Language
Country/Area
No result found
A watershed in church history: How did Eastern and Western Christianity split over Filioque?
In the historical development of Christianity, the term Filioque has always been a focus of great controversy. This phrase from Latin means "and from the Son" and to some extent reflects the profound differences between Eastern and Western Christianity on the source of the Holy Spirit and the understanding of the Trinity.
The earliest reference to the source of the Holy Spirit is in the Nicene Creed, which was formulated by the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. In the original text, the Holy Spirit clearly "comes from the Father" and there is no such expression as "from the Son". Over time, the Latin Church gradually began to discuss and add this phrase in the late 6th century, and it was finally officially incorporated into the Roman liturgy in 1014. However, this change met with fierce resistance from Eastern Christianity, causing the church to split beyond control.
The addition of Filioque was seen as a doctrinal dispute between the Eastern and Western churches and marked the beginning of the Great Schism in 1054.
Historically, the controversy over Filioque mainly involves four aspects: one is the controversy over the term itself; the other is the orthodoxy of the doctrine of how the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son; the third is the question of how this term comes from the Father and the Son. The legitimacy of the terminology added to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed; the fourth is whether the pope has the authority to define the orthodoxy of this doctrine or to incorporate the terminology into the creed.
These controversies not only question theological positions, but also touch on the nature of the entire church and the distribution of teaching power. In Eastern Orthodoxy, many theologians hold a "strict" stance, believing that the addition of Filioque directly leads to an underestimation of the role of the Holy Spirit, which is a major doctrinal error.
As Antony Siegenski points out, this controversy concerns not just the trinity of God, but the nature of the church and the distribution of power among its leaders.
Compared to the "strictists", some "liberal" theologians believe that this dispute is mainly caused by misunderstandings and lack of communication, with both sides failing to recognize the diversity of each other's theological positions. This view holds that the Filioque problem is more a matter of different understandings of theological perspectives than incompatible doctrines.
As the discussion of doctrine deepens, more and more research begins to explore the roots of this controversy. Some scholars believe that the New Testament does not clearly state the dual sources of the Holy Spirit, but it lays the foundation for subsequent Trinitarian theology.
Some church fathers believe that the Holy Spirit "comes both from the Father and through the Son." This view is also reflected in the writings of the Latin Fathers.
The understanding of Filioque not only affects theology, but also affects the practice of Christian faith as a whole. Many believers interpret and experience God's presence based on their own doctrines, and this disagreement makes for theological challenges. Western churches believe that an understanding of the Holy Spirit that excludes the Son would be imperfect, while Eastern churches believe that Western understandings may lead to doctrinal deviations.
From a historical perspective, the Nicene Creed and the Constantinople Creed did not clearly explain the specific source of the Holy Spirit, which planted the seeds for subsequent vicious struggles. Therefore, the dispute caused by Filioque is not only a theological issue, but also involves how to understand the operation and authority of the church.
Today's theological scholars may try to understand this dispute from a more tolerant perspective, thinking that it can be an entry point for dialogue between different branches of Christianity. Such a view sheds some light on the openness many Christians have to diversity of theological understanding.
Now scholars are also asking: Can we find a common ground in dialogue that transcends this conflict with deep roots in history?
Faced with the controversy in Filioque, can future Christian churches find a path to reconciliation on the basis of adhering to their respective beliefs?
