Editing Filioque (section)

==Controversy==
The controversy referring to the term {{lang|la|Filioque}} involves four separate disagreements:
* Controversy about the term itself
* Controversy about the [[orthodoxy]] of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, to which the term refers
* Controversy about the legitimacy of inserting the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed
* Controversy about the authority of the Pope to define the orthodoxy of the doctrine or to insert the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Although the disagreement about the doctrine preceded the disagreement about the insertion into the Creed, the two disagreements became linked to the third when the pope approved insertion of the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, in the 11th century. Anthony Siecienski writes that "Ultimately what was at stake was not only God's trinitarian nature, but also the nature of the Church, its teaching authority and the distribution of power among its leaders."{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=4–5}}

[[Hubert Cunliffe-Jones]] identifies two opposing Eastern Orthodox opinions about the ''Filioque'', a "liberal" view and a "rigorist" view. The "liberal" view sees the controversy as being largely a matter of mutual miscommunication and misunderstanding. In this view, both East and West are at fault for failing to allow for a "plurality of theologies". Each side went astray in considering its theological framework as the only one that was doctrinally valid and applicable. Thus, neither side would accept that the dispute was not so much about conflicting dogmas as it was about different ''[[theologoumenon|theologoumena]]'' or theological perspectives. While all Christians must be in agreement on questions of [[dogma]], there is room for diversity in theological approaches.{{sfn|Cunliffe-Jones|2006|pp=208–209}}

This view is vehemently opposed by those in Eastern Orthodox Church whom Cunliffe-Jones identifies as holding a "rigorist" view. According to the standard Eastern Orthodox position, as pronounced by [[Photius]], [[Mark of Ephesus]] and 20th century Eastern Orthodox theologians such as [[Vladimir Lossky]], the ''Filioque'' question hinges on fundamental issues of dogma and cannot be dismissed as simply one of different ''theologoumena''. Many in the "rigorist" camp consider the ''Filioque'' to have resulted in the role of the Holy Spirit being underestimated by the Western Church and thus leading to serious doctrinal error.{{sfn|Cunliffe-Jones|2006|pp=208–209}}

In a similar vein, Siecienski comments that, although it was common in the 20th century to view the ''Filioque'' as just another weapon in the power struggle between Rome and Constantinople and although this was occasionally the case, for many involved in the dispute, the theological issues outweighed by far the ecclesiological concerns. According to Siecienski, the deeper question was perhaps whether Eastern and Western Christianity had wound up developing "differing and ultimately incompatible teachings about the nature of God". Moreover, Siecienski asserts that the question of whether the teachings of East and West were truly incompatible became almost secondary to the fact that, starting around the 8th or 9th century, Christians on both sides of the dispute began to believe that the differences ''were'' irreconcilable.{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=4–6}}

From the view of the West, the Eastern rejection of the ''Filioque'' denied the [[consubstantiality]] of the Father and the Son and was thus a form of crypto-[[Arianism]]. In the East, the interpolation of the ''Filioque'' seemed to many to be an indication that the West was teaching a "substantially different faith". Siecienski asserts that, as much as power and authority were central issues in the debate, the strength of emotion rising even to the level of hatred can be ascribed to a belief that the other side had "destroyed the purity of the faith and refused to accept the clear teachings of the fathers on the Spirit's procession".{{sfn|Siecienski|2010|pp=4–6}}