Filioque — the Term
The “Filioque” is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but “and from the Son” (Latin “Filioque”).
A thorough video refutation of the filioque by priest George Maximov (in Russian): Rutube, YouTube.
The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father
We do not know the nature of God, but the Son of God, Jesus Christ, knows:
“All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matt. 11:27)
He gave the divine Revelation to the apostles:
“No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you” (John. 15:15)
The Son of God said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father:
“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (John. 15:26)
Father, Son, Holy Spirit are not names. God has no proper name. A name is given by one who is higher. There is no one higher than God[1].
The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit are only pointers to the relations of these divine persons to one another.
The Father begets, therefore He is the father. But He is not begotten, therefore He is not the son. He does not proceed, therefore He is not the Holy Spirit.
The Son is begotten, therefore He is the son. But He does not beget, therefore He is not the father. Nor does He proceed, therefore He is not the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor begets, therefore He is neither the father nor the son. He proceeds, therefore He is the Holy Spirit.
Each person has only one distinction (hypostatic property) by which we can distinguish them from one another. These words (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) allow us to point to these properties.
The action of God that we observe in this world is not the very nature of God, but only His actions (energies), what we also call grace.
Only the Father is the cause of all. He alone is the cause of the being of the Son and the cause of the being of the Holy Spirit. Only one cause, not two and not three.
At the same time, the Father is equal to the Son and the Holy Spirit in everything, and differs only by being unbegotten.
The Son differs from the Father and the Holy Spirit only by being begotten.
Likewise, the Holy Spirit differs from the Father and the Son only by procession.
These are called hypostatic properties. And the natural properties of all of them are one and the same, for the nature is one. God is one, and the hypostases are three. And each hypostasis has one distinction from the others.
Objections of the Supporters of the “Filioque”
“I and My Father Are One”
As proof of the Catholic teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father but also from the Son, the following quote is given:
“I and My Father are one” (John. 10:30)
And also similar phrases:
“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you” (John. 16:13-14)
“All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (John. 16:15)
But if from the phrase “I and My Father are one” it follows that the Holy Spirit proceeds “and from the Son”, then it also means that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Himself, that is, supposedly the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Holy Spirit, for not only the Father and the Son are “one”, but the Holy Spirit too is “one” with them. The Holy Spirit also has everything the Father and the Son have.
The proposed argument could be logically admissible only if the Holy Spirit were not God, but merely some radiance, some feeling of love and nothing more, but not God. However, in that case it would already be another great error, one that rejects the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Following the proposed argument, one would have to admit:
either that “one” is only the Father and the Son, while the Holy Spirit is something else (a feeling of love, a radiance and nothing more);
or that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Son, and... from the Holy Spirit.
If one consistently accepts the claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Holy Spirit, then many other absurd conclusions follow, for example, that the Son is begotten not only by the Father (who is called the Father precisely for this reason), but that everyone begets the Son, including the Son Himself begetting Himself. But the Son is called the son because He is begotten, and the Father is called the father because He begets; likewise the Spirit is called the Spirit because He proceeds.
If the supporters of the “filioque” are not ready to admit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Himself, they should admit that this quote speaks of something else and is not suitable for defending the “filioque”. Let us look at this expression more closely.
“He Will Take of What Is Mine”
“He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (John. 16:14-15)
It speaks of what the Holy Spirit will declare: that He will not contradict Christ. In God there is one knowledge and will. The Son of God warns the disciples that the Holy Spirit will not give some other teaching, for He too will speak from God. After Christ, Montanus appeared and presented himself as the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, teaching his own teaching and not the teaching of Christ. The prominent Christian theologian Tertullian was carried away by the teaching of Montanus.
The Son of God Sends the Holy Spirit by Breathing
Appearing to the apostles, Christ breathes on the apostles and offers them to receive the Holy Spirit:
“So Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.’ And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (John. 20:21-22)
This quote does not mean that the Son is the source of the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit is sent in time (in our earthly history of the Church, of the economy of salvation) from the Father by the Son. That is, previously He had not been sent (but of course He always had being, proceeding from the Father), and now in time He is sent from the Father to the Church, as Christ Himself says a few chapters earlier:
“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (John. 15:26)
The Son of God says that He Himself will send the Holy Spirit, but will send Him from the Father, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; that is, only the Father is the cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and not the Son.
Background
The Church from the beginning and always taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds precisely from the Father (quotes, in Russian).
In the 8th century in the West there arises the idea of the procession of the Holy Spirit additionally “and from the Son”. There, too, this idea is condemned in 791 by Patriarch Paulinus of Aquileia.
In the 11th century one of the communities breaks away from the Orthodox Church because of the distortion of the faith and of views on the structure of the Church — the Roman one (today the Roman Catholic Church).
In Rome, under the political pressure of the Frankish king Charlemagne, they changed the doctrine:
They single-handedly changed the “Creed” adopted at the Ecumenical Councils, which the Ecumenical Councils forbade to change (Third Ecumenical Council, Canon 7);
They added to it what the Church had never taught: the filioque (the procession of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father but also from the Son);
They affirmed and demanded that the whole Church accept the infallible headship of the pope over the whole Church, which had never existed and which clearly contradicts Holy Scripture (the head is Christ, Eph. 1:22). Even historically the pope was never the head of the Church, and not a single Ecumenical Council took place in Rome. Christ Himself forbade the apostles to seek who was the greatest, stopping their disputes about it (Mark. 9:34; Matt. 20:25-28).
To be able to assess this large-scale historical event, it is extremely important to understand the political situation in Italy.
From the 5th century Rome suffers from very serious barbarian raids, and the papal see is regularly in an extremely shaky position. Byzantium had less and less opportunity to pay attention to its western front, concentrating on other directions. Thus the pope in Rome over time de facto came to represent not only religious but also state power.
At the turn of the 8th–9th centuries, to save their position, the popes make a sharp political turn away from the Byzantine emperor towards the Frankish king Charlemagne (c. 748–814).
In 800 Pope Leo III proclaims, crowns and recognizes Charles as the heir of the Holy Roman Empire.
To justify the claim that the pope had such powers at all, several forged documents were produced:
The Donation of Constantine – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
The Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorean_Decretals
This step created a situation that required further steps from the popes.
Constantinople was the center of the empire not only because the emperor was there, but also because, on the initiative of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Councils took place in Constantinople itself or in its vicinity.
The desire to become the center of the empire again (not only political but also religious) required Rome to seize the initiative of the Councils and the establishment of theology. But Councils took place only because of large-scale heresies, and at that time there were none. Therefore in the West they took out of the “old Spanish chest” the 7th–8th century teaching of the filioque, pushed it through politically, officially including it in the “Creed”, and also arbitrarily proclaimed the pope’s total headship in the Church, with the subsequent demand that the whole Church recognize all these maneuvers.
It is important to note that this addition to the Creed had already been condemned in the West before (in 791 by Patriarch Paulinus of Aquileia), and Pope Leo III himself, who crowned the king of the Franks, refused to recognize the addition of the filioque to the “Creed”.
Nevertheless, despite the resistance, by the end of the 9th century the “Filioque” had been successfully adopted in Rome, which resulted first in the “Photian schism”, and later in the conflict of 1054 in Constantinople.
From these events it follows that the revived Spanish teaching of the “filioque” served only as a pretext for establishing power over the Church. The Filioque was not an end in itself. It was revived for very specific purposes.
A precedent was needed: that the pope, without any Ecumenical Councils, is able single-handedly to proclaim doctrinal truths and to demand that the whole Church accept his “infallible” innovations.
This claim of the pope to power, having neither theological nor historical grounds, was categorically rejected by all the other local churches.