"As From One Principle"

[Mickey]

The thing that gets me about the Filioque is that it doesn’t really matter all that much if it can be argued for using some standard, because it’s confusing anyway (in English) since it doesn’t say what it supposedly means.

And so, people are put in a position where they are forced to affirm something that just feels wrong.

Indeed. I can recall how upset some Eastern Catholics were when their parish had not yet eliminated the Filioque (what they termed as a Latinization). If the Latins mean the same thing, why was it so important for the Eastern Catholics to remove the Filioque?

I think it is rather humorous that it takes pages and pages of deductive reasoning for the Latins to explain how they mean the same thing as the East.

 

[steve_b]

The West has a tendency to rationalize faith matters while the East takes on a more mystical approach to theology.

The West is not either/or but both. Mystics abound in the Catholic Church.
A:

On this forum, we are talking about propositions and ideas. There are many things RC’s say here which EC’s see as imposing Latin traditions on the Eastern Churches as a pre-condition for unity. EC’s have always had to deal with that kind of issue.

And here I thought the East’s complaints about the West is that we’re far too accomodating to everybody else’s customs. Go figure

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Have a look at this
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx

---

---

---

Thank you - I’ve studied that article before and it was good to review it again.

There is nothing in that article I would disagree with, at the outset. The author is asserting the Latin theology of the Holy Trinity. I agree it is both valid and orthodox.

I also agree that Eastern Orthodox don’t understand what the West really teaches about the Filioque.

This is all true - but remains an even better argument for the return to the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque addition. That Creed affirms the commonality of the entire Church with respect to Trinitarian theology while leaving room for Particular Churches to develop their own respective theological traditions. This is also the direction the RC-Orthodox theological commissions are heading toward as well.

The argument, which the author doesn’t develop, but posits, that the Council at which the full Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was formulated without the Filioque (which was not even on the horizon then) was one in which the Roman Church did not participate in - and therefore was not, by that fact, duty bound to hold to the teaching on the Spiration of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone - is interesting.

I would add that the author really has no inkling about Orthodox Triadology, other than a negative one i.e. that it denies the Filioque and why.

No, the author is a walking example of why the original Nicene Creed should be held by all the Churches while leaving the theological traditions on the Spiration of the Holy Spirit as such.

Also, the author seems to want to brand the original Creed without the Filioque as the “Greek creed.” It was not such - it was and is the universal Catholic Creed, so intended by the Holy Fathers of the Councils, ratified by the Popes of the day, and affirmed by popes such as Pope St Leo IV.

Alex

 

[Mickey]

I would add that the author really has no inkling about Orthodox Triadology, other than a negative one

Indeed.

I have enjoyed your contribution to this thread, Alex. I am going to take a break from this forum, (I suppose I am mimicking your sabbatical ), in honor of the upcoming Apostles Fast in preparation for the Feast of the Holy and Glorious Apostles SS Peter and Paul.

See you around.

 

[steve_b]

Thank you - I’ve studied that article before and it was good to review it again.

There is nothing in that article I would disagree with, at the outset. The author is asserting the Latin theology of the Holy Trinity. I agree it is both valid and orthodox.

I also agree that Eastern Orthodox don’t understand what the West really teaches about the Filioque.

This is all true - but remains an even better argument for the return to the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque addition. That Creed affirms the commonality of the entire Church with respect to Trinitarian theology while leaving room for Particular Churches to develop their own respective theological traditions. This is also the direction the RC-Orthodox theological commissions are heading toward as well.

This whole issue IMO isn’t about the creed. It’s about authority.
A:

The argument, which the author doesn’t develop, but posits, that the Council at which the full Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was formulated without the Filioque (which was not even on the horizon then) was one in which the Roman Church did not participate in - and therefore was not, by that fact, duty bound to hold to the teaching on the Spiration of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone - is interesting.

