The filioque is a single Latin word, “and the Son”, that the Western church added to the Nicene Creed without permission from an ecumenical council. It’s been a point of division between East and West for over a thousand years.
The original Creed from the Council of Constantinople in 381 says the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” That’s what we still say every Sunday at St. Michael’s. But starting in Spain in the late 500s, Western churches began adding “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) to that line, so it read “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” By the 11th century, Rome had adopted this addition throughout the West.
We reject it for two reasons. First, you can’t just change what an ecumenical council decided. The Third Ecumenical Council explicitly forbade additions to the Creed, and later councils reaffirmed that prohibition. When Rome added the filioque anyway, it was acting unilaterally, making a decision that should’ve required the whole Church’s agreement. Second, the addition creates real theological problems with how we understand the Trinity.
Here’s why it matters theologically. The Father is the source of the Godhead. He’s the fountainhead, the origin. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. That’s the pattern the Church Fathers taught, based on Christ’s own words in John 15:26: “the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father.” Each Person of the Trinity is distinct. The Father alone is the source.
When you say the Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son,” you’re muddying that clarity. You’re making the Son a second source alongside the Father. Orthodox theologians like St. Photius of Constantinople and St. Gregory Palamas argued this undermines the Father’s unique role as the one source of divinity within the Trinity. It risks turning the Trinity into something more like a committee. And it can make the Holy Spirit seem somehow less than the Father and Son, almost like a shared emanation rather than a distinct divine Person.
The Catholic response has often been that they don’t mean two separate sources, but rather that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That’s actually closer to what some Eastern Fathers said. But if that’s what they mean, why not just say it that way? Why insist on language that sounds like two sources?
This wasn’t just an abstract debate. The filioque controversy was one of several issues that led to the Great Schism of 1054, when Rome and Constantinople formally broke communion. Papal authority was the bigger issue, honestly. But the filioque symbolized Rome’s willingness to change ancient doctrine without consulting the East. It was symptomatic of a deeper problem about how the Church makes decisions.
If you grew up Baptist or non-denominational here in Southeast Texas, this might seem like splitting hairs. Does one word really matter that much? But think about it this way: if someone changed a line in your wedding vows without asking you, you’d notice. The Creed isn’t just any text. It’s the Church’s most solemn statement of faith, hammered out by hundreds of bishops over decades of councils. Changing it unilaterally was a violation of trust.
The Antiochian Orthodox Church holds the same position as all Orthodox churches on this. We confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, period. Not from the Father and the Son. Not through some complicated formula. Just what the council said and what Christ taught. We’re not being stubborn about this. We’re being faithful to what was handed down.
When you come to Liturgy and hear us chant the Creed, listen for that line. “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father.” No additions. No amendments. Just the faith once delivered to the saints, kept intact through the centuries. That’s what we mean when we talk about Holy Tradition, not adding to it or subtracting from it, but guarding what we’ve received.
