The Filioque Explained
Two Different Authority Disputes
The filioque, Latin for “and the Son,” was added to the Creed in the Latin West and rejected by the Eastern Orthodox churches. The history of Saturday and Sunday is different: Sunday assembly appears before Constantine, Saturday liturgy continued widely, and later ecclesial and civil rules shaped regional practice. The two disputes may be compared as questions of authority, but their histories differ.
What Is the Filioque?
The Creed received from Constantinople (381 AD) gives a fuller confession of the Holy Spirit than the Creed of Nicaea (325 AD). The acts of the 381 council do not survive; the Creed is quoted in the surviving record of Chalcedon (451 AD). The following modern English liturgical excerpts compare forms without and with the later Latin clause:
The joint Orthodox-Catholic consultation identifies King Reccared’s profession at Toledo in 589 AD as an early credal use of the clause. Its first insertion into the Creed is less clearly documented than that date alone suggests. The wording spread through the Latin West, and Rome began using the Creed with the clause at papal Mass in 1014 AD. Opposition to inserting the word did not always mean rejection of its theology: Pope Leo III affirmed the doctrine while resisting the addition.
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.”John 15:26–27 (KJV)
John 15:26 says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and that the Son will send Him. In John 16:7–15, the Spirit receives what belongs to the Son, and the Son says that all the Father has is His. Catholic theology reads these passages as revealing an eternal relation as well as a mission in history. Orthodox theology distinguishes the Son’s sending of the Spirit from the Father’s being the Spirit’s eternal source.
That disagreement cannot be settled by counting words. In this theological debate, the Greek ekporeusis names the Spirit’s origin from the Father; the Latin processio has a broader use for coming forth. Catholics deny two independent sources of the Spirit; Orthodox Christians need not deny every eternal relation between the Son and the Spirit. The disputed question is the Son’s role in the Spirit’s personal origin. Neither the absence of the clause from John 15:26 nor the Son’s sending of the Spirit, taken alone, settles it.
Where the Comparison Holds
The comparison has a limited use. Both disputes ask how Scripture, inherited practice, councils, and ecclesial authority relate. Their histories remain distinct: the filioque concerns an addition to a conciliar creed, while Sunday observance developed across several regions and centuries rather than through one Roman decree.
| Dimension | Filioque | Saturday and Sunday |
|---|---|---|
| Question at issue | The Spirit’s eternal origin and the authority to alter the received Creed | Whether Sunday practice carries fourth-commandment authority |
| Received text | The 381 Creed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father | Exodus 20:8–11 names the seventh day as the Sabbath |
| Later development | The Latin West adds “and the Son” | Sunday becomes the principal Christian assembly and rest day in most churches |
| Supporting authority | Western theology, councils, and later Roman reception | Resurrection theology, first-day texts, tradition, canons, and civil law |
| Conciliar status | Lyons II (1274) affirmed the doctrine; Florence (1439) also defended the addition. Catholics receive these councils as ecumenical; Eastern Orthodox churches do not. | No single council instituted Sunday practice throughout Christianity |
| Historical markers | Reccared’s profession at Toledo in 589 AD; papal Mass use in 1014 AD | Second-century assembly; civil law in 321 AD; Laodicea in the fourth century |
| Eastern practice | Eastern Orthodox churches retain the Creed without the clause | Sunday remains primary while Saturday retains distinct liturgical honor; Ethiopian sources also contain provisions for rest from work |
| Argument presented | The historical and textual case weighs against adding the clause to the received Creed | The New Testament records no explicit transfer of Sabbath sanctity to Sunday |
Why This Matters
The Conciliar Objection
The Eastern objection concerns the authority to alter a creed received through an ecumenical council. The Western clause arose regionally and reached Rome through a gradual process, not through one bishop’s isolated act.
The Western Case
Catholic teaching holds that the Spirit proceeds eternally from Father and Son as one principle. The Son receives this from the Father, who remains the first origin; the claim concerns the Spirit’s personal origin, not just His being sent to the disciples. Florence defended both this doctrine and the added wording. Catholic arguments for Sunday appeal to Christ’s resurrection, apostolic tradition, and church authority. Those arguments require their own examination.
The Eastern Witness
The Eastern Orthodox churches preserved the 381 Creed without the added clause and retained a distinct liturgical place for Saturday. The Ethiopian texts discussed by Solomon Gebreyes Beyene describe Saturday Eucharistic worship and contain provisions for rest from work, while giving Sunday a distinct rank because of the resurrection. They do not establish uniform practice in every century. These facts complicate a simple Sunday-replacement story, but they do not by themselves prove the book’s Sabbath theology.
The Test
The filioque dispute tests a theological claim and the authority to alter conciliar language. The Sabbath dispute tests whether resurrection practice and ecclesial tradition establish a change that the New Testament never states as a transfer command. A conclusion about one dispute does not decide the other.
The Great Schism (1054 AD)
The filioque was one major theological issue in the long estrangement between Rome and Constantinople, alongside disputes about papal jurisdiction, liturgy, and politics. The exchange of formal condemnations between Cardinal Humbert’s delegation and a Constantinopolitan synod in 1054 became a symbol of that breach, not its single cause.
Rome had begun using the clause in the Creed in 1014. Eastern Orthodox churches continue to reject the addition.
The Thread Connecting Both Questions
The strongest connection between these disputes is a question, not a verdict: what authority may define doctrine or reshape received practice? The filioque gives that question a clear conciliar form. Sabbath and Sunday history supplies a more complex record of early first-day assembly, continuing Saturday liturgy, regional prohibitions, and later common-rest laws.
The recurring thread is evidence of Saturday worship and, in some communities, seventh-day rest. It is not proof of uninterrupted institutional Sabbatarian succession.
Sources
- North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? (2003): history, disputed terms, and recommendations. This bilateral statement is not an ecumenical decree.
- Orthodox Church in America, The Holy Spirit: an Orthodox account of the Father as the Spirit’s eternal source.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 243–248: the Catholic account of mission, eternal origin, and one principle.
- Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, The Greek and the Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit: the Catholic clarification published in 1995.
- Council of Florence, Laetentur caeli, July 6, 1439: the conciliar definition and defense of the addition; official Latin text.