Dropping the Filoque

[ICXCNIKA]

Since the modern Latin Church doesn’t have to deal with Arians, could we drop the “Filoque” from the creed without any problems with our understanding of the Trinity or the procession of the Holy Spirit? Might that go a long way toward reunification with our Eastern Brothers and Sisters?

 

[Ghosty]

Since the modern Latin Church doesn’t have to deal with Arians, could we drop the “Filoque” from the creed without any problems with our understanding of the Trinity or the procession of the Holy Spirit? Might that go a long way toward reunification with our Eastern Brothers and Sisters?

It wouldn’t actually amount to much, because the teaching of the filioque can’t be dropped even if the word is. It’s the teaching that many Orthodox object to, not just the word.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Paul2274]

It wouldn’t actually amount to much, because the teaching of the filioque can’t be dropped even if the word is. It’s the teaching that many Orthodox object to, not just the word.

Peace and God bless!

That is what I was thinking, that it has to do more with the teaching then the words in the Creed. Even if removed the Latin Rite will still teach that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father and the Son.

Paul

 

[Crumpy]

Right. Last year or so, when one of the Eastern Orthodox patriarch’s was in Rome to retrieve some first class relics of Sts Cyril and Methodius, the patriarch attended a Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica. He jointly read the Eastern Nicene Creed, in Greek, without the filioque clause in it.

My understand of this whole thing is not that the problem is the underlying doctrine. The issue is, Rome issued the revised Creed without consulting the East. It is the issue of authority that the East objects to.

You will get a hefty array of hits if you search for “filioque controversy” and convince yourself that the technical issue has long since faded away.

My understanding is that Rome was not invited to the Council of Nicea, and that it took 25 years for Rome to even get the documents of the Council, including, as it turns out, the Creed. So, in retaliation, Rome expressed its displeasure by revising the Crred without consulting the East.

That deteriorated with all kinds of verbal and actual fighting, and with mutual excommunications. Only around 1965 did Paul VI and some Patriarch mutually withdraw the excommunications. But, things have still been very cool and distant.

Rome has made overtures of reconciliation for centuries to the East, which haven’t been accepted. And, you know what’s at stake? The 1000 year anniversary of the Great Schism in 2054. Do you think they will patch things up by then?

 

[Cluny]

My understanding is that Rome was not invited to the Council of Nicea, and that it took 25 years for Rome to even get the documents of the Council, including, as it turns out, the Creed. So, in retaliation, Rome expressed its displeasure by revising the Crred without consulting the East.

Rome was represented by a presbyter and two deacons.

Many bishops or representatives from the West were present.

 

[jp2weloveu]

Since the modern Latin Church doesn’t have to deal with Arians, could we drop the “Filoque” from the creed without any problems with our understanding of the Trinity or the procession of the Holy Spirit? Might that go a long way toward reunification with our Eastern Brothers and Sisters?

The question here seems to me to be a sort of non-starter…

The statement in “Since the modern Latin Church doesn’t have to deal with Arians” seems to imply that there remains no contention with regard to the subject dogma; and that Church (Latin and Eastern) is of one mind with regard to the subject. If this were the case, there would be no issue with regard to the filoque.

If the question is more accurately stated as: Why wont the Latin Church drop the filoque as a matter of ecumenicalism, then I think we’ll have a more interesting (although likely unproductive) discourse.

Let us remember that this is the creed that the Latin Church has held to be the basis of our faith for 1,700 years. Why then would we be calling for it’s revision in our troubled times?

 

[Cluny]

Let us remember that this is the creed that the Latin Church has held to be the basis of our faith for 1,700 years. Why then would we be calling for it’s revision in our troubled times?

The Nicene Creed was first chanted with Filioque in Rome in 1014. Many popes before that had tried to suppress this addition.

Pope John VIII, who followed Pope Nicholas, said that those who used it were falsifiers of the faith and had their portion with Judas, but that there were otherwise pious Catholics who simply didn’t know any better, and that it would be prudent to wean them from it little by little in such a way as not make an issue of it.

