Editing Filioque (section)

{{Short description|Latin term meaning "and from the Son" appended to the Nicene Creed}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2020}}
{{Title language|la}}
{{Technical|date=February 2013}}
[[File: Filioque.JPG|thumb|The Holy Spirit coming from both the Father and the Son, detail of the Boulbon Altarpiece, {{c.|1450}}. Originally from the high altar of the Chapelle Saint-Marcellin, [[Boulbon]], France, now in the [[Louvre]], Paris.]]
{{Catholicism–Eastern Orthodoxy sidebar}}

'''{{lang|la|Filioque}}''' ({{IPAc-en|ˌ|f|ɪ|l|i|ˈ|oʊ|k|w|i|,_|-|k|w|eɪ}} {{respell|FIL|ee|OH|kwee|,_-|kway}}; {{IPA|la-x-church|filiˈokwe|lang|link=yes}}), a [[Latin]] term meaning "and from the Son", was added to the original [[Nicene Creed]], and has been the subject of great controversy between [[Eastern Christianity|Eastern]] and [[Western Christianity]]. The term refers to the Son, [[Jesus Christ]], with the Father, as the one shared origin of the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]]. It is not in the original text of the Creed, attributed to the [[First Council of Constantinople]] (381), which says that the [[Eternal procession of the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit proceeds]] "from the [[God the Father|Father]]" ({{langx|el|τὸ ἐκ του Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον}}) without the addition "and the [[God the Son|Son]]".{{sfn|RCA|2002|p=70}}

In the late 6th century, some [[Latin Church]]es added the words "and from the Son" ({{lang|la|Filioque}}) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what many [[Eastern Orthodox Christians]] have at a later stage argued is a violation of Canon VII<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html| title = Canon VII}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=February 2020}} of the [[Council of Ephesus]], since the words were not included in the text by either the [[First Council of Nicaea]] or that of Constantinople.<ref>For a different view, see e.g. [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xi.html Excursus on the Words πίστιν ἑτέραν]</ref>{{full citation needed|date=February 2020}} The inclusion was incorporated into the [[liturgical]] practice of Rome in 1014, but was rejected by Eastern Christianity.

Whether that term {{lang|la|Filioque}} is included, as well as how it is translated and understood, can have major implications for how one understands the doctrine of the [[Trinity]], which is central to the majority of Christian churches. For some, the term implies a serious underestimation of [[God the Father]]'s role in the Trinity; for others, its denial implies a serious underestimation of the role of [[God the Son]] in the Trinity.

The term has been an ongoing source of difference between Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, formally divided since the [[East–West Schism]] of 1054.{{sfnm|Congar|1959|1p=44|Meyendorff|1987|2p=181|NAOCTC|2003}} There have been attempts at resolving the conflict. Among the earlier works that have been used in support of the compatibility of Filioque with Orthodox dogmatic teachings are the works of [[Maximus the Confessor]] in early 7th century, [[canonized]] independently by both Eastern and Western churches. Differences over this and other doctrines, and mainly the question of [[Primacy of the Bishop of Rome|the disputed papal primacy]], have been and remain the primary causes of the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Western churches.{{sfn|Larchet|2006|p=188}}{{sfn|WCCFO|1979}}