν,” which means, “For the peace of the whole world, for the stability of the holy churches of God, and for the unity of all, let us pray to the Lord.”
Thank you.