"As From One Principle"

[Alexander_Roman]

Alexander,

But many churches have slight modifications to the creed both east and west, designed to emphisise a particular orthodox teaching that needed to be emphisised at some point for some reason. These modifications, fully orthodox in nature, have been kept as a matter of tradition.

So we are all to invalidate our traditions?

Apart from the Filioque, which all the Popes in the first Millennium of the Church’s life refused to include in the creed for the Universal Church, there were no other additions to the Nicene affirmation of faith.

We need not invalidate any Particular church traditions at all - I’ve never said anything of the kind, which, if I did, would be morally wrong in any event.

The Nicene Creed is intended for the universal Church and, as such, should always be rendered in its original form. Whenever a local Church added the Filioque, it did so as a temporary measure and certainly without the approval of the Popes who steadfastly refused to alter the universal Creed.

We should keep the original Creed as a symbol of our unity while maintaining - and respecting - our local, Particular theologies. Unity in Diversity!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

That is because we see them as Orthodox Popes.

Absolutely - and we pray that the Pope will one day become the centre of the entire Church’s unity once more!

Cheers,

Alex

 

[steve_b]

That, in no way, demonstrates that the Holy Spirit finds His Origin in Anyone but the Eternal Father.

So also affirmed the Popes of Rome, including Pope St Leo IV who had tablets with the Nicene Creed written in gold and silver (in the original form, without the Filioque) and placed on the Tomb of St Peter.

And clearly, the Fathers and the Church of the fourth century did not see any relationship between St Paul’s words and the internal relations of the Holy Trinity in this way either.

Our Lord Himself said of the Holy Spirit, “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” John 15:26

These are the same words the Fathers of the 4th century placed in the Creed concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.

There was and is not now any need to improve upon our Lord’s Trinitarian theology!

Alex

This dispute is a matter of semantics.

 

[dzheremi]

Everything is a matter of semantics, as semantics is the study of meaning. This actually fits perfectly with this discussion: if the Latins do not mean the same thing as others do when they recite the Creed, then we have a problem wherein one church is teaching a new faith, in violation of the canons of Ephesus (specifically canon 7). The entire point of the OP, as far as I can tell, was to see whether or not this is the case, given the attempted clarification of the “as from one principle” statement. Obviously this was not good enough for the Orthodox, so we remain divided for what I suppose could be called “semantic” reasons.

 

[Ghosty]

Apart from the Filioque, which all the Popes in the first Millennium of the Church’s life refused to include in the creed for the Universal Church, there were no other additions to the Nicene affirmation of faith.

This simply isn’t true, I’m afraid. The Armenians, for example, have a different form in their Liturgy.

We need not invalidate any Particular church traditions at all - I’ve never said anything of the kind, which, if I did, would be morally wrong in any event.

Mickey has, and you’ve supported his posts explicitly. I know you wouldn’t suggest such a thing because I’m familiar with your views, but you should be aware that it certainly appears that you do support the elimination of the Latin theological tradition when you show nothing but enthusiastic support for the posts and posters which do make such suggestions, without any correction of them. It’s not surprising to me that some would think that you actually support the elimination of the Latin tradition. I’m just trying to humbly point out how your posts come across, so as to avoid further confusion for others.

We should keep the original Creed as a symbol of our unity while maintaining - and respecting - our local, Particular theologies. Unity in Diversity!

The Catholic Church already does this, though. If it didn’t, you and I would be reciting the filioque at every Divine Liturgy, and the Latins would be using the filioque in documents like Dominus Iesus. This is what I mean by saying that the Latin Creed is not the Ecumenical Creed. There is no reason that the Ecumenical Creed has to be recited at a Liturgy instead of a local variation. This was never the case in the first millenium; it wasn’t included in the Roman Liturgy until the second millenium, in fact.