 

[stephraim]

I guess my question is, if there are witnesses to the filioque in the early Latin Fathers (and some in the East as well), why is it wrong? Why do most Eastern Orthodox hold only to the Cappadocian school of thought, when it was taught by many Latin Fathers? What makes them wrong and the Cappadocians right? I see no contradiction between the two different emphases. Still, I am a nobody.

Grace to you all and peace.

 

[Hesychios]

My understanding is that Rome was not invited to the Council of Nicea, and that it took 25 years for Rome to even get the documents of the Council, including, as it turns out, the Creed. So, in retaliation, Rome expressed its displeasure by revising the Creed without consulting the East.

Rome was represented by a presbyter and two deacons.

Quite so! Whatever that other poster was given to understand is complete myth. Probably not his fault, I just cannot imagine how such misinformation would have started in the first place.

Many bishops or representatives from the West were present.

In fact very prominently present was bishop Ossius, who functioned as an aide and counselor to the Emperor. Ossius had been a leading force behind the local/regional Council of Elvira, in Hispania 309AD and was experienced in the organizing of such gatherings. It seems to have been Ossius who advised that the emperor call the Council at Nicea later, and arranged the details. He was bishop of Corduba, then the capital of the Roman province of Hispania Baetica (about as far west as can be imagined in those days).

Constantine was emperor of the west for years before he obtained control of the east, and he was already showing a strong interest in affairs of the church. He called a Council at Arles (now in France) in the year 314AD, fully ten years before Nicea. The main concern at the time was Donatism (Arianism did not loom as a problem at this time). I believe that Ossius was assisting the emperor by then.

Constantine had no way to call the eastern bishops to attend Arles in 314AD, because he was not in control of the east. He would not have political/military control of the east as well as the west until 324AD.

After Constantine defeated the eastern emperor (Licinius) in a fairly bloody series of engagements, he had the eastern bishops meet at Antioch that same year, this time the main topic of concern was the teaching of Arius. Before long the bishops of that council advised Constantine through Ossius that a council of the entire church of the empire (oikoumene)should come together, the problem of Arianism to continue being the main topic of discussion!

So Constantine, with the help of Ossius of Corduba, called a general council to be held at the imperial palace at Nicea (the new city of Constantinople being somewhere between the architectural stage and early construction), and moved the participants of the Council of Antioch to that alternate location.

Invitations went out from Constantine and Ossius to all the bishops in the empire, to Armenia and other places outside the political reach of Constantine.

Significantly, although the main concern was Arianism the Council did not resort to such terminology as the filioque when constructing the Creed (actually a reworking of baptismal formulae already in use). They clearly avoided it.

Let us remember that this is the creed that the Latin Church has held to be the basis of our faith for 1,700 years. Why then would we be calling for it’s revision in our troubled times?

The Nicene Creed was first chanted with Filioque in Rome in 1014. Many popes before that had tried to suppress this addition.

Also historically correct and accurate.

 

[jp2weloveu]

The Nicene Creed was first chanted with Filioque in Rome in 1014. Many popes before that had tried to suppress this addition.

Thanks for the clarification. Your comment has sparked my interest in the development of the creed. My opinion on the subject of the OP, which remains unchanged, is that the creed, as we have it, complete with the filoque is a proper expression of our faith handed down by the Church fathers. I hope that you can see where this belief would conflict with the notion of the original post, which suggests that a portion of this traditional statement of our beliefs should be removed in order to cajole persons into unification with the Latin Church. This was the point of my post

Despite your comment above, it appears to me that the occasion for the formal inclusion of the filioque into the creed was Third Council of Toledo in 589. Even at that time this was, I believe, an affirmation of a truth that was held prior to the Council (i.e. the council did not develop the idea, without cause, out of thin air).

 

[Hesychios]

Despite your comment above, it appears to me that the occasion for the formal inclusion of the filioque into the creed was Third Council of Toledo in 589. Even at that time this was, I believe, an affirmation of a truth that was held prior to the Council (i.e. the council did not develop the idea, without cause, out of thin air).

You seem to be suggesting that a local Council can overrule and rewrite the work of Ecumenical Councils. By this time, further alteration or enhancements of the Creed had been expressly forbidden by the Ecumenical Council at Constantinople.

If so, your argument is that the Council bishops held at Toledo is superior to any other church authority of the day.

