Does Article 23 of the Athanasian Creed teach the Filioque?
“The following article was generated by Grok 4 (xAI) in response to prompts from [Jack
Kettler]; I have edited it with Grammarly AI for style.”
Does Article 23 of the Athanasian Creed teach the Filioque?
Yes, Article 23 of the Athanasian Creed explicitly teaches the “filioque” doctrine.
The standard Western text of the creed (used in Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and many other traditions) states:
“The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son”; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”
(This corresponds to verse 23 in most numbered editions, following verses 21–22 on the Father’s unoriginated nature and the Son’s eternal begetting from the Father alone.)
Essentially, this is the same as the Filioque:
• The phrase “of the Father and of the Son” (Latin: “a Patre et Filio”) affirms that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds (“procedens”) from both the Father and the Son as from a single principle.
• This mirrors the “filioque” (“and [from] the Son”) addition to the Nicene Creed, emphasizing the consubstantiality and equality of the Persons while distinguishing their relations: the Father is unoriginated, the Son is begotten from the Father alone, and the Spirit proceeds from both.
• The creed’s structure deliberately parallels the origins: no origin for the Father, begetting for the Son (from Father only), procession for the Spirit (from Father and Son).
Historical and Theological Observations:
• The Athanasian Creed (likely 5th–6th century, Western/Latin origin, not authored by Athanasius) is one of the earliest explicit Western statements including this double-procession language.
• It predates or aligns with the formal insertion of “filioque” into the Nicene Creed (e.g., at Toledo in 589 AD) and reflects Western Trinitarian theology, drawing from patristic sources such as Hilary of Poitiers (De Trinitate) and Ambrose of Milan, who articulated the Spirit’s procession involving both Father and Son to safeguard against Arian subordinationism.
• Eastern Orthodox traditions typically do not accept or use the Athanasian Creed in its standard form precisely because of this clause, viewing it as inconsistent with the Father’s sole monarchy (sole origin) of the Spirit’s eternal procession. Some Eastern Churches historically modified or rejected it for this reason. (1)
• Western churches (including those in the Protestant Reformation) retain it as orthodox and see the wording as compatible with Scripture (e.g., John 15:26 combined with John 16:7, 20:22; Galatians 4:6) and patristic testimony, including Augustine’s De Trinitate, where the Spirit is described as the bond of love proceeding from both Father and Son, thereby affirming the perichoretic unity and co-equality of the divine Persons without introducing duality of principles.
In short, Article 23 explicitly and clearly includes the “filioque” doctrine, making the Athanasian Creed an important Western statement on the Holy Spirit’s double procession. This has been a point of agreement in the West and a source of disagreement with the East for centuries, yet it underscores the Western commitment to a robust defense of the Son’s full divinity against potential modalistic or subordinating interpretations.
- As noted, some Eastern Churches historically modified or rejected the Athanasian Creed for teaching the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Is this the same theological issue that arose later in 1054 AD?
Indeed, the Eastern Orthodox rejection (or modification/avoidance) of the Athanasian Creed due to its explicit “filioque” language in Article 23 is fundamentally the same theological issue that fueled the accusations against Pope Leo IX (and the Western Church) around the time of the 1054 Great Schism.
The core Eastern objection in both cases is the same: the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally “from the Father and the Son” (double procession), which they view as:
• Contrary to the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (which states the Spirit “proceeds from the Father” alone, per John 15:26).
• A distortion of Trinitarian theology by implying two origins/causes for the Spirit’s hypostatic existence (subsistence), thereby undermining the Father’s unique monarchy (sole principle or “arche” of the Godhead).
• Potentially subordinating the Spirit or blurring the distinct personal properties of the Trinity.
On the Athanasian Creed:
• The creed’s clause (“The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son… proceeding”) directly affirms double procession.
• Eastern Orthodox sources historically have not adopted or liturgically used the Athanasian Creed (a Western/Latin composition, never ecumenically received in the East).
• When it appears in Eastern contexts (rarely, e.g., some historical liturgical adaptations), the “filioque” related phrase is often omitted or rejected outright, precisely because it teaches what the East sees as the same error as the “filioque” addition to the Nicene Creed.
On the 1054 Events and Pope Leo IX:
• The mutual excommunications of 1054 (involving Pope Leo IX’s legates, led by Cardinal Humbert, and Patriarch Michael Cerularius) were triggered by multiple issues: papal supremacy claims, liturgical differences (e.g., unleavened bread), and others.
• However, the “filioque” was a major theological point of contention. Eastern critics (e.g., from Leo of Ohrid and Cerularius) accused the West (and therefore Pope Leo’s representatives) of heresy for adding “filioque” to the Nicene Creed without approval and for endorsing the doctrine of double procession.