The article explained, The council was considered local even among the East. And there wasn’t complete agreement. Alexandria didn’t agree with everything. The council became ecumenical 70 years after it adjourned, when the pope approved it. But the article goes into many particulars that everyone, particularly the East, needs to be aware of.
A:

I would add that the author really has no inkling about Orthodox Triadology, other than a negative one i.e. that it denies the Filioque and why.

The author’s explanation was one of the best I’ve seen. Do you honestly think that after all these hundreds of years this argument has been going on, that the CC doesn’t understand the E Orthodox position? .
A:

No, the author is a walking example of why the original Nicene Creed should be held by all the Churches while leaving the theological traditions on the Spiration of the Holy Spirit as such.

Also, the author seems to want to brand the original Creed without the Filioque as the “Greek creed.” It was not such - it was and is the universal Catholic Creed, so intended by the Holy Fathers of the Councils, ratified by the Popes of the day, and affirmed by popes such as Pope St Leo IV.

Alex

And the creed was officially changed to add the filioque in an ecumenical council.

We have our way of reciting the creed and we can recite it with the Greek meaning also. Both ways speak to a different reality. Both ways of saying the creed are true.

If EO can’t say the creed with a Latin meaning like Latins can say the creed with a Greek meaning, then who’s the intollerant one?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, I didn’t say the Latin Catholic Church doesn’t understand the Eastern Church position (also shared by the Eastern Catholics) - I said the author didn’t and his understanding of Eastern theology as a whole is tendentious and biased.

I actually find this in a number of other areas. For example, a book on the rosary I came across that was written by an RC priest gave minute details about how Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims say their beads. When it came to the Eastern Church, the author dedicated about a page - most of which was wrong and I wrote him with sources to let him know (he acknowledged he had just skimmed over the subject matter with respect to the Christian East). And that is not unique among Roman Catholic authors writing about the Christian East.

Whenever that Ecumenical Council was ratified, it WAS ratified and acknowledged as such by the entire Church. I was simply calling the author on why he even felt the need to raise that issue. Canons of Local Councils can and do become general for the entire Church, so again the author’s argument holds little, if any, water. He would have done better to just not to have taken hold of it to begin with.

I also don’t see how this matter is about authority and not about the Creed specifically. Unless you mean that the Filioque is there because the later Popes included it. Then, yes, the Filioque is in the Creed authoritatively - no one can deny that. And when explained properly, no one can honestly deny that the Filioque is orthodox (which doesn’t mean they won’t try).

The point is not that the Filioque is illegal. The point is whether, by way of general principle, the Filioque should be in a Creed designed to express the common faith of the entire Church where the Filioque is an expression of a Particular Latin Trinitarian theology.

Your last comment is important since it shows that we are talking about two different, yet orthodox, Trinitarian theologies.

The point is whether it is “proper” that the Filioque, as an expression of the Particular Latin Triadology, be in the Creed meant for both East and West.

It is not a question of that Church doing “its own thing” with the Creed, and the other doing another - the symbol of the Creed should be exactly the same for the entire Church, where local, Particular theologies can flourish alongside it.

This is a proposition which is being discussed by both churchmen and theologians on both sides. As such, it would, in no way, offend the Latin Tradition in this respect - it would only ensure that there is a universal (i.e. local tradition-neutral) Creed that all Churches can adhere to, confess and find unity in.

As for intolerance, we need not look to the Orthodox. We can look right at the historical relations between Rome and any number of Eastern Catholic Churches - mine, for example. Although the terms of the union agreement paid lip service to respecting the EC’s recitation of the Nicene Creed (and how the author plays around with the title is truly a case of semantics), in fact, there was tremendous local RC pressure for EC’s to use the Filioque since, to do otherwise, meant they were not Catholic (ie. Latin Catholic).

Roman Catholic intolerance toward EC’s on this score is not only well documented, I have personally experienced it as have others like me.

And your final statement that the Creed without the Filioque is somehow bearing a “Greek” meaning is wrong. The original Creed without the Filioque was held by Rome and defended by the Popes of Rome throughout the first millennium. They were Romans, to be sure and that Creed was and is an orthodox Roman Catholic Creed.

Alex

 

[steve_b]

Well, I didn’t say the Latin Catholic Church doesn’t understand the Eastern Church position (also shared by the Eastern Catholics) - I said the author didn’t and his understanding of Eastern theology as a whole is tendentious and biased.

What specifically
A:

I actually find this in a number of other areas. For example, a book on the rosary I came across that was written by an RC priest gave minute details about how Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims say their beads. When it came to the Eastern Church, the author dedicated about a page - most of which was wrong and I wrote him with sources to let him know (he acknowledged he had just skimmed over the subject matter with respect to the Christian East). And that is not unique among Roman Catholic authors writing about the Christian East.

How did the author I linked to, get his facts wrong?
A:

Whenever that Ecumenical Council was ratified, it WAS ratified and acknowledged as such by the entire Church. I was simply calling the author on why he even felt the need to raise that issue. Canons of Local Councils can and do become general for the entire Church, so again the author’s argument holds little, if any, water. He would have done better to just not to have taken hold of it to begin with.

In that 70 years between adjournment and approval by a pope, the Alexandrians didn’t agree with the council. You got that far in the article right? For 70 years it was a local council. Why was the filioque inserted into the creed? It didn’t JUST happen.
A:

I also don’t see how this matter is about authority and not about the Creed specifically. Unless you mean that the Filioque is there because* the later Popes included it. Then, yes, the Filioque is in the Creed authoritatively - no one can deny that. And when explained properly, no one can honestly deny that the Filioque is orthodox* (which doesn’t mean they won’t try).

So then technically, the EO have an authority problem here.
A:

The point is not that the Filioque is illegal. The point is whether, by way of general principle, the Filioque should be in a Creed designed to express the common faith of the entire Church where the Filioque is an expression of a Particular Latin Trinitarian theology.

The filioque is ALSO a universal truth. It’s scriptural, it’s apostolic, it’s Tradition (East and West and you saw the quotes I hope)
A:

Your last comment is important since it shows that we are talking about two different, yet orthodox, Trinitarian theologies.

I’m glad you see that. I’m thinking, how in the world can a group calling themselves “Orthodox” be so un-orthodox as to deny a truth about the Divinity?
A:

The point is whether it is “proper” that the Filioque, as an expression of the Particular Latin Triadology, be in the Creed meant for both East and West.

You saw the quotes from the article showing the filioque was ALSO taught in the East, right?
A:

It is not a question of that Church doing “its own thing” with the Creed, and the other doing another - the symbol of the Creed should be exactly the same for the entire Church, where local, Particular theologies can flourish alongside it.

The creed should state truth. Why was the filioque inserted into the creed?
A:

As for intolerance, we need not look to the Orthodox.

Yes we do. THIS example of the filioque is the example extrodinaire. Latins fully accept and teach the Greek understanding for that particular Greek word for proceed, and we have our own word for proceed that conveys another truth about the Divinity. The EO however will NOT recognize the Catholic Church expression, our Latin word and understanding for proceed, and THAT’S what this entire issue is about.

It’s an issue against

• Charity
• tollerance
• authority
• truth

A:

We can look right at the historical relations between Rome and any number of Eastern Catholic Churches - mine, for example. Although the terms of the union agreement paid lip service to respecting the EC’s recitation of the Nicene Creed (and how the author plays around with the title is truly a case of semantics), in fact, there was tremendous local RC pressure for EC’s to use the Filioque since, to do otherwise, meant they were not Catholic (ie. Latin Catholic).

That goes against what the article stated. The article stated, when that Greek word for proceed is used, it would be heretical for Greeks to add the filioque. The Church is very clear on that.
A:

And your final statement that the Creed without the Filioque is somehow bearing a “Greek” meaning is wrong. The original Creed without the Filioque was held by Rome and defended by the Popes of Rome throughout the first millennium. They were Romans, to be sure and that Creed was and is an orthodox Roman Catholic Creed.

Alex

they used both. THAT’S the point. They are BOTH true.