Personally I don’t care if the filioque stays or goes in the Roman Liturgy. I don’t even care if the Creed itself stays or goes in the Roman Liturgy (its inclusion is late innovation, after all). I only care that the filioque is recognized as thoroughly orthodox, since it is so clearly expressed by the Saints and Fathers of the East and West, and I believe in maintaining the Patristic tradition.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Mickey has,

Oh brother. Let us clarify what Mickey says. Mickey says that the creed was given to us through our patristic heritage from the Ecumenical councils. Rome changed the wording of the creed over 1000 years ago–initially to combat a heresy. The wording change implied a different theology that was foreign to the East. The Latins left the confusing wording in place…which began to confuse many Latins about the theological meaning. Today, people like Ghosty say that the Latins mean the exact same thing as the East. If this is true, (and Mickey is not convinced that it is), there should be absolutely no problem shedding the Filioque clause and returning to the creed of our Fathers.

Personally I don’t care if the filioque stays or goes in the Roman Liturgy.

Great. See how easy that was?

 

[steve_b]

Everything is a matter of semantics, as semantics is the study of meaning. This actually fits perfectly with this discussion: if the Latins do not mean the same thing as others do when they recite the Creed, then we have a problem wherein one church is teaching a new faith, in violation of the canons of Ephesus (specifically canon 7). The entire point of the OP, as far as I can tell, was to see whether or not this is the case, given the attempted clarification of the “as from one principle” statement. Obviously this was not good enough for the Orthodox, so we remain divided for what I suppose could be called “semantic” reasons.

THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity

exerpt

The Catholic Church interprets the Filioque with reference to the conciliar and ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value of the confession of faith in the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit, as defined in 381 by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in its Symbol. This Symbol only became known and received by Rome on the occasion of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. In the meantime, on the basis of the earlier Latin theological tradition, Fathers of the Church of the West like St Hilary, St Ambrose, St Augustine and St Leo the Great, had confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) eternally from the Father and the Son.

Since the Latin Bible (the Vulgate and earlier Latin translations) had translated Jn 15:26 (para tou PatroV ekporeuetai) by “qui a Patre procedit”, the Latins translated the ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople by “ex Patre procedentem” (Mansi VII, 112 B). In this way, a false equivalence was involuntarily created with regard to the eternal origin of the Spirit between the Oriental theology of the ekporeusiV and the Latin theology of the processio.

The Greek ekporeusiV signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit. In confessing the Holy Spirit “ex Patre procedentem”, the Latins, therefore, could only suppose an implicit Filioque which would later be made explicit in their liturgical version of the Symbol.

In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or “Athanasianum”, DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality. If these Councils did not perhaps insert it in the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople, it is certainly to be found there from the end of the eighth century, as evidenced in the proceedings of the Council of Aquileia-Friuli in 796 (Mansi XIII, 836, D, ff.) and that of Aachen of 809 (Mansi XIV, 17). In the ninth century, however, faced with Charlemagne, Pope Leo III, in his anxiety to preserve unity with the Orient in the confession of faith, resisted this development of the Symbol which had spread spontaneously in the West, while safeguarding the truth contained in the Filioque. Rome only admitted it in 1014 into the liturgical Latin version of the Creed.

For the full text
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This dispute is a matter of semantics.

I agree with Dzeremi. And the Oriental Orthodox have been separated over the meaning of one single word having to do with the union of Christ’s Natures.

RC’s have historically regarded the Filioque as “not a big deal” - if it wasn’t a big deal and if it truly was a matter of “semantics” in the modern sense that this is all about words that mean the same thing or not very much, then the Latin Church herself would never have insisted on the dogmatic status of the Filioque, even after her Popes, such as Pope St Leo IV refused the Filioque.

So if it was only about semantics, in that modern sense, why is the Latin Church making it such a big deal, given that the Filioque was a much later addition?

Alex

 

[Mickey]

I agree with Dzeremi. And the Oriental Orthodox have been separated over the meaning of one single word having to do with the union of Christ’s Natures.

RC’s have historically regarded the Filioque as “not a big deal” - if it wasn’t a big deal and if it truly was a matter of “semantics” in the modern sense that this is all about words that mean the same thing or not very much, then the Latin Church herself would never have insisted on the dogmatic status of the Filioque, even after her Popes, such as Pope St Leo IV refused the Filioque.

