Filioque, why was it added?


When the Council of Nicea met and defined the Creed. Why was the Filioque added later without the assent of the whole church? I do not see this addition being confirmed by scripture. John 15:26 states clearly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. None of the articles you have pointed to give a satisfactory explanation



If this is how you’re beginning the discussion, is any discussion going to be possible? You ask a question and then basically say that you’re not going to hear any answers to it.



He also doesn’t tell us what articles he’s already been pointed to and found lacking.



This is a good one


I’m not being defensive, I’m just pointing out that if you begin by asking a question and saying that none of the answers you’re been given are satisfactory, how can we hope to answer your question? Especially since we don’t know what articles you’ve been shown.


I’m referring to the articles on Catholic Answers that have been posted in other questions on the filioque.


Why not give me an answer in your own words?


Thanks, I read that one but it just begs the question. Why add something to The Creed. Illicitly or not if it isnt stated in Scripture? St Augustine’s explanation agrees more with the Orthodox position. I do not see what purpose the Filioque serves.


You could ask the Church Fathers at Constantinople why they felt the need to add clarifications not at odds with the faith of Nicene, too.


I am just looking for an answer here. If you guys cant provide it, I will look elsewhere.i am not looking for an argument. I am honestly searching for a clear explanation


This is a new thread, am I missing the fact you had another going on this topic


Hi. No, this is a new thread. I have not asked this question on this forum before.



When the Council of Nicea met and defined the Creed. Why was the Filioque added later without the assent of the whole church?

Bishops in each diocese are allowed to draw up new statements of faith and/or “local creeds” to combat new heresies. There was a heresy in France in the 500s that denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. So the bishops of France used their authority (which every other bishop has too, btw) to respond to this error by adding a new statement to the Creed: the Filioque clause. This later became a popular Creed in the West, partly because France gained a lot of influence in the Western Church due to Charlemagne. In the 1000s, this “local creed” got approval by the pope, and now it’s used everywhere in the West, but it’s just one approved Creed among many, and it has never been imposed on the East. The Church continues to approve of and use the Apostles Creed and the original Nicene Creed, which don’t contain the Filioque, as well as the Creed-with-filioque-added and the Athanasian Creed – and any other Creed that doesn’t contradict the Church’s faith.


And 2 Timothy 3:16-17 clearly says that the Scripture is sufficient. Why do we have Tradition and Church then?

Really, this citation of a single passage that does not talk in exclusive terms doesn’t work. It reveals a bit about what is going on, but unless it is making an exclusive claim, it doesn’t work for denying that more is going on. For instance, John 20:22 can be seen as the Son having some part in the procession of the Holy Spirit, even if, as I understand it, it starts with the Father.


Ok my question to you,

Explain the Filloque to me. And how and when and into what, it was included.

In your own words


But even St Augustine denies the HS proceeds from the Son. How is it a heresy to state something that Scripture doesn’t affirm? The word “proceeds” is a very technical word. Perhaps using the words “through the Son” would have been better and it wouldn’t have added to the Schism. Just my thoughts. Any takers on this one?



If you object about why anything would be added to the Creed on the basis that doing so is illegetimate, it’s not incorrect to point out that the same was done at Constantinople, and that the canon about not adding to the Nicene Creed (and not the Nicene-Constantinople Creed) is to be understood as prohibiting adding anything contrary to the Nicene Faith, for if that wasn’t the case, the creed professed at Constantinople would not make any sense.

When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. (John 15:26)

Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I go not away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you (John 16:7)

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Acts 2:33)

References to the Spirit of the Son: Rom 8:9, Gal 4:6, Phil 1:19, 1 Pt 1:11

And there is numerous Patristic evidence against the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, which is what (at least some) Orthodox confess.

The Catholics, like the Orthodox, confess God as the Unbegotten. He is the First Principle, in a sense, of the Trinity. Part of the objections between east and west ultimately boil down to differences between Latin and Greek on the words for procedes, cause, and principle. The words in Latin allow for it, but it becomes nonsensical or heterodox when fitted into the Greek terms.

Do you reject the notion that the Father has given all things to the Son? That the Son is not the perfect image of the Father? Do you claim that Spiration is unique to Paternity alone?


In Greek it would have to be “through the Son” to be acceptable, is my understanding. But not so in Latin, due to the differences in meaning.


There was a Vatican commission under John Paul II that put out a paper on the issue.


Also, where do you get that Augustine denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit