There are issues in the Church that reappear cyclically. The Filioque is one of them. Every so often, it reemerges as if it were a historical anomaly, a Latin eccentricity or, worse still, an ecumenical obstacle that would be advisable to relativize. However, the real problem is not in the formula, but in the contemporary difficulty of serenely upholding what the Church has always believed.
The debate surrounding the Filioque is usually posed as an archaeological dispute: what the council exactly said, what word was added, in what language. But reducing the issue to a philological lawsuit is an elegant way to avoid the essential. The underlying question is another: Does the Church have the authority to express more precisely the faith it has received when it is called into question?
A faith that is defended, not concealed
The history of the Church shows that the great dogmatic formulations are not born from a taste for controversy, but from the need to defend the revealed truth against interpretations that dilute it. The Creed is not a decorative piece nor an identity text without content: it is a public confession of faith in the face of error.
When the Church affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it does not introduce a whimsical novelty. It reinforces a truth already believed against readings that fragment the Trinitarian mystery. To deny or minimize this, in the name of a supposed ecumenical sensitivity, does not unite: it confuses.
The ecumenism of silence
In recent years, a dangerous logic has taken hold: thinking that unity is built by lowering clear affirmations, leaving in the shadows what may be uncomfortable for the interlocutor. Thus, the Filioque ceases to be seen as a legitimate expression of faith and begins to be treated as a problem that is best not mentioned too much.
This approach is not truly ecumenical. It is diplomatic. And diplomacy, when it substitutes for truth, ends up emptying the content of the faith. Christian unity is not built by hiding what is believed, but by confessing it with clarity and charity, without complexes or aggressiveness.
Living Tradition versus sterile literalism
Another frequent confusion consists in identifying fidelity to Tradition with a kind of immobile literalism, as if faith could only be transmitted by repeating formulas without context or development. But Tradition is not a sealed urn: it is a living transmission, guarded by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The true scandal
Catholic faith is not sustained on fragile consensuses nor political balances. It is sustained on the revealed truth, confessed clearly throughout the centuries, even when that truth is uncomfortable. The Filioque, far from being a problem, is a reminder of it.
In the midst of a misunderstood ecumenism, it is advisable to remember it without stridency, but without concessions: unity is built from truth, not from silence.
Source: 1Peter5