So if it was only about semantics, in that modern sense, why is the Latin Church making it such a big deal, given that the Filioque was a much later addition?

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity

exerpt

The Catholic Church interprets the Filioque with reference to the conciliar and ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value of the confession of faith in the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit, as defined in 381 by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in its Symbol. This Symbol only became known and received by Rome on the occasion of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. In the meantime, on the basis of the earlier Latin theological tradition, Fathers of the Church of the West like St Hilary, St Ambrose, St Augustine and St Leo the Great, had confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) eternally from the Father and the Son.

Since the Latin Bible (the Vulgate and earlier Latin translations) had translated Jn 15:26 (para tou PatroV ekporeuetai) by “qui a Patre procedit”, the Latins translated the ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople by “ex Patre procedentem” (Mansi VII, 112 B). In this way, a false equivalence was involuntarily created with regard to the eternal origin of the Spirit between the Oriental theology of the ekporeusiV and the Latin theology of the processio.

The Greek ekporeusiV signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit. In confessing the Holy Spirit “ex Patre procedentem”, the Latins, therefore, could only suppose an implicit Filioque which would later be made explicit in their liturgical version of the Symbol.

In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or “Athanasianum”, DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality. If these Councils did not perhaps insert it in the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople, it is certainly to be found there from the end of the eighth century, as evidenced in the proceedings of the Council of Aquileia-Friuli in 796 (Mansi XIII, 836, D, ff.) and that of Aachen of 809 (Mansi XIV, 17). In the ninth century, however, faced with Charlemagne, Pope Leo III, in his anxiety to preserve unity with the Orient in the confession of faith, resisted this development of the Symbol which had spread spontaneously in the West, while safeguarding the truth contained in the Filioque. Rome only admitted it in 1014 into the liturgical Latin version of the Creed.

For the full text
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

The operative words here are that the West only admitted the Filioque in 1014. And the issue of how the West placed the Filioque in the Athanasian Creed was never one as the Athanasian Creed did not have the same universal dogmatic status that the Nicene Creed has.

This excerpt also affirms that the original Creed without the Filioque preserved unity with the “Orient.” The Filioque annulled that unity as an unnecessary introduction to a creed designed to express the fullness of the Catholic faith, East and West.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friend,

You have to be careful about agreeing with me here - pretty soon, they’ll be calling both of us “schismatics!”

In fact, Ukrainian Catholics used to be called precisely that - “schismats” because, despite their unity with Rome, they continued to pray “in the Orthodox way” - and say the Creed without the Filioque.

Perhaps our Latin brothers will grow up SOME day!

But if our Latin friends will insist that I be pushed toward Orthodoxy for my views, will you accept me?

Alex

 

[crazzeto]

RC’s have historically regarded the Filioque as “not a big deal” - if it wasn’t a big deal and if it truly was a matter of “semantics” in the modern sense that this is all about words that mean the same thing or not very much, then the Latin Church herself would never have insisted on the dogmatic status of the Filioque, even after her Popes, such as Pope St Leo IV refused the Filioque.

So if it was only about semantics, in that modern sense, why is the Latin Church making it such a big deal, given that the Filioque was a much later addition?

Alex

Disagree with any idea about this not being “a big deal”… If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t bother defending it. As it is, we defend it percisly because it is a big deal for much the same reason other traditions defend their traditions.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Disagree with any idea about this not being “a big deal”… If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t bother defending it. As it is, we defend it percisly because it is a big deal for much the same reason other traditions defend their traditions.

Then you agree with me that it is not simply a “matter of semantics?” Good.

To accept the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque is to preserve the original unity of the Church within which local Particular theological traditions can develop without imposing these traditions on other Churches with different traditions.

I can’t affirm this any better than that and see this as an entirely reasonable proposition, which the united Catholic Church of the first millennium also affirmed.

Your accusation that I am against local Traditions is simply a misunderstanding of my intent, although I understand why you say what you have said.

