Kolokotronis:
I think the term “heresy” with respect to the filoque is a little strong. The Western/Latin Fathers even before St. Augustine (e.g. St. Ambrose, St, Hillary of Potiers) and going back to Tertullian while he was still an orthodox Catholic, all taught the filoque. The Filoque is consisent with Sacred Scripture (c.f. John 16: 1-15; Gal 4:6; Phil 1: 19; 1 Pet 1: 11) and is also clearly taught in the Athansian Creed (400 AD) in line 23, which suggests that the great Eastern Doctor St. Athanaisus taught the filoque.
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
While the Athanasian Creed is no longer used in Liturgy in the Catholic Church (Nicene and Apostles are the two Creeds used in Liturgy), it is still used as part of the dogmatic theology of the Catholic Church and is still recognized as such as the article from Cardinal Avery Dulles points out
http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1232
The article reminds us that at the Western Council of Toledo in 589, the filoque was first used. While it did not come to use in Rome till much later, there were no charges of heresy at this time by anyone in the East. Cardinal Dulles does an excellent job of summing up the issue on pp. 44-45. Dulles points out that the Eastern/Greek theologians argued that the filoque was an addition that violated the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) which said “no one should profess, or write, or compose any faith other than what was defined by the holy fathers gathered at Nicea with the Holy Spirt”. At the Council of Florence, the Latin Fathers responded that these words meant the faith could not be changed, not words. Dulles points out that the Latin Fathers intepretation was correct as the Nicene Creed which the council fathers at Ephesus were referring to did not have the words that “were added” at the Council of Constantinopile (381 AD) and this version of the Nicene Creed was not actually approved until the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).
Dulles lays out a clear case that the Western Church was not wrong in doing what it did. Dulles states that the “filoque” is “not the only orthodox way of expressing the procession of the Holy Spirit”, it does communicate an important truth. He closes by stating “the one faith may be expressed in different formulations that are compatible and mutually complementary.”
God bless our Orthodox friends and I hope this Catholic’s post has helped the discussion in a positive and charitable way.
Regards
“Dulles lays out a clear case that the Western Church was not wrong in doing what it did. Dulles states that the “filoque” is “not the only orthodox way of expressing the procession of the Holy Spirit”, it does communicate an important truth.”
Dulles is simply wrong. Filioque does not mean “through the Son” which is an acceptable formulation and which many of the Fathers quite rightly taught; “per filium” does.
“Dulles lays out a clear case that the Western Church was not wrong in doing what it did. Dulles states that the “filoque” is “not the only orthodox way of expressing the procession of the Holy Spirit”, it does communicate an important truth.”
Dulles is simply wrong. Filioque does not mean “through the Son” which is an acceptable formulation and which many of the Fathers quite rightly taught; “per filium” does.
By the way, “filioque” might well be useful against Arianism, even if it is error, while “per filium” wouldn’t be particularly useful.