This year marks the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicea, which occurred between May and July of 325. However, it is not technically the 1700th anniversary of what we know as the Nicene Creed because that creed is actually a revised form written at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (see this post on what is different between the Nicene Creed of 325 and the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381). And if you want to get really technical about it, what is often affirmed and/or recited by both Catholic and Protestant is not the exact creed that was developed in 381 and is recited in the Eastern Orthodox Church today .
How It is Different
There are two notable differences between the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381 (which we shorten to just call the Nicene Creed) and the version adopted and recited in Catholic and Protestant churches.
The first one is found in the section about Jesus, as the creed of 381 (and confessed in Eastern Orthodox Churches) says that we believe “in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God” while Catholic and Protestant churches confess belief “in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.” The italicized phrase is the difference. The wording around it makes it clear that this is not a difference in belief, as both clearly affirm the deity of Christ (which is at the heart of this creed). The additional phrase is actually found in the 325 version of the Nicene Creed but not in the 381 version for reasons that are not abundantly clear to me and has not seemed to spark as much controversy.
The other difference is more significant and concerns its discussion of the “procession” of the Holy Spirit, as the 381 version confessed in Eastern Orthodox churches says the Spirit “proceeds from the Father” while the Catholic and Protestant version says the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” This one has proved to be more controversial.
How This Difference Came To Be
The reasons for this difference is tied both to the different languages being spoken in these churches and particular concerns that the church faced in certain parts of the world.
The Western branch of the church spoke and wrote in Latin while the Eastern branch of the church spoke and wrote in Greek. The Nicene Creed of 381 was written in Greek, which means that the Eastern branch of the church could and would utilize this version. The Latin form of the creed that came to be utilized in the Catholic Church (from which Protestant churches broke off) had these extra phrases in the creed. Those who have worked in different languages often know that similar words in different languages can have some subtle differences in meaning, and it seems that this reality was at play in the process of translating this creed from Greek and Latin as some nuances exist between the Greek and Latin words for “proceed.” This difference in meaning could cause those reciting the creed in a “word for word” translation of Greek to wonder if the fact that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father to undercut the equality of the Father and the Son. Since the heresy of Arianism (which believed that Jesus was like the Father but less than the Father and thus a lower being), which the Nicene was written to refute, persisted in that area, at some point those writing in Latin seemed to include the phrase “and the Son” (which in Latin is “Filoque” clause so it is often called the “Filoque”) in the discussion of the “procession of the Holy Spirit.” In fact, we find this phrase in what is known as the “Athanasian Creed,” a statement I have discussed in a previous post as reflecting the teachings of the fourth century church leader Athanasius of Alexandria but not written by him since it seems to have been written in Latin (Athanasius spoke Greek) and in the fifth or sixth century in Gaul (modern day southern France).
How This Difference Became a Big Deal
Arianism was also exhibiting a major influence in modern-day Spain around the same time, which led to a gathering of bishops from the region in the city of Toledo in 589 in an attempt to unify the church. This council rejected Arianism by reaffirming the Nicene-Constantinople of 381, but the Latin version of the creed that they approved included the words “of the Son.” It seems likely that they did not view themselves as changing the creed at all but rather approving a Latin version of it that they already had, especially since their goal was to unify the church. While this was church council for a particular region and not the whole church, this version would eventually become the official version adopted by the Roman church to be recited in worship services in 1014.
Churches in the East found these actions problematic for a couple of reasons. One concerns the process by which it came about, as they viewed the Roman church as unilaterally changing something that had been adopted universally by churches around the world; they did not think that the Roman church had the right to do this. They also found the idea of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well as the Father problematic, something that can distort the distinction between the Father and the Son and make the Spirit less than the Father and the Son. The East also saw this idea of the procession of the Spirit from the Son as going against Jesus’s words in John 15:26 about sending the Spirit who he says proceeds “from the Father.” However, churches in the West would defend the view of the Spirit’s procession from the Son based on John 20:22, where Jesus breathes the Spirit out onto the disciples, and the description of the Spirit as the Son/Jesus Christ/Christ in places like Romans 8:9 and 16-17, Galatians 4:5, and Philippians 1:19.
This difference was a point of contention in the 860’s and then ultimately culminated into an all out split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the churches in 1054 as they condemned each other over this (and other matters, too). There were attempts at reconciliation between these branches about this matter, such as the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1430), but while representatives at those meetings worked out alternative wording, such as the Spirit “proceeds from the Father through the Son” or “in the Son,” those mediating proposals were rejected by the authorities in the bodies. There has been more recent conversation about the matter, with the churches withdrawing their condemnation of each other in 1965. The phrase “and the Son” is still found in English translations of the creed in the Catholic Church; they do not require it to be inserted into the liturgy of Catholic Churches that utilize Greek, with those churches reciting the 381 version of the creed.
How To Think About This Difference
It is both ironic and sad that a text that was meant to unify the church and clarify its doctrine has been such a key point of contention over the years. As I have reviewed the matter, it seems to me that the issue may be more about wording and process than about theology. Both the Eastern and the Western Churches were seeking to affirm and uphold both the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, making sure that the Spirit was not viewed as a created being (as He “proceeds” rather than is “made”) or less than the Father and the Son but also that the Father and the Son are viewed as distinct persons working in conjunction with each other. There is a fair amount of nuance and mystery in the doctrine of the Trinity, and it seems that the two branches place the emphasis on different realities within this truth rather than contradict each other. The Eastern churches seem to focus a bit more on the Father while the Western churches focus on Jesus; we are called to worship both.
The fact that the creed as originally written does not include the phrase “and the Son” makes me think that it is the better and preferable version to utilize in our day and age, especially since we often try to go back to the original text. Doing so, however, should not be viewed as a rejection of the connection between Son and the Spirit or the concept of the Spirit proceeding from the Son (which, as Kevin DeYoung notes in his recent study of the Nicene Creed, demonstrates the connection between Word and Spirit). It also has the advantage of sticking to the explicit words of Scripture that says the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
That said, I think the mediating words of “from the Father through the Son” is even better, a clearer reflection of Scripture that links the Spirit and the Son and the way that Jesus speaks about sending the Spirit that proceeds from the Father in John 15:26 and is said to have poured out the Spirit in Acts 2. It also shows how further reflections on the creed can lead to helpful clarifications.
Of course, I realize you might be wondering all this time about what exactly it means that the Spirit “proceeds” from either the Father or the Father and the Son. Not only is the use of that term drawn from Spirit, but it is also a way to reflect the divinity of the Spirit in connection to the imagery of Spirit. Just as the Son is “begotten, not made,” so the Spirit “proceeds” like breath and thus of the same essence. This does not mean there was a time when the Spirit (or the Son) did not exist, as this is an eternal proceeding. While still mysterious to a degree, the root idea being expressed here is to show that the Spirit is distinct from the Father and Son, though one in essence and equality. Therefore, as the creed then reminds us, He is “with the Father and the Son” to be “adored and glorified.”
Questions about the Bible or theology? Email them to Pastor Brian at Theology@WeAreFaith.org. You can also email to be added to the list that receives weekly emails with our blog posts.
