Filioque Problem and Its Background
Özet
The filioque, which is a Latin phrase; meaning and the Son, states that the Holy Spirit comes from the Son as well as from the Father. The filioque, which constitutes a theological issue about the origin of the Holy Spirit, played a leading role in the division of Christendom into East-West/Catholic-Orthodox. The decisions taken in the general and local councils were decisive in the formation of the basic teachings of Christianity. In the First Nicaea and First Constantinople councils, the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit was decided, respectively; thus, the Christian world completed its trinitarian belief. In the Ephesus, Chalcedon and Third Constantinople councils, it was clearly stated that the NiceaConstantinople Declaration of Faith could not be changed. However, the Western Church, at the Council of Toledo which have a local feature, by adding the supplement to the NiceaConstantinople Decleration of Faith, claimed that the Holy Spirit came from the Son as well as from the Father. Eastern Church officials described it as a heresy. Because they interpreted the Western Church's addition of the suffix filioque to the credo as attributing two sources to the Holy Spirit, abolishing God's monarchy, inconsistent with the expressions of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, and changing the decisions taken in the ecumenical councils. Both the references from the New Testament and the statements of the church fathers they followed were influential in the explanations of the Eastern and Western churches on the filioque issue. As a matter of fact, Western church fathers claimed that the Holy Spirit derives its source from both the Father and the Son, by interpreting the New Testament's references to the Holy Spirit and emphasizing the essential relationship between the trinity elements; Eastern church fathers, with a few exceptions (Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius of Cyprus, and Cyril of Alexandria), argued that the Holy Spirit came only from the Father, citing the clear statement in the New Testament that it came from the Father. In addition, it would not be right to ignore the guidance of Arianist and Priscillianist ideas in the Western Church's addition of the filioque suffix to the creed. Indeed, the Western Church, on the one hand, argued against Arianist ideas that the Son is not inferior to the Father; on the other hand, emphasized against Priscillianists that the Holy Spirit has the same essence as the Father and the Son. In this context, the article examines the background of the filioque issue from the perspective of the East-West Church, including the references in the sacred texts and the explanations of the Latin-Greek church fathers, after the introduction and historical process on the subject. In the article, the subject is handled objectively by using the historical, comparative and descriptive method. In this study, which is important in terms of revealing the background of the filioque issue, it is tried to draw attention to what is decisive in the explanations of the Eastern and Western churches about filioque, which is a theological subject. As a result of the research, it was seen that the filioque doctrine could not be traced back to the Latin church father Tertullian in terms of origin, it was not clearly revealed by Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose of Milan, and it was clearly recorded by Augustine for the first time. In the background of the filioque issue, although it is mentioned that the Western Church added the suffix filioque to the NiceaConstantinople creed in order to suppress the Arianist and Priscillianist views, it has been determined that Augustine's statements about the trinity were effective in this. The Western Church officials consideredthe Greek rejection of the filioque doctrine as a heresy of the East; the representatives of the Eastern Church, on the other hand, evaluated the acceptance of the said doctrine by the Latins as the separation of the West from the orthodox view. The Greeks interpreted the Latins' addition of the filioque suffix to the credo in a local council as a violation of a decision taken in the ecumenical council. Because, according to them, this situation is inconsistent with the understanding that the Holy Spirit, one of the trinity elements, is present in the ecumenical councils and that a decision taken under his control cannot be changed. Therefore, with this attitude, the Western Church acted against not only the decisions of the Nicea-Constantinople council, but also the decisions of the Ephesus, Chalcedon and Third Constantinople councils, which confirmed that the decisions of the said councils could not be changed, and disregarded a decision taken under the control of the Holy Spirit.
