The Filioque Clause

The following is a brief reflection upon the third part of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed as it pertains to the Holy Spirit. Since it has been a general tension between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communities I thought to write upon the subject.

The original Greek reads:

Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, (καὶ) τὸ ζῳοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. 

The Latin reads:

Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:

Qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.

Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:

Qui locútus est per prophétas.

English translation of the Latin:

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

This is the English translation from the Latin version that is used in the West today which includes “and the Son”, or in Latin is known as the Filióque clause. This clause was included in Latin versions for liturgical use.

In 1274 the Second Council of Lyon defined that the Holy Spirit "proceeds eternally from the Father and from the Son, not as from two principles but from a single principle, not by two spirations but by a single spiration"

An article stated: “To an Orthodox Christian ekporevomenon only means “to be from as a source.” I agree with this statement. Let's take a look at the Creed for a moment. In the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed it states: to ek tou Patros ekporevomenon (proceeds from the Father). This is correct and I fully agree with the text and its theology. Therefore, I agree that to state in the Greek to ek tou Patros kai tou Yiou ekporevomenon (proceeds from the Father and the Son) would be incorrect and this is why that the Catholic Church does not allow the addition kai tou Yiou to the formula to ek tou Patros ekporevomenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, even if the Greek text is being used for liturgical purposes by Latins.

In addition, the seventh Ecumenical council, meeting at Nicaea in 787, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, St Tarasius, formulate the Creed in this manner: to ek tou Patros dia tou Yiou ekporevomenon. (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son). Ok, if we agree with this, that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit as the principle without principle and that according to the seventh Ecumenical council this is by or through the Son but not as a second principle or source then we should agree theologically.

Also, consider that the filioque clause is not a kai tou Yiou clause. In other words, when we are considering the theology of the filioque clause we must understand it not in the Greek but in the Latin. Since the Latin Bible had translated Jn 15:26 (para tou Patros ekporevetai) by "qui a Patre procedit", the Latins translated the to ek tou Patros ekporevomenon of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by "ex Patre procedentem". Therefore, since there is not a direct equivalence between the Greek ekporeusis and the Latin processio we must understand the differences. As it is the Latin procedit carried the connotation of consubstantiality and therefore there is an implicit filioque in keeping with the doctrine of parachoresis (Greek). Therefore, the Latin filioque must be interpreted according to the Greek to ek tou Patros ekporevomenon. In conclusion, the Catholic Church's meaning of the Latin filioque is in perfect agreement with to ek tou Patros dia tou Yiou ekporevomenon. (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son).