Bottomline, If EO can’t say the creed with a Latin meaning like Latins can say the creed with a Greek meaning, and the Greeks further demand the Catholic Church drop the truth of the filioque altogether, who’s the intollerant one?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

The thing that gets me about the Filioque is that it doesn’t really matter all that much if it can be argued for using some standard, because it’s confusing anyway (in English, and I would suspect in most other languages in which it is recited) since it doesn’t say what it supposedly means. I know, I know, in “Latin theological language” (as Ghosty has put it in the past) “and the Son” means “through the Son”, but NO ROMAN CATHOLIC ANYWHERE speaks “Latin Theological Language” as a native language. And so, people are put in a position where they are forced to affirm something that just feels wrong. And when you ask why they can’t just change “and” to “through”, you get some lame explanation about the kind of translation preferred by Rome! I don’t get it. If it is not a problem for those who speak Latin Theological Language, but Vatican City is the only place in the world where it is more or less intuitively understood properly, then why on earth is such a tiny minority of scholars and officials allowed to preserve what they are comfortable with at the expense of the majority who are less comfortable with it? I am aware of and respect the fact that the Church is not a democracy (and nor should it be), but it seems like this one has a really easy fix, and is being prevented from being righted out of sheer pedantry. I don’t like that.

Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe all sides are to blame for the confusion?

No one for most of the second millenium seems to have understood that ekporeusai and procedit DO NOT actually mean the same thing. NOTE: It’s possible that the scholar theologians of Florence might have done so, and might possibly have, in their minds, formed a very real basis for reunion - proven by the fact that they did not use the term hypostasis, but rather hypartzia, to describe the subsistence of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

Part (a big part) of the confusion today is caused by the fact that the Orthodox translate the Greek term ekporeusai into English as “proceeds” (and its derivatives “proceeding”, “procession,” etc.), when in fact it can only be properly used to translate the Latin term procedit, from which “proceeding” is actually derived. And it is not confined to the English translation. In every place the Orthodox Church has come to be established in the traditional Latin territories, the Orthodox Church has consistently failed to make this distinction in its translation of its Creed. Again, the Orthodox are not at particular fault here, since, as noted, no one, (Eastern, Oriental or Western) seems to have been aware for most of the second millenium that ekporeusai and procedit are actually not equivalent terms.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I think it is rather humorous that it takes pages and pages of deductive reasoning for the Latins to explain how they mean the same thing as the East.

What are you referring to when you say that the Latins claim “they mean he same thing?”

In any case, EO polemicists are also fond of using pages and pages of deductive reasoning in their attempts to prove that the Latins are heterodox.

Blessings

 

[dzheremi]

Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe all sides are to blame for the confusion?

Not really, because I’m discussing what the Latins do, and why I find the explanations and defenses of it to be both sufficient (with regard to the original Latin; I trust Ghosty is correct in his assertions about the original Latin and why it is the way it is), and insufficient (with regard to the translations of the Latin into the vernacular).

No one for most of the second millenium seems to have understood that ekporeusai and procedit DO NOT actually mean the same thing.

I do, because I’ve read enough apologetics on this issue. I take this point at face value, but it has basically nothing to do with my point, as I am not arguing that the Filioque is heretical with regard to the Greek original (though returning to the Greek or rather the precision of it in translation would help things immensely), only that it is confusing and does more to harm and confuse than to strengthen and clarify.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

What specifically

I have no intention of raising what I had hoped to be a mutual exchange to what I see is fast becoming a conflict over authority and the like.

This is not about whether this or that is true in the creed. At least, that is not how I understand this thread to be directed. This is about a principle that Catholic and Orthodox theologians engaged in civil discussions with each other, without hurling ideas like “it’s the TRUTH!” and “You have a problem with authority” (both of which are designed to end debate, not promote such). That principle has to do with how the Churches may return to a single confession of faith in the Creed that was meant to be a universal one, which does not need unilateral augmentations to fulfill its purpose and yet which is wide enough to allow for local Church traditions with respect to how best to understand Trinitarian theology (of which the Filioque is an example).

