Continuing from the first part here.
Filioque: An Illegitimate Addition to the Creed?
The addition of the Filioque to the Creed is not, from a logical point of view, a contradiction. Logically, to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does not contradict saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; just as—making the proper analogies and proportions—the phrase “Mario is the son of his father” does not contradict the phrase “Mario is the son of his father and his mother.” The second phrase would contradict the first only if the first had been in the variant: “Mario is only the son of his father.” Returning to the Creed, we would have had to find “…proceeds from the Father alone.” This is precisely what the error of solipatrism demands.
Let us take an example. If in the next century a liturgical tradition were imposed saying: “He was incarnate in the womb of the Immaculate Virgin Mary,” this new tradition would in no way contradict the Creed itself and would even be a legitimate, though not obligatory, modification, because it would clarify a truth of faith implicit and consequential to that article. The 14 articles of the Apostles’ Creed are the 14 fundamental dogmas, which contain further truths of faith, some of which have been dogmatically defined.
Pope Leo III (795–816) certainly recognized the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but refused to modify the text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol because the ancients knew well that changing an ancient law is always risky, and he feared that the addition could jeopardize unity with the Eastern Churches, in whose non-Latin rites the Creed was recited without the Filioque.
Even Byzantine Catholics do not say the Filioque in the Creed, not because they do not believe it, but because this truth of faith remained implicit for them in the Creed, and they remained bound to a non-Latin liturgical tradition.
It is one thing to omit the Filioque because it is implicit, it is another thing to omit it because it is inconvenient from an ecumenical perspective, considered unnecessary for the profession of true faith, as something to be overlooked or debated.
The Case of Pope Leo III and Charlemagne
This is why Pope Leo III (795–816) did not insert the Filioque into the Creed, without denying the doctrine: he wanted to remain faithful to the liturgical tradition. The Filioque, however, was already widespread, especially in the Gallican rite between the 8th and 9th centuries. Charlemagne supported it and wanted it in the Creed sung in Rome.
The Filioque is a truth of faith believed since apostolic times, later defined already by the Synod of Ctesiphon (410) with the spread of opposing errors. The Acts of this synod are particularly interesting because they belong to an ancient Eastern rite Church. In 431, the Persian Church separated from the other Churches by rejecting the Council of Ephesus (431), which contributed to placing the Acts of Ctesiphon into oblivion. It was the well-known “Nestorian schism.”
Pope Leo III certainly recognized the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but refused to modify the text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol because the ancients knew well that changing an ancient law is always risky, and he feared that the addition could jeopardize unity with the Eastern Churches, in whose non-Latin rites the Creed was recited without the Filioque. In 810, Leo III even had the original text of the Creed engraved on two silver tablets, without the Filioque, and placed them in St. Peter’s Basilica.
However, as the error of solipatrism spread, of which Charlemagne was well aware, in the end the addition of the Filioque prevailed in the Gallo-Roman rite.
However, as the error of solipatrism spread, of which Charlemagne was well aware, in the end the addition of the Filioque prevailed in the Gallo-Roman rite. The Frankish emperor, in fact, cared about the matter for at least two reasons, which modern historians tend to overlook simply because they read history always through Marxist or pseudo-Marxist categories, i.e., they read historical events as mere relations of political and economic power, where the powerful always try to impose their immoral intentions on the less powerful.
Charlemagne wanted to add the Filioque to the Creed for two simple reasons. First, to combat heresies such as Adoptionism and Arianism, especially widespread in the East but not only there. Second, to prevent the emergence of bad political theories related to solipatrism. For Charlemagne and for the Roman Church, saying that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son served not only to defend the true image of Jesus Christ, but also to give clear order to politics, which for men of the time was—as with every great system of human relations—modeled on Trinitarian relations.
Had it been said that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, as the Byzantine emperor wanted, a political system would have been justified in which the Emperor’s power stood above all, and the Church and judges were separate and subordinate. Instead, in the medieval Catholic vision, power originates from the Church (analogous to the Father), passes to the King (like the Son), and from him reaches the judges and officials (like the Holy Spirit). In this way, a direct and ordered link between faith, kingdom, and justice was maintained.
The Impetus Did Not Come from Charlemagne
In reality, contrary to what is often said, more than from Charlemagne, who indeed played a very important role in defending the true faith, as we have seen, the most important apology of the Filioque came from Spain, several centuries earlier, specifically from the First Synod of Toledo (589) and the Eighth Synod of Toledo (653). The historical context was the conversion of the Visigoths from Arianism to Catholicism. The texts of the councils, promoted by King Reccared, were later collected in the Collectio Hispanica, a collection that enabled the “transfer” of the Filioque to the Kingdom of the Franks.
At the Synod of Cividale in Friuli (796–797), precisely to defend the faith, it was decided to add the Filioque to the Nicene Symbol: it is noteworthy that Bishop Saint Paulinus of Nola was fully aware that parts were being added to the Symbol, but he rejected the accusation of arbitrary innovation by referring to the example of the Fathers of Constantinople, who had in turn made modifications to the Nicene Symbol.
“These holy Fathers are not to be blamed as if they had added or removed something from the profession of faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers of Nicaea,” Paulinus wrote, “for they did not give a different sense, contrary to the thought of those Fathers, but were concerned with correctly completing their very pure interpretation.” Paulinus’ reasoning is to be interpreted in light of what was said earlier regarding the logical compatibility of the Filioque as an implicit, not explicit, truth of faith in the Nicene version of the Creed.
