- Joined
- Sep 8, 2020
- Messages
- 16,166
- Reaction score
- 11,261
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
In the Western version of the Nicene Creed adopted at the first Council of Nicea of 325 and revised at the First Council of Constantinople of 381 it says regarding the Holy Spirit:
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son."
However originally the "and the Son" was not there, and if you today read a Greek or Armenian version of the Creed the "and the Son" won't be there. This ios the filioque controversy, coming from Latin filioque, as in " qui ex Patre Filioque procedit", basically meaning "and the son". There were other changes that snuck into the Latin text, such as the "we believe" from the Greek text changed to "I believe" in the Latin version over time. But why was adding that the Holy Spirit also is "begotten by the Son" so controversial? There has been alot of back and forth regarding the nature of the Holy Spirit over the ages. If you think that is the hardest part of the Trinity to get your head around, yeah, ancient bishops and theologians would agree with you since they have tried to make sense of it since the early days of Christianity. In the Middle Ages for example it was not unusual that the Holy Spirit was female coded, a bit like the Jewish mystic concept of the Shekinah. Much of the controversy and critisism from the East was that the phrases had been changed without anyone asking them, and basically the Western church (remember this is before the actual split) and that there had been no decision made at a Church Council to change the text. And because the Western church had changed the text, the Eastern church of course immediately decided that the text was unchangable, because screw the Westerners. Patriarch Paul of Constantinople (r. 642–653) accused a Pope (it is not very clear which Pope, could be Pope Theodore, could be Pope Martin I) for using the expression, and the Pope of course answered by excommunicating the Patriarch.
This was one of the early controversies between what was to become the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, it was never really solved, and the controversy flared up several times until the official split in 1054. The western churches using the Latin creed simply kept the changes, while the Greek churches became even more protective of the original text and refused any changes. The Western church accused the Greeks of "cutting out the Son of the Holy Spirit", while the Greeks accused the Latins of adding to doctrine willy nilly.
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son."
However originally the "and the Son" was not there, and if you today read a Greek or Armenian version of the Creed the "and the Son" won't be there. This ios the filioque controversy, coming from Latin filioque, as in " qui ex Patre Filioque procedit", basically meaning "and the son". There were other changes that snuck into the Latin text, such as the "we believe" from the Greek text changed to "I believe" in the Latin version over time. But why was adding that the Holy Spirit also is "begotten by the Son" so controversial? There has been alot of back and forth regarding the nature of the Holy Spirit over the ages. If you think that is the hardest part of the Trinity to get your head around, yeah, ancient bishops and theologians would agree with you since they have tried to make sense of it since the early days of Christianity. In the Middle Ages for example it was not unusual that the Holy Spirit was female coded, a bit like the Jewish mystic concept of the Shekinah. Much of the controversy and critisism from the East was that the phrases had been changed without anyone asking them, and basically the Western church (remember this is before the actual split) and that there had been no decision made at a Church Council to change the text. And because the Western church had changed the text, the Eastern church of course immediately decided that the text was unchangable, because screw the Westerners. Patriarch Paul of Constantinople (r. 642–653) accused a Pope (it is not very clear which Pope, could be Pope Theodore, could be Pope Martin I) for using the expression, and the Pope of course answered by excommunicating the Patriarch.
This was one of the early controversies between what was to become the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, it was never really solved, and the controversy flared up several times until the official split in 1054. The western churches using the Latin creed simply kept the changes, while the Greek churches became even more protective of the original text and refused any changes. The Western church accused the Greeks of "cutting out the Son of the Holy Spirit", while the Greeks accused the Latins of adding to doctrine willy nilly.