Alex

 

[dcointin]

My intention in posting this topic was to better understand what Roman Catholics mean by the phrase “and the Son” in the Nicene Creed. There are other issues such as the legality of changing a creed approved by an ecumenical council without its authority, and the legitimacy of using such a creed in different places, but my focus was on its meaning.

This discussion brings me to another question: is the Catholic understanding of “and the Son” considered by them to be an equivalent expression to the Orthodox phrase “through the Son”? I label them as Catholic and Orthodox for the sake of the discussion but realize that the expressions were both used by eastern and western fathers. I admit that I honestly don’t know what we Orthodox mean by “through the Son”!

 

[Ghosty]

Dear Friend,

You have to be careful about agreeing with me here - pretty soon, they’ll be calling both of us “schismatics!”

In fact, Ukrainian Catholics used to be called precisely that - “schismats” because, despite their unity with Rome, they continued to pray “in the Orthodox way” - and say the Creed without the Filioque.

Perhaps our Latin brothers will grow up SOME day!

But if our Latin friends will insist that I be pushed toward Orthodoxy for my views, will you accept me?

Alex

Excuse me, but this is really off-base. The Latins are not the ones making an issue of this, nor are they demanding that we adopt the filioque. It is their tradition under attack, a perfectly valid and Patristic tradition at that.

 

[Mickey]

You have to be careful about agreeing with me here - pretty soon, they’ll be calling both of us “schismatics!”

I’ve been called worse.

In fact, Ukrainian Catholics used to be called precisely that - “schismats” because, despite their unity with Rome, they continued to pray “in the Orthodox way” - and say the Creed without the Filioque.

When I was Ruthenian Catholic, I recall being subjected to some rather inappropriate comments by the Latins also.

Perhaps our Latin brothers will grow up SOME day!

Perhaps.

But if our Latin friends will insist that I be pushed toward Orthodoxy for my views, will you accept me?

Of course!
You are my brother in Christ! :yup:

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I use the Armenian Creed regularly, sir, and while they add wording to deepen the intent and meaning of the Creed, I know Greek Orthodox and others who, while they wouldn’t use their wording, agree that the Armenian Creed is entirely Orthodox and introduces no local Particular Church tradition as the Filioque does.

Well, I have reiterated several times that the Filioque, as explained by august teachers such as yourself, would not be deemed heretical by Orthodox who would read your explanation. And Roman Catholics as a whole would, understandably, jump up in anger at any suggestion that the Filioque should be removed. To just say that is to invite Latin anger, period. I’ve seen the same anger against some of our bishops, by our own people, in that same vein. Hopefully, Latins are not that insecure about their tradition - although I’ve heard comments that to remove the Filioque would somehow cause the entire RC Church to come tumbling down. I can’t help that kind of reaction and I’ve spent my life hearing misrepresentations from RC’s about the Eastern church - can’t help that either. So I apologise to anyone for any misrepresentation or problems caused by my writing style. I just may go back to school to learn how to write more proper English.

I also think that Mickey’s views are not what some say they are. In any event, I don’t know what Mickey’s views are in any comprehensive way. I’m not speaking to his views and if his agreeing with me means that I’m suspected of being a “schismatic,” Ukrainian Catholics have for long been called schismatics along with the Orthodox. At one time in our history, the term “Schismatic” meant “Ukrainian/Ruthenian.” I’m getting to like that term on more ethnic grounds as a result! The problem here is really the age-old problem that RC’s confuse their own Particular tradition with the Universal Faith. This confusion is also what lies at the heart of enforced Latinizations that EC’s have suffered in the past.

You are right but the Nicene Creed is not the property of any Particular Church and so it should be maintained without the Filioque. The Filioque does not equal some of the embellishments that the Armenians and the Old Believers included. Those embellishments change nothing in the universal confession of the Trinitarian faith that the Creed is intended to express or whether we use “I” or “we” when we recite it. The Filioque is what introduces the idea, to other Churches, that the Spirit has two Origins within the Trinity - which the RC Church denies and even anathematizes those who would say such. This is what is truly “confusing” about it and, given the Greek cultural/linguistic situation, this is how it was always understood. The Filioque should leave the Creed in the West, but it should not be discarded. There, I’ve said it.

