FILIOQUE
73
FILIOQUE
had made her the object of foreign cupidity :ind whose
sons were incapable of fighting for Iier and could only
enlist mercenaries to defend her. The most famous of
the sonnets is perhaps the " Italia, Italia, O tu cui feo
la sorte", which Byron rendered with skill in the
fourth canto of Childe Harold. Some letters, elogi,
orazioni, and Latin carniina, constitute the rest of liis
literary output. After the death of Filicaja, an edi-
tion of the " Poesie toscane", containing the lyrics,
was given to the world by his son (Florence, 1707); a
better edition is that of Florence, IS'23; selected poems
are given in " Lirici del secolo XVII ", published
by Sonzogno.
Amico. Poesie e lettcre di Vinccnzo da Filicaja (Florence, 1S64), with a preface on his life and work; Castellani, Studi leltemri (Citta di Castello, 1SS9).
J. D. M. Ford.
Filioque is a theological formula of great dogmatic and historical importance. On the one hand, it ex- presses the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; on tlie other, it was the occasion of the Greek schism. Both aspects of the expression need further explanation.
I. Dogmatic Meaning op Filioque. — The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Fa- ther and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four cen- turies. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Ale.xandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theo- doret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably in- tend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Pro- cession from both Father and Son. At any rate, if the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those early times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short din-ation. The first un- doubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649- 655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this contro- versy ; it does not seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites. In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was con- ducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other sources of information do not seem to e.xist. At the beginning of the ninth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, because they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half of the same century, Photius the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constanti- nople (858), denied the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan Creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Mich- ael CaTularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism. The rejection of the Filioque, or of the dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even to-day the principal
errors of the Greek Churcli. While outside the Church
doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost
grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine
of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in
the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Coun-
cil of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-
1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and
authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture
and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of
the Holy Trinity.
As to Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the Spirit of Christ (Rom., viii, 9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil., i, 19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matt., x, 20) and the Spirit of God (I Cor., ii, 11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to tlie Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Gho.st (Luke, xxiv, 49; John, xv, 26; xvi, 7; XX, 22; Acts, u, 33; Tit., iii, 6), just as the Father sends the Son (Rom., viii, 3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John, xiv, 26). Now, the "mission "or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the SabelUans maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of proiluction ; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the in- spired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son. Finally, St. John (XVI, 13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he sliall speak; ... he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration Ls in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from Which the Holy Ghost pro- ceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Pro- cession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.
The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Pro- cession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek schismatics grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iiisqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed: the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Ep. XV, c. i (447); the so-called Athanasian Creed; several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI) ; the letter of Pope HormLs- das to the Emperor Justinus, Ep. Ixxix (521); St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothel- ites, 649-655; Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795; the Synods of Meritla (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680"); the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem ; the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii; the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054); the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the Council of Florence,
