The “Filioque” At Nicaea – Constantinople 2025

source – eeod.gr 

The Omission of the Filioque Does Not Signify a Doctrinal Change,
But it Is Part of the Vatican’s Ecumenist Strategy

By Fr. Anastasios Gotsopoulos

Considerable impression was made on public opinion by the fact that Pope Leo XIV, during his meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Nicaea of Bithynia at the celebration of the 1,700th anniversary of the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council, and later at the Phanar during the Patriarchate’s Throne Feast (27–30.11.25), recited the Symbol of Faith (“Creed”) without the addition of the Filioque (= “and from the Son”). Indeed, this “concession” of the pope was received with particular enthusiasm by journalists and certain Orthodox theologians, and was characterized, among other things, as a “very important event that offers new perspectives and hopes on the path toward the union of the Churches”!

Let us try to view this papal action in its true dimensions:

We should recall that the Filioque was initially introduced only in Spain at the Third Council of Toledo (589 AD), while from the beginning of the 9th century the Franks attempted to impose it throughout the West in the Symbol of Faith, without, however, its being accepted either by the Eastern Churches or by Rome itself. In fact, Pope Leo III came into conflict with the Franks at the Council of Aachen (809–810 AD) and reacted strongly against the alteration of the Symbol of Faith. As a counterbalance to the Frankish insistence on adding the Filioque, he inscribed the Symbol of Faith without the Filioque on two silver tablets, in Greek and Latin, and displayed them in the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome.

Furthermore, Pope John VIII, in a letter to Patriarch Photius, accepted the condemnation of the Filioque by the Council of Constantinople (8th Ecumenical Council, 879–880 AD) as a heretical teaching, and also regarded its addition to the Symbol of Faith as uncanonical, since it contradicted the decisions of the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. This alone proves inaccurate the claim of papal advocates and papal-minded Orthodox that the East supposedly tolerated the Filioque for centuries without considering it a deviation from ecclesiastical tradition. It is absolutely clear that as soon as an attempt was made to alter the Symbol of Faith in the West by the Franks, both Rome and the East reacted strongly at the highest level (Popes of Rome—Leo III and John VIII—Patriarch of Constantinople—St. Photius the Great—and the 8th Ecumenical Council).

Unfortunately, however, the dominance of the Franks in Rome overturned the patristic tradition, and in 1014 Pope Benedict VIII introduced the Filioque into the Symbol of Faith, as is explicitly acknowledged even by the current Pope Leo XIV in his encyclical entitled In Unitate Fidei (23.11.25):
“The statement ‘who proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque)’ is not found in the text of Constantinople; it was introduced into the Latin Symbol of Faith only by Benedict VIII in 1014.”

The immediate reaction of the Eastern Patriarchs to the arbitrary addition by Pope Benedict VIII was the removal of his name from the Diptychs of the Church of Constantinople and the breaking of ecclesiastical communion with Rome prior to the Schism of 1054.

Subsequently, Rome, cut off from the Church of Christ, defined the Filioque as a dogma of faith at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and officially and synodically accepted its addition to the Symbol of Faith. The Filioque is also mentioned in the so-called “union” councils of Lyons (1271) and Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439), in which those who dared to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son were condemned and denounced.

Consequently, from that time until today, the Filioque constitutes an essential teaching for Rome, incorporated into its dogmatic doctrine and obligatorily accepted by all the faithful. Indeed, the Filioque was also imposed upon the Uniates, who preserve an external resemblance to the Orthodox but are in essence Roman Catholics.

On This Issue

Pope: The Roman Catholic Church Accepts the Symbol of Faith Without the Filioque

After the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), within the framework of Rome’s integration into the Ecumenical Movement and its rapprochement with the “divided Christians,” Rome accepted the “sensitivity” of the Eastern Churches on this issue, without, however, retreating in the least from its dogmatic teaching.

Thus, initially, the Uniates were permitted to recite the Creed without the Filioque, while with the beginning of the Theological Dialogue (1980) the same practice has been applied whenever common worship services with the Orthodox take place. Moreover, even in Roman Catholic parishes in Greece, the Filioque is no longer uttered in the Symbol of Faith.

Let us be careful, however, because this does not mean a change in Rome’s dogmatic teaching. The heretical doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit “from the Father and the Son (Filioque)” remains unshaken for the papists!

This is made clear in the document entitled “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit,” issued on 13.9.1995 by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in which an attempt is made to reinterpret the Filioque in the perspective of “unity in diversity” of the two traditions, and Rome’s position regarding its omission from the Symbol of Faith is clarified.

Among other things, the document states that “when the Symbol of Faith is recited in Greek (or in ecumenical meetings), the Catholic Church avoids adding the Filioque to the Greek formulation,” and makes clear that “this does not constitute a denial of the Latin dogmatic tradition which includes the Filioque,” clarifying that “the decision to use or omit the Filioque in ecumenical prayers does not change the doctrinal position of the Catholic Church.” The document concludes that “when the Symbol is recited in joint Catholic-Orthodox services, the form without the Filioque is entirely permissible and legitimate.”

In this light, the 2019 declaration entitled “Dominus Jesus” (6.8.2019) presents the Symbol of Faith without the Filioque, out of respect for the “sensitivities” of Eastern Christians.

Let us note, however, that even Pope Leo XIV himself, who omitted the Filioque in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch, on 29 November in Constantinople, after the reception and Doxology at the Phanar, went to the Volkswagen Arena for the celebration of the Latin Mass, where the choir sang quite normally before him the Creed with the Filioque in Latin:
“Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.”

From the above it becomes clear that the non-recitation of the Filioque in Nicaea and at the Phanar is nothing new, nor does it signify any particular development in the relations between Orthodoxy and Papism, and above all it does not signify a renunciation of heresy and a return to the patristic tradition. It is simply the consolidation of a practice and, above all, the deception of our uncatechized people.

Without any doubt, the papal “concession” is part of the ecumenist planning of the Second Vatican Council, which certain Orthodox leaderships have also accepted and on the basis of which they proceed and build their relations with the rest of the Christian world.

On This Issue

A Declaration Toward Full Communion Signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Pope of Rome

During the three-day papal visit, the same “protocol” was again observed that we have seen in earlier papal visits to the Phanar (2006, 2014), with uncanonical joint prayers and incomplete concelebrations. Once again we heard many times—even from Orthodox lips—the phrase “full communion.” I wonder when the Fathers of the Church or Orthodox hierarchs, prior to Vatican II, used the term “full communion” in our relations with non-Orthodox Christians.

For those not particularly familiar with ecumenist terminology, we point out that the terminology of “partial” and “full communion” is the foundation upon which the new ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council was built (Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium) and the Decree “On Ecumenism” (Unitatis Redintegratio). For anyone with even a basic knowledge of Church history and Orthodox ecclesiology, the teaching expressed through this terminology is entirely foreign. And yet it has now become entrenched in ecumenical meetings and is used opportunely and inopportunely even by Orthodox who largely share Vatican ecclesiology.

In this year’s visit of the pontiff to the Phanar, there was a very subtle but extremely significant development regarding the terminology used for translating the term homoousios into English, which clearly indicates a shift in the doctrinal approach to this issue, as aptly noted by Professor of Theology at the University of Athens, Marina Kolovopoulou.

Conclusion

In summary, with regard to the present issue, the “Apostolic Journey” of Pope Leo XIV to Nicaea–Constantinople had a triple benefit for the High Visitor:

1. By reciting the Symbol of Faith without the Filioque, naïve Orthodox Christians—skillfully guided by the “professionals of Ecumenism”—were enthused by the supposedly positive results of the inter-Christian dialogue, which allegedly “convinced” the pope to delete the Filioque. They conceal, however, that the pope did not retreat in the slightest from the dogmatic teaching on the Filioque, which remains fully in force.

2. Another stone was laid in the consolidation of ecumenist terminology concerning “partial and full communion” among the Orthodox people.

3. Most importantly, the roadmap for the “union of the Churches,” as designed and systematically implemented by the Vatican and its fellow travelers, was preserved in full force.

Under these conditions, can we truly be enthusiastic and joyful as Orthodox believers?

Anastasios Gotsopoulos
Presbyter
Parish Priest of St. Nicholas Church, Patras

Patras, 8–12–2025