Interestingly, this is very good evidence for the fact that the church in Spain was quite independent from the church in Roma at the time.

At that time, the Spanish church was the only church in the world which recited the filioque (an earlier experiment with it in Messopotamia having come to an abrupt end), and the Spanish church kept the interjection in spite of opposition to it by the Metropolitan of Roma.

Much later (perhaps 200 years?), the church in Gaul would begin reciting the Creed in the liturgy, and the form of creed they chose was the form used in Spain (by then overrun by the Moors, except for an area along the Pyrenees and north coast which was under the influence of the Franks). Again, this decision was in opposition to the express wishes of the bishop in Roma.

The Pope of the day was powerless to stop it. His own authority extended through his Metropolitanate in central Italy.

 

[Gofer]

There is only conflict for those who wish conflict. It’s all about language misunderstandings. Latin (and English) aren’t Greek.

 

[Ghosty]

Why do most Eastern Orthodox hold only to the Cappadocian school of thought, when it was taught by many Latin Fathers? What makes them wrong and the Cappadocians right?

The Cappadocian Fathers didn’t contradict the filioque, and in fact St. Gregory of Nyssa taught it directly.

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer;— that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another;— by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

From “Not Three Gods”.

The teaching can be found well supported in both the East and the West; the only real question should be whether or not it should be added to the Creed outside an Ecumenical Council. To call it heretical is to go against Patristic teaching on the Trinity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[StRaphael]

The Cappadocian Fathers didn’t contradict the filioque, and in fact St. Gregory of Nyssa taught it directly.

I agree with you, Ghosty; I just posted the following on my blog:

Very Succinct Explanation of Harmony of Monarchy and Filioque

1. From what I understand after reading abundant literature on the Filioque, the Filioque clause does not infringe on the precious Monarchy of the Father, and does not violate the Cappadocian Principle, because it does not attribute to the Son a property distinctive of the Father.{1} It would only infringe on the Monarchy and Cappadocian Principle if it made the Son the unoriginate source of divinity, i.e., gave the Son the notions of innascibility and paternity. But Filioque manifestly does no such thing.

Harmony of Cappadocian Fathers with Filioque
2. I don’t believe that the Cappadocian Fathers, viz., Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople, Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea, and Bishop St. Gregory the Great of Nyssa exclude Filioque. St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Basil the Great clearly state that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.{2} But they also clearly express that the Holy Spirit has His hypostasis from the Son in light of the Son’s participation in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.{3} Would they not be of one mind on the Trinity? Even St. Gregory the Great of Nazianzus, with his very powerful emphasis on the Monarchy of the Father, does not exclude the Filioque.{4}

Notes & References
{1} Huysman, Will R. “Compatibility of Cappadocian Principle and Filioque.” The Banana Republican. 10 Oct. 2008. 27 Feb. 2009 <thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2008/10/compatibility-of-cappadocian-principle.html>.
{2} Huysman, Will R. “Filioque: Fathers, Popes, & Councils.” The Banana Republican. 25 July 2008. 27 Feb. 2009 <thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2008/07/filioque-fathers-popes-councils.html>.
{3} Ibid.
{4} Huysman, Will R. “On Filioque, Against Mark of Ephesus, et al.” The Banana Republican. 16 Oct. 2008. 27 Feb. 2009 <thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-filioque-against-mark-of-ephesus-et.html>.

God bless you and yours!

 

[johnnykins]

The Cappadocian Fathers didn’t contradict the filioque, and in fact St. Gregory of Nyssa taught it directly.

From “Not Three Gods”.

The teaching can be found well supported in both the East and the West; the only real question should be whether or not it should be added to the Creed outside an Ecumenical Council. To call it heretical is to go against Patristic teaching on the Trinity.

Peace and God bless!

Here are two interesting cites on the matter - one dealing specifically with the issue of what was prohibited in changing the Creed.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.iv.html

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xi.html

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Ghosty,

The Cappadocian Fathers didn’t contradict the filioque, and in fact St. Gregory of Nyssa taught it directly.

Please see my comment to follow.

From “Not Three Gods”.
“For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.”

The teaching can be found well supported in both the East and the West; the only real question should be whether or not it should be added to the Creed outside an Ecumenical Council. To call it heretical is to go against Patristic teaching on the Trinity.