Yes the Filioque is true. Yes, the “Through the Son” is true. And, yes, the fact that the Spirit is distinguished from the Son simply by the fact that the former spirates from the Father and the latter “filiates.”

All three are true. The first one represents a Latin Catholic understanding only. The others, at least two Eastern understandings. The point is that the Filioque in the Creed is like putting a Latin twist into a Creed intended to be neutral with respect to local Traditions in this respect. If you don’t acknowledge my point here, then we really have no basis for any further discussion on this and that is fine.

Yes, I’ve read the various quotes etc. I like reading and studying, both throughout my doctoral studies and throughout my career with government and academia.

The point is that, just as with the historic East-West debates, the interpretation of such quotes is what is at issue. It is not about simply pointing to something in black and white while saying, “See for yourself that this is the truth!”

On that note, I withdraw myself from any further such “discussions” which are not discussions at all, but simply tacit calls to accept your interpretation of even the Eastern Fathers on this issue. Eastern Christians of all stripes are, however, used to Latin Catholics interpreting their own Fathers for them and adapting them to their own theological a priori’s - something the original Creed was indeed designed to avoid.

Alex

 

[mardukm]

On that note, I withdraw myself from any further such “discussions” which are not discussions at all, but simply tacit calls to accept your interpretation of even the Eastern Fathers on this issue. Eastern Christians of all stripes are, however, used to Latin Catholics interpreting their own Fathers for them and adapting them to their own theological a priori’s - something the original Creed was indeed designed to avoid.

Agreed. Individual Easterns and Westerns need to stop trying to impose their theological presuppositions on each other. Earlier (I forget if it is in this thread or another), I had occasion to offer correction to a Latin Catholic who claimed that the East rejected the teaching of filioque. One can only claim that if one fails to understand that filioque is indeed heretical in the Eastern theological understanding of the relevant phrase at issue. At best, one can only say that the East rejects filioque if and when applied to its own theological Tradition. But it would be incorrect to say that they reject the Latin teaching that underlies filioque (i.e., the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

So based on what I’ve read on here…

1. The Nicene Creed recited in my Roman Catholic Church is not the “Nicene” Creed per se but rather is a Latin tradition influenced creed.
2. The Latin Nicene Creed is not any less true than THE Nicene Creed but it does not say the same thing.
3. THE historic Nicene Creed (for lack of a better name) describes the “procession” of the holy spirit as a way to distinguish it from the generation (begetting) of the Son – referring to the three persons.
4. The Latin Creed uses “proceeds” to denote that the Father, Son and holy Spirit are of one essence.
5. So Latins have changed more than the meaning of the Creed – not just the wording. But they haven’t created anything heretical either.
6. But the Latin Creed is confusing for sure – even to Roman Catholics.
7. If we are to going to commune with EO then we RC’s should profess the historic Nicene Creed and eliminate the confusion. Again that’s not to say that the Latin Creed is in error, but perhaps we should call it something different that the NICENE Creed?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dave,

1. But the Latin Creed is confusing for sure – even to Roman Catholics.

I did a poll in the past, and IIRC there were about 40 respondents. No one claimed to believe that the clause at issue meant that the Son is the ORIGIN Of the Holy Spirit. I think perhaps it is the misinterpretations of Orthodox polemicists that is the cause of the confusion to Catholics.

1. If we are to going to commune with EO then we RC’s should profess the historic Nicene Creed and eliminate the confusion. Again that’s not to say that the Latin Creed is in error, but perhaps we should call it something different that the NICENE Creed?

This can only be done if there is a prior or simultaneous admission from the EO officially and formally that the Latins never were heretical if taken according to the Latin theological understanding of the clause at issue (i.e. as a reference to consubstantiality). Otherwise, it would do no good.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

Dear brother Dave,

I did a poll in the past, and IIRC there were about 40 respondents. No one claimed to believe that the clause at issue meant that the Son is the ORIGIN Of the Holy Spirit. I think perhaps it is the misinterpretations of Orthodox polemicists that is the cause of the confusion to Catholics.

