Filioque

==Summary==
While the Filioque doctrine was traditional in the West, being declared dogmatically in 447 by Pope Leo I, the Pope whose ''Tome'' was approved at the [[Council of Chalcedon]],{{refn|Leo I, Letter 28 ''to Flavian'' ([[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/The Tome of St. Leo|NPNF2 14:254–258]])}}<ref name="CCC247"/> its inclusion in the Creed appeared in the [[Arian controversy|anti-Arian]] situation of [[History of Spain#Gothic Hispania (5th–8th centuries)|7th-century Spain]]. However, this dogma was never accepted in the East. The ''Filioque'', included in the Creed by certain anti-Arian councils in Spain,{{sfn|Meyendorff|1996|p=37}} was a means to affirm the full divinity of the Son in relation to both the Father and the Spirit.{{sfn|Irvin|Sunquist|2001|p=340}}<ref>{{cite book|author=Episcopal Church. Standing Liturgical Commission|year=1998|title=Enriching our worship: supplemental liturgical materials|others=Note is signed Ruth Meyers|location=New York|publisher=Church Publishing|isbn=978-0-89869275-4|pages=75–77 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6DcyyQH4uSIC&pg=PA75|quote=restor[ing] the original wording of the Nicene Creed is not primarily a theological issue. The relation of the Holy Spirit to the first and second persons of the Holy Trinity remains a matter of theological discussion and is ultimately unknowable ...}}</ref>{{sfn|Papadakis|Meyendorff|1994|p=228}}

A similar anti-Arian emphasis also strongly influenced the development of the liturgy in the East, for example, in promoting prayer to "Christ Our God", an expression which also came to find a place in the West,<ref>{{cite book|last=Vaughan|first=Herbert|author-link=Herbert Vaughan|year=1901|chapter=Homage to Christ our God and King|chapter-url=https://archive.org/stream/themasterpieceso00unknuoft#page/11/mode/1up|editor-last=Ringrose|editor-first=Hyacinthe|title=The masterpieces of Catholic literature, oratory and art ...|volume=2|ol=7039999M|page=9}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Pierpoint|first=Folliot S.|year=1990|chapter=For the beauty of the Earth|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mPqN_R-waqUC&pg=PA331|editor-last=Osbeck|editor-first=Kenneth W.|title=Amazing grace: 366 inspiring hymn stories for daily devotions|location=Grand Rapids, MI|publisher=Kregel|isbn=978-0-82543425-9|page=[https://archive.org/details/amazinggrace366i00osbe_0/page/331 331]|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/amazinggrace366i00osbe_0/page/331}}</ref> where, largely as a result of "the Church's reaction to Teutonic Arianism", {{"'}}Christ our God' ... gradually assumes precedence over 'Christ our brother{{'"}}.<ref>{{cite book|last=Austin|first=Gerard|year=1999|chapter=Liturgical history: restoring equilibrium after the struggle with heresy|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SAfiLkjoI-sC&pg=PA39|editor1-last=Pierce|editor1-first=Joanne M.|editor2-last=Downey|editor2-first=Michael|title=Source and summit: commemorating Josef A. Jungman, S.J.|location=Collegeville, MN|publisher=Liturgical Press|page=39|isbn=9780814624616}}</ref> In this case, a common adversary, namely [[Arianism]], had profound, far-reaching effects, in the orthodox reaction in both East and West.{{Relevance inline|paragraph|date=November 2015|reason=Not about filioque.}}

Church politics, authority conflicts, ethnic hostility, linguistic misunderstanding, personal rivalry, forced conversions, large scale wars, political intrigue, unfilled promises and secular motives all combined in various ways to divide East and West.

The doctrine expressed by the phrase in Latin (in which the word "procedit" that is linked with "Filioque" does not have exactly the same meaning and overtones as the word used in Greek) is definitively upheld by the Western Church, having been dogmatically declared by Leo I,<ref name="CCC247"/> and upheld by councils at Lyon and Florence{{sfn|Cunliffe-Jones|2006|pp=208–209}} that the Western Church recognizes as ecumenical, by the unanimous witness of the Latin Church Fathers (as Maximus the Confessor acknowledged) and even by Popes who, like Leo III, opposed insertion of the word into the Creed.{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=92}}{{sfn|Congar|1959|p=53}}

That the doctrine is heretical is something that not all Orthodox now insist on. According to Ware, many Orthodox (whatever may be the doctrine and practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church itself) hold that, in broad outline, to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father ''and'' the Son amounts to the same thing as to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father ''through'' the Son, a view accepted also by the Greeks who signed the act of union at the Council of Florence.{{sfn|Ware|2006|p=208}} For others, such as Bolotov and his disciples, the ''Filioque'' can be considered a Western ''theologoumenon'', a theological opinion of [[Church Fathers]] that falls short of being a dogma.{{sfn|ECT|2005|loc="Filioque"}}{{sfn|AOJDC|1984|loc=n. 45}} Bulgakov also stated: "There is no dogma of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son and therefore particular opinions on this subject are not heresies but merely dogmatic hypotheses, which have been transformed into heresies by the schismatic spirit that has established itself in the Church and that eagerly exploits all sorts of liturgical and even cultural differences."{{sfn|Bulgakov|2004|p=148}}