In this section, I will evaluate the medieval debate over the Filioque 54 clause in an attempt to discern implications for the relationship between the Spirit’s authority and Christ’s authority. To begin this discernment it will be very helpful to trace the impact of political/theological history upon the development of Eastern and Western pneumatologies. In doing so we discover the true nature, potency, and impact of this debate.
Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) brought the center of civilization westward to Europe, and after Roman occupation the pax Romana eventually extended there as well. Though this might give the impression of a unified confederation, Ramm points out that this is a “mirage” because “the map fails to convey the enormous diversity that persisted in the Roman Empire. Underneath the apparent unity was a great cultural division of the East and West.”55 After the birth of Christianity, this division was only exacerbated by the rise of Byzantine (Eastern) Christianity (which eventually proved to be a serious threat to the primacy of Rome), the rapid rise of Islam (which created internal pressure within Christendom) and the eventual missionary movements of both Eastern and Western Churches (which further underscored the polarity).56 This division found theological support as well, with the Eastern Church tending toward “mystical” theology and the Western Church toward a more “rational” one. The great modern pneumatologist Ives Congar cites T. de Regnon’s studies of the Eastern and Western conceptions of the Trinity. According to de Regnon, “The Latins regarded the personality as the way in which nature was expressed, while the Greeks thought of nature as the content of the person. These are contrary ways of viewing things, throwing two concepts of the same reality on to different grounds.”57 The Latin theologian therefore says, “three persons in one God”; whereas the Greek says, “one God in three persons.” The faith and the dogma are approximately the same in each model, but the mystery is presented in two different forms.
The impact of medieval history upon pneumatology becomes most apparent when one explores the tense cohabitation that developed between Church and State. This relationship stems back to the late patristic era, and particularly to Constantine, who attempted to “christianize” the Roman Empire in AD 312. Though Constantine was converted in 313, we learn from Berman’s excellent analysis that Constantine’s project may have actually stunted the early Church’s growth.
[It] raised in stark terms the question whether Christianity had anything positive to contribute to the ruler’s role as supreme judge and supreme legislature in his domain. The question was reduced especially acute by the belief that the emperor was the head of the Church and represented Christ on earth. . . . The Christian emperors of Byzantium considered it their Christian responsibility to revise the laws, as they put it, “in the direction of greater humanity.”58
Berman cites many positive changes that took place under Constantine—changes regarding women’s rights in marriage and society, slave rights, judicial reform, and the systematization of law as a step toward a “humanized” Christianity.59 Still, the elimination of anti-Christian laws was very difficult, and the Roman legal system was in decay throughout most of Byzantium history.
Despite its generally humanizing influence on the law, Eastern Christianity may indeed have ultimately exerted, on the whole, a negative effect upon Byzantine legal science, since it robbed Roman law of its ultimate significance while offering no alternative system of justice in the world.60
This occurred, seemingly, because of a lack of significant “grounding” with respect to the Eastern Church’s understanding of legal authority; in other words, there was a lack of true connection made between divine authority and such practical issues as law. Nevertheless, while this “authority vacuum” was developing in the East, an even greater one appeared in the West, but for a different reason. From 476 on, and particularly after 495 when Clovis was converted, the West began the process of independence from imperial rule. Clovis, who was called Christus Pantocrator (“Christ as ruler” over the world and especially over the emperor), began the process of setting the Church free from the secular empire, which resulted in the rise of a desacrilized secular state as well. The Popes attempted to fill this authority vacuum by vehemently asserting that their authority was derived from Peter and not from their political setting. It was Gelasius (Pope from 492 to 496) who, over against the emperors, began to intervene at will in ecclesiastical affairs, asserting an independent and higher political authority in religious matters. So, while the doctrine of the Spirit seemed to diminish considerably during this time (mostly because Church leaders were fearful of “enthusiasm”) the authority of the Church itself was on the rise. Between Constantine and Clovis there was certain “deadness” in both Eastern and Western Churches. Though papal claims remained lofty throughout the Middle Ages, the actual ecclesial power of the Popes diminished considerably between 600 and 1050. Councils of Bishops often ruled in various Western territorial Churches with kings presiding over them. With the “prophets” of the early Church no longer exhibiting Church authority, with no official emperor, and with the diminishing influence of the papacy, Western Churches (those previously controlled by the emperor) were able to develop a greater degree of local ecclesial control.
Within this context we can examine the importance of the Filioque debate. The clause was first inserted into the Nicene Creed at the third council of Toledo (ca. 589) under King Reccared (ca. 586–601). Though the Eastern Church objected to this emendation, they were more offended at not having been consulted about the change. The struggle reached its climax in 1054 with the “official” addition of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. This amendment, performed by Pope Benedict VIII at the Council of Florence,61 stated that, by begetting the Son, the Father also bestowed upon the Son that the Spirit should proceed from the Son as well as from Himself. This action factored heavily into the intense political upheaval that soon followed. Pope Hildebrand (1070s) proclaimed the legal supremacy of the Pope over all Christians and of the clergy over all secular authorities, and Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade in 1095. Berman demonstrates that Filioque gave the papacy theological grounds to capitalize on the schism. In attempting to use the crusades to export the Papal Revolution to Eastern Christendom, the schism eventually took the form of violence and conquest. Filioque was thereby a major contributor to the conception of the popular slogan, “the freedom of the Church.”62
The Papal Revolution is described as rapid (with sweeping changes often occurring overnight) and total (including political, socioeconomic, cultural, and intellectual changes). Technological developments and new methods of cultivation contributed to the rapid increase in agricultural productivity, surplus, and trade. European population increased by more than half between 1050 and 1150, and thousands of new cities and towns emerged. Cultural changes include the creation of the first universities, the first use of scholastic methods of learning, and the rigorous systematization of theology, jurisprudence, philosophy, and science.63 Behind these improvements stood a critical change in the conception of the Church itself and its responsibility to reform the world. This Papal Revolution resulted in a political disengagement (but not separation) of the sacred from the secular, as well as the “desacrilization” of the state, granting various political and religious groups a relative freedom of religion (though the Popes attempted to rule in matters of faith and morals) along with freedom from state rule and oppression. “The freedom of the Church” became an apocalyptic struggle for a new order of things. As a result, the concept of the Church became one of dynamic involvement in the world and in its practical affairs (i.e., ethics, law, government, etc.).64