The Filioque can be recognized as thoroughly orthodox in the East only after a lot of work explaining it and also why it is necessary to confess. I think it is possible, but the Filioque itself is neither necessary to the Nicene Creed, according to the Fathers and the Church that composed it, and it remains entirely a Latin theological tradition that has yet to be understood in the East that takes what things say to constitute what they mean (i.e. two Origins of the Spirit).

In the UGCC, there was tremendous pressure to accept the Filioque, especially at the Zamost Synod and onwards and it was only recently that the Filioque is placed in brackets.

I know of very few UGCC parishes who recite the Nicene Creed without the Filioque which they affirm makes the Creed “Catholic.”

So much for respect for Eastern traditions.

But look, this is obviously a sensitivity and I only want to discuss, rather than defend myself against such (silly and puerile) accusations. My family has enough martyrs and confessors for union with Rome that I feel I don’t need to justify anything and for other reasons as well.

It seems that the Catholic Answers forums should really be calld the “Latin Catholic Answers Forums” as the Particular theology of the Latin Church seems to be the only one applicable without raising people’s ire.

I thank you, don’t need this, resign from these forums and will look for another.

Cheers for the last time here,

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Excuse me, but this is really off-base. The Latins are not the ones making an issue of this, nor are they demanding that we adopt the filioque. It is their tradition under attack, a perfectly valid and Patristic tradition at that.

I guess you don’t agree with me that the Nicene Creed belongs to the whole Church and to no Particular Church to add in their own theological tradition. That is the point.

The Nicene Creed without the Filioque does not negate the Latin tradition (although you believe it does, too bad Pope St Leo IV isn’t around to give his personal take on the matter). It was and is a Creed for the whole Church, not for anyone to include “from the Son” or “Through the Son” etc. These traditions can be maintained independently of the Creed while keeping unity.

So this is not as off-base as you maintain, sir.

Alex

 

[crazzeto]

Then you agree with me that it is not simply a “matter of semantics?” Good.

Yep, I certainly do

To accept the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque is to preserve the original unity of the Church within which local Particular theological traditions can develop without imposing these traditions on other Churches with different traditions.

We are a church united by faith, not creed. A creed is a way of expressing faith, but it is not in and of it’s self faith. The Patrisitic modification in the Latin creed expresses the same faith held by all orthodox Christians regardless of tradition, it just high lights a certain truth relivent to the development of faith in the west. The fact of the matter is, the filioque is important to our tradition, just like Ariminan modifications are important to their tradition.

I can’t affirm this any better than that and see this as an entirely reasonable proposition, which the united Catholic Church of the first millennium also affirmed.

Your accusation that I am against local Traditions is simply a misunderstanding of my intent, although I understand why you say what you have said.

Alex

Let me ask you this, why does it bother you that we Latins use our verison of the creed in our services? It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the eccumenical creed is in fact word for word the creed sans filioque. I can’t stress this enough, the eccumenical creed is already unmodified from the generally accepted source (though even Athinitious’s original version underwent modification prior to general acceptance by all of us).

So what’s your problem, you claim you want the eccumencial creed to be without the filioque, that is already true. We Latins though, beleive it or not, do have our own traditions and theology. And beleive it or not, we do not impose our theology (I think you your self refenced me to the writings of the current pontiff on this matter) upon other churches in communion with us.

We are not united by theology, we are not united by creed… We are united by a common orthodox faith in the Word of God. So why is our theology under this attack?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I’ve been called worse.
When I was Ruthenian Catholic, I recall being subjected to some rather inappropriate comments by the Latins also.
Perhaps.
Of course!
You are my brother in Christ! :yup:

Well, if I ever do join Orthodoxy (I just may get excommunicated here in a bit, although I’ve decided to leave of my own volition - to hone up on my English language skills), I hope we could one day serve a Divine Liturgy together!

Cheers and take care Brother!

Alex