This can only be done if there is a prior or simultaneous admission from the EO officially and formally that the Latins never were heretical if taken according to the Latin theological understanding of the clause at issue (i.e. as a reference to consubstantiality). Otherwise, it would do no good.

Blessings,
Marduk

My fiancee, who was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools, but wasn’t a practicing Catholic from about the age of 18 to 26 and has no theological training, even knew that the Catholic dogma does not teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from a cause. I think the misunderstanding is on our (i.e. Orthodox) side, not theirs.

God bless,

Don

 

[dzheremi]

Possibly, Don, but not entirely. I wondered about the Filioque long before I left the CC, though I certainly would not have left because of it, as I believe – as many do – that it can be understood in an orthodox fashion. The question of whether or not it actually is is…well, another question. My own experience indicates that some further clarification not just for the benefit of the Orthodox but also for the Catholics is not a bad idea.

And again, my fall back position is that it just doesn’t need to be there in its current form, and it would be better for everyone if it were removed or replaced with something that was not ambiguous/contradictory (i.e., something that says what it means in plain language, not theological Latin or theological Latin via English or whatever). At this point it seems like the Latins are keeping it because it’s been there for so long. I can see that idea making sense for certain things that are primarily cultural markers (e.g., liturgical languages), but not for things that are intended to be cross-cultural expressions of belief.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

The question of whether or not it actually is is…well, another question.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is only a reference to the consubstantiality. So you are yourself doubting the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son?

Or do you perhaps have another reason for doubting whether or not such a teaching is orthodox?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Neither. I question that enough is done to dispel misunderstandings of exactly what is being taught by the phrase, in light of the somewhat confusing wording of the clause in English (and Spanish, for that matter; I don’t know about other languages since when I attended the Byzantine church, they said it in English with the Filioque ). It’s not as though no one understands it to refer to consubstantiality, but that this is not immediately obvious from the wording (when it really should be, if we take the Creed to be an unambiguous statement of belief), and the gulf between what it says and what it means is larger than it needs to be. This is what creates cognitive dissonance that can persist even after it is explained as not insisting upon double procession (the most common Orthodox interpretation, from what I’ve seen, but not one that I ever assumed myself).

 

[mardukm]

Oh, OK. Thanks for the explanation. So would it be correct to say that you agree that the teaching is objectively orthodox, and that your issue is simply with the clarity of its presentation, as it could appear to be heterodox.

Blessings,
Marduk

Neither. I question that enough is done to dispel misunderstandings of exactly what is being taught by the phrase, in light of the somewhat confusing wording of the clause in English (and Spanish, for that matter; I don’t know about other languages since when I attended the Byzantine church, they said it in English with the Filioque ). It’s not as though no one understands it to refer to consubstantiality, but that this is not immediately obvious from the wording (when it really should be, if we take the Creed to be an unambiguous statement of belief), and the gulf between what it says and what it means is larger than it needs to be. This is what creates cognitive dissonance that can persist even after it is explained as not insisting upon double procession (the most common Orthodox interpretation, from what I’ve seen, but not one that I ever assumed myself).

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, I think that’s a fair way of putting it.

I try not to go around judging the objective orthodoxy of things (as I myself am not Orthodox), but this is one issue that I can say is confusing enough without bringing Orthodox objections into it. I know this because it confused me as a Catholic. After receiving various answers from different priests and laypeople while I was still Catholic, I was reasonably convinced that it did not teach double procession, but that did nothing to help with the follow up question, namely “…but you can see why it’s confusing, right?” I don’t necessarily expect or care that anyone come to agree with me, but you can’t seriously look at the clause as it is in translation and tell me that “and” really means “through”. I am a native English speaker, and I think I know my conjunctions from my prepositions, at least much better than I know all the details about the Holy Trinity.

So I still think it would be better removed. If the LCC wants to continue to teach consubstantiality using the form “through the Son” (as they insist the Filioque means, no matter what it says), then they ought to say that in their instruction of the catechumens, and leave the Creed itself alone.