• The Western legates’ bull of excommunication accused the East of omitting the “filioque” (i.e., rejecting double procession), while the East reciprocated by condemning the addition and the teaching as heretical innovations that violated conciliar authority and patristic tradition. From the Western perspective, this defense was necessary to preserve the integrity of Trinitarian doctrine against perceived Eastern tendencies toward a hierarchical subordination that could diminish the Son’s role in the immanent Trinity.
In essence, the Eastern Church’s historical stance against the Athanasian Creed’s wording stems from “exactly the same Trinitarian concern” that led to accusations of error/heresy against Pope Leo IX and the Latin West in the mid-11th century: opposition to the “filioque” doctrine itself, not merely its insertion into one specific creed. This remains a key point of divergence between Eastern Orthodox and Western (Catholic/Protestant) Trinitarian theology to this day, though Western theologians maintain that the filioque enhances rather than distorts the patristic consensus by explicitly articulating the mutual indwelling (circumincessio) of the Persons.
Note: Circumincessio (also spelled circumincession or sometimes circuminsessio) is the Latin theological term for the doctrine describing the mutual indwelling, interpenetration, or reciprocal existence of the three Persons of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—within the one divine essence.
The doctrine of the Filioque stated:
The “filioque” (“and [from] the Son”) doctrine teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father “and” the Son as from one principle (or source) within the Trinity. This is the position held by the Western Church (Catholic, most Protestant traditions including Lutheran and Reformed, and Anglican), and it contrasts with the Eastern Orthodox view that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (with the Son involved in a different way, often “through” the Son in the economy of salvation but not eternally as a co-principle).
Western theologians (e.g., Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and later Protestant thinkers such as John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion) draw from a pattern of scriptural texts that show a close, eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, the Son’s sending of the Spirit, and the Spirit’s reception from the Son. These are seen as pointing to eternal procession (the immanent Trinity) rather than merely temporal sending (the economic Trinity in salvation history), thereby ensuring that the economic revelations faithfully mirror the ontological realities of the Godhead.
Key Biblical Texts Cited in Support:
Western proponents emphasize these passages (often from the Gospel of John, where Jesus speaks extensively about the Spirit in the Upper Room Discourse):
1. John 15:26 — “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.”
• Jesus states He will send the Spirit “from the Father,” and the Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” Proponents argue that this sending by the Son indicates a relationship that reflects eternal procession from both, especially since the verse connects the Son’s role to the Spirit’s origin. Western exegesis, following Augustine, interprets this as the Son’s active role in the spiration of the Spirit.
2. John 16:7 — “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.”
• Jesus explicitly promises to send the Spirit, paralleling the Father’s sending (John 14:26). This mutual sending is seen as grounded in eternal relations, with the filioque preventing any notion of the Spirit as inferior or detached from the Son’s divinity.
3. John 16:13–15 — “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth… He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore, I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
• The Spirit “takes” or “receives” from the Son what belongs to the Son (which is everything the Father has). This reception is understood as analogous to the eternal procession, since the Son fully shares in the Father’s essence, and denying the Son’s role risks implying a bifurcation in the divine unity.
4. John 20:22 — “And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’”
• Jesus breathes the Spirit on the disciples, echoing God’s breathing life into Adam (Genesis 2:7) and suggesting the Son imparts the Spirit in a way that reflects divine origin, paralleling the Father’s creative act and affirming the Son’s co-equal spiration.
Note: Spiration is a precise theological term in Western (Latin) Trinitarian doctrine, referring to the eternal act by which the Holy Spirit proceeds—or is “breathed forth”—as the Third Person of the Trinity.
5. Galatians 4:6 — “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”
• The Spirit is called the “Spirit of his Son,” implying an intimate relation where the Spirit belongs to or comes from the Son, which Western theology sees as evidence of eternal procession to maintain the consubstantiality against Pneumatomachian heresies.
Note: Pneumatomachian (also spelled Pneumatomachian or referring to the Pneumatomachi / Pneumatomachoi) is a term from early Christian theology designating a 4th-century heretical sect (and its adherents) that denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit.
6. Romans 8:9 and Philippians 1:19 — The Spirit is called the “Spirit of Christ,” reinforcing this connection.
• Other supporting texts include the Spirit descending on the Son at baptism (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22) and Acts 2:33 (the exalted Christ pours out the Spirit), which collectively demonstrate the Son’s indispensable role in the Spirit’s emanation, safeguarding the doctrine from any potential Sabellian modalism or Macedonian subordination.
The Western Churches argue these texts show the Spirit’s relation to the Son mirrors the Son’s relation to the Father (eternal generation), and that denying procession from the Son could undermine the full equality and consubstantiality of the Persons (against Arian-like views that subordinated the Spirit). Furthermore, patristic witnesses such as Tertullian (Adversus Praxean) and Cyril of Alexandria (in his commentaries on John) provide early intimations of double procession, which the West developed to counter emerging heresies, ensuring a balanced Trinitarianism that upholds the unity of essence while distinguishing hypostases.
