Unpacking the Nicene Creed: A Pillar of Christian Faith and a Point of Historic Division

By †Gabriel Obiano, D.D.

The "Filioque" Clause: A Western Addition and Eastern Dispute

The Nicene Creed stands as one of Christianity's most foundational declarations of faith, a concise yet profound statement summarizing core beliefs held by billions across denominations. Recited in liturgies and studied in theological schools, it serves as a powerful testament to the early Church's struggle to articulate the mystery of God. However, within its ancient lines lies a subtle yet significant difference that contributed to the schism between the Christian East and West: the addition of a single word in Latin – the "Filioque."

To truly understand the Nicene Creed is to journey back to the very roots of Christian doctrine, and to appreciate the rich, complex tapestry of its development. I must admit that the Council of Niecae did a great job. This is the Genesis of it all.

The Genesis of the Creed: Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople

The original form of the Nicene Creed didn't appear fully formed overnight. Its bedrock was laid at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This council was convened by Emperor Constantine to address the Arian controversy, a fierce theological debate about the nature of Jesus Christ. Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, taught that Jesus was a created being, subordinate to God the Father, and not co-eternal or co-equal with Him.

The Council of Nicaea firmly rejected Arianism, proclaiming Jesus to be "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father" (Greek: homoousios). This affirmed Christ's full divinity.

Later, at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, the creed was expanded to affirm the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, in response to another controversy (Macedonianism) that denied the Spirit's deity. This expanded version is the form we largely know today as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly referred to simply as the Nicene Creed.

The original Greek text of the Creed, as ratified by the Council of Constantinople, included the following statement regarding the Holy Spirit:

"...And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets." This formulation was universally accepted by both East and West for centuries.

The "Filioque" Clause: A Western Addition and Eastern Dispute

The point of contention, and a major catalyst for the eventual Great Schism of 1054 AD, is a phrase added to the Creed in the Western (Latin-speaking) Church: "Filioque." This Latin word means "and the Son."

With this addition, the Western version of the Creed reads:

"...And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father AND THE SON (Filioque); who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets."

What the Western Catholic (Roman Catholic) Church Added:

The Roman Catholic Church, specifically in the West, gradually incorporated the "Filioque" clause into the Nicene Creed. This addition was first introduced in local councils in Spain (e.g., Council of Toledo in 589 AD) to combat Arianism there, emphasizing the full divinity of the Son. It gained prominence through Charlemagne's court in the 8th and 9th centuries and was eventually formally adopted by the Popes in Rome in the 11th century.

The theological rationale for the "Filioque" in the West was to assert the co-equality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father, ensuring that the Holy Spirit's origin also involved the Son, thereby upholding the unity of the Trinity. It was seen as clarifying and protecting the doctrine of the Trinity from any suggestion that the Father alone was the source of the Godhead in a way that diminished the Son.

What the Eastern Orthodox Church (Correct Name) Disputed:

The name for the Eastern Churches that did not accept the Roman addition is indeed the Eastern Orthodox Church. They disputed the "Filioque" for several key reasons:

- Unauthorized Addition: The primary objection was that the "Filioque" was an unauthorized addition to an ecumenical creed. The Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople had explicitly forbidden any alteration to the Creed. The Eastern Orthodox maintained that such a significant theological change could only be made by another ecumenical council involving the entire Church, not by one part of the Church (the West) acting unilaterally. This was seen as a violation of the Church's ancient conciliar tradition.

- Theological Implications:

     Monarchy of the Father: Orthodox theology strongly emphasizes the "monarchy of the Father," meaning the Father is the sole ultimate source (arche) of the Godhead. While the Son and the Spirit are fully God, they derive their being from the Father. The "Filioque," in their view, makes the Father and the Son dual sources of the Spirit, potentially undermining the Father's unique role as the fount of divinity.

   -  Subordination of the Spirit: Some Orthodox theologians also argued that the "Filioque" risked subordinating the Holy Spirit to the Son, suggesting the Spirit's procession from the Son as if the Son were a secondary cause. In Eastern theology, the Spirit proceeds directly from the Father, even though He is sent through the Son into the world.

   -  Distinction of Persons: The Orthodox believe that the "Filioque" blurs the distinct identities of the three Persons of the Trinity. If the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, it makes it harder to distinguish the Father as the unbegotten, the Son as begotten, and the Spirit as proceeding, from each other in their eternal relations.

   -  Historical and Cultural Context: The dispute also reflected growing cultural, linguistic, and political estrangement between the Latin West and the Greek East. Differences in theological methodology (the West often more analytical, the East more mystical) also played a role.

Toward Understanding and Reconciliation

Let's not get confused, today, the "Filioque" remains a significant theological difference between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, though extensive dialogue has sought to bridge the divide. Both sides acknowledge that the underlying Trinitarian faith is largely the same, but the linguistic and theological formulations differ.

The Nicene Creed, with or without the "Filioque," continues to unite Christians in their belief in the Triune God. Understanding this historical controversy not only illuminates a crucial chapter in Christian history but also highlights the complexity and profound depth of articulating divine mystery—a task that continues to engage theologians and believers alike.

Enjoyed this article? Check out our popular article: Read Here.