Peace and God bless!

As I read this (please let me know if you agree) the quote here provided preserves the monarchy of the Father as First Cause.

Thus, the concept here supported would be not qui ex Patre Filioque procedit as from the son, but something else.

Forgive me but I am not well versed in Latin, so you would have to help me out here! What is the Latin translation for through the Son? Some have stated that qui ex Patre Filioque procedit can serve adequately in both senses, and that may be so.

However, if that is the case one must still recognize that it is only in the sense of *Proceeds from the Father Through the Son *(preserving the monarchy of the Father as cause) that the filioque can be interpreted as an Orthodox statement and this is the position of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Thus, at the very least, the Latin phrase (if it cannot be changed because of limitations in the Latin language), should be translated into English (and all other languages where the distinction is possible) with the proper sense as *through. *So far, the Latin Catholic church has not seen fit to make this clear and it stands as a serious obstacle, possibly even heretical, in the way it is expressed in English and used in the liturgy.

I for one, as an Orthodox Christian, would be satisfied if this change in interpretation were made formally and recited as corrected for:* through the Son*. I think that the issue of the canonicity of the interpolation could be eventually worked out (understood as an amplification of the text, not as an addition), if the distinction were made clear.

This issue should not be an insurmountable obstacle to us.

Pax et Bonum,

 

[johnnykins]

Hi Ghosty,
Please see my comment to follow.
As I read this (please let me know if you agree) the quote here provided preserves the monarchy of the Father as First Cause.

Thus, the concept here supported would be not qui ex Patre Filioque procedit as from the son, but something else.

Forgive me but I am not well versed in Latin, so you would have to help me out here! What is the Latin translation for through the Son? Some have stated that qui ex Patre Filioque procedit can serve adequately in both senses, and that may be so.

However, if that is the case one must still recognize that it is only in the sense of Proceeds from the Father Through the Son (preserving the monarchy of the Father as cause) that the filioque can be interpreted as an Orthodox statement and this is the position of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Thus, at the very least, the Latin phrase (if it cannot be changed because of limitations in the Latin language), should be translated into English (and all other languages where the distinction is possible) with the proper sense as *through. *So far, the Latin Catholic church has not seen fit to make this clear and it stands as a serious obstacle, possibly even heretical, in the way it is expressed in English and used in the liturgy.

I for one, as an Orthodox Christian, would be satisfied if this change in interpretation were made formally and recited as corrected for:* through the Son*. I think that the issue of the canonicity of the interpolation could be eventually worked out (understood as an amplification of the text, not as an addition), if the distinction were made clear.

This issue should not be an insurmountable obstacle to us.

Pax et Bonum,

While it might help to translate the phrase “through the Son”, I fear that is simply disingenuous. The Catholic Church has consistently interpreted the phrase “from the Father and the Son” at Florence and Lyons as “from the Father through the Son” which is a clear and acceptable interpretation of “and the Son.” No doubt the phrase “and the Son” is susceptible to misinterpretation - BUT the Catholic Church has already rejected the misinterpretation. If the Orthodox won’t accept that the Catholic Church means what it says it means - then to suggest the sleight of hand will be accepted is - well - not honest, IMHO.

 

[Hesychios]

While it might help to translate the phrase “through the Son”, I fear that is simply disingenuous. The Catholic Church has consistently interpreted the phrase “from the Father and the Son” at Florence and Lyons as “from the Father through the Son” which is a clear and acceptable interpretation of “and the Son.” No doubt the phrase “and the Son” is susceptible to misinterpretation - BUT the Catholic Church has already rejected the misinterpretation. If the Orthodox won’t accept that the Catholic Church means what it says it means - then to suggest the sleight of hand will be accepted is - well - not honest, IMHO.

The problem is…the Latin Catholic church does not say what it means!

If it means THROUGH the Son, it should say just that in every language where it is possible to do so. The phrase may be a bit ambiguous in Latin, and therefore I can see why we would want to give the benefit of the doubt… for as you say this has been discussed before, and the Latin Catholic church maintains that they agree with Orthodox in the meaning.

However the church has not followed through in it’s own translations from Latin into other languages, but maintained the ambiguity