Important Distinctions and Context:
• Western theology distinguishes “eternal procession” (the Spirit’s hypostatic origin in the inner life of God) from “temporal mission/sending” (the Spirit’s work in creation and salvation). The filioque applies to eternal procession, but the biblical texts often describe mission (e.g., sending in time), which is seen as revealing the eternal reality, in line with the principle that opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt (the external works of the Trinity are undivided).
• The original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD) says the Spirit “proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26 directly), without mentioning the Son. The filioque addition (gradually adopted in the West from the 6th century onward) was intended to emphasize the Spirit’s full divinity and equality against heresies, not to contradict the original, but to explicate it in light of Western linguistic and theological emphases, as affirmed by councils like the Third Council of Toledo (589 AD).
Eastern Orthodox Perspective (for Balance):
Eastern Orthodox Christians generally reject the filioque’s eternal double procession, arguing against it:
• Contradicts the plain reading of John 15:26 (“proceeds from the Father” alone).
• Undermines the Father’s sole monarchy (unique source/principle) in the Trinity.
• Risks implying two causes for the Spirit or subordinating the Spirit.
They affirm that the Spirit is sent by the Son in a temporal sense and comes “through the Son” in certain patristic views, but they insist that eternal procession comes only from the Father. Modern ecumenical dialogues, such as the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation, have observed that expressions like “from the Father and the Son” and “from the Father through the Son” can represent complementary truths without contradiction if carefully clarified. However, from the Western standpoint, the “through the Son” formulation, while potentially reconcilable, risks diminishing the Son’s active, co-principal role in the Spirit’s hypostatic origination, potentially leaning toward a more monarchian emphasis that could obscure the full perichoresis.
Note: Perichoresis (pronounced per-ee-ko-REE-sis) is a key term in Christian Trinitarian theology that describes the mutual indwelling, interpenetration, or coinherence of the three Persons of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—within the one divine essence.
Is the Eastern Church’s anathema against the West for holding to the “filioque” responsible or balanced?
The strong language of heresy and anathema helped reinforce the Great Schism, but many modern theologians on both sides see it as an overreaction to a legitimate theological issue rather than a total betrayal of the faith. Nonetheless, the Western Church views such anathemas as unbalanced, given the filioque’s alignment with scriptural witness and early patristic developments, which aimed to fortify Trinitarian orthodoxy against heterodox threats prevalent in the Latin West.
The Eastern Orthodox Church’s handling of Article 23 of the Athanasian Creed—which states that “the Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding”—has been marked by inconsistency and contradiction, as it grapples with language that echoes the filioque doctrine they vehemently reject as heretical and a Western innovation in the Nicene Creed. While the EO tradition generally dismisses the Athanasian Creed as a non-ecumenical, Western composition not adopted by any universal council and thus not binding, some Orthodox sources and publications, such as liturgical texts or commentaries like the St. Dunstan’s Plainsong Psalter, include it but with footnotes qualifying or effectively neutralizing the offending clause by interpreting “is of” as distinct from “proceeds from” to align with their emphasis on the Father’s sole monarchy as the source of the Spirit’s procession. This selective adaptation or omission mirrors the very creed-altering practice they condemn in the West, revealing a contradictory approach: outright rejection in most theological discourse to preserve anti-filioque purity, yet occasional modified acceptance or reinterpretation in peripheral contexts, undermining their consistent stance against any double procession and highlighting internal variances in how the clause is addressed. In contrast, the Western Church’s steadfast retention of the clause demonstrates a principled commitment to doctrinal clarity and continuity with Augustinian Trinitarianism.
In conclusion:
The “filioque” remains Christianity’s sharpest East-West division: both traditions confess one God in three co-equal Persons but differ on the Spirit’s eternal origin. The West, based on John 15:26, 16:7–15, 20:22, and Galatians 4:6, affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father “and” the Son as one principle—explicit in the Athanasian Creed (Article 23) and later added to the Nicene Creed—to support the Son’s full divinity and Trinitarian unity, thereby providing a more comprehensive safeguard against subordinationist heresies and emphasizing the mutual interpenetration of the divine Persons. The East, faithful to the original Creed’s “proceeds from the Father” and the Father’s sole monarchy, rejects double procession as undermining the Father’s unique primacy, viewing it as the same error that led to the rejection of the Athanasian wording and the heresy charges against Pope Leo IX in 1054. Although centuries of division have followed, modern dialogue suggests that “from the Father and the Son” and “from the Father through the Son” may express complementary truths of the same mystery, with the Western formulation offering a stronger articulation of the Son’s eternal agency in preserving the undivided essence of the Godhead.
“The above article was generated by Grok 4 (xAI) in response to prompts from [Jack Kettler]; I have edited it with Grammarly AI for style, and using AI for the glory of God.”
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
The Religion That Started in a Hat 