As we have seen, we now have the Creed that we sing at every Liturgy and Baptism. It was composed at the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils in 325 and 381 AD. Furthermore, the 3rd Ecumenical council (431 AD) forbade any changes to the Creed.
We seem to be set. The Creed was believed by the vast majority of the Christian Church from East to West, from Rome to Constantinople and beyond. However, in the 6th century in Spain the Creed was changed by a decision of a local Spanish church council. The change is as follows: the original Creed says that we believe in the “Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified…” This is based on Christ’s statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). However, the change is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the “Father and the Son” and this is known as the filioque. This whole issue is referred to as the “Filioque Controversy”.
Why did the Spanish church decide to change this? Evidentally in Spain at that time Arianism was still prevalent. We remember that Arius’ teaching is that Jesus Christ is not God, but rather the greatest creation of God. The first part of the Creed was adopted to show that Arianism was wrong. However, due to the still strong Arianism in Spain the church there decided to add the new words to emphasize that Christ was truly God.
At first the Filioque was a local matter. However, its usage became widespread in the Emperor Charlemagne’s time (743-814 AD). Emperor Charlemagne even tried to force the Pope to authorize this addition to the Creed. At first the Pope refused and even ordered that the Creed without the filioque be engraved on large silver tablets to be displayed in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. However, the Roman church needed the support of Charlemagne and his successor, so the Pope finally accepted the addition to the Creed and it has remained part of the Creed used by most Catholics and Protestants.
The idea that the Pope could authorize a change to the Creed on his own authority without consulting the other Patriarchs or Councils was a sign of the growing tendency of the Roman Pope to believe that they are the supreme authority in the Church. This authority is not accepted by the Orthodox (and Protestants) and this is one of the factors that keep the Catholic West and the Orthodox East separate to this day.
There were attempts to heal this schism between Catholic and Orthodox. Reunion councils were held in 1274 and 1439. However, no lasting union was reached.
In the Orthodox Church there is at least two ways of looking at the filioque. Although all Orthodox agree that the Pope did not have the authority to change the Creed there are some theologians (most well-known is St. Maximus the Confessor) that think that the filioque can be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, whereas many important church fathers and theologians regard the filioque as a heresy which cannot be understood in an Orthodox manner.
In the middle of the 20th century there have been official discussions about overcoming the barrier to trunnion. Much has been achieved but the Orthodox Church will never accept Papal authority over all other Christians, as is evident in this controversy.
Ultimately, we can hope and pray that the differences can be reconciled, and schism will be healed, but with all human goodwill, they still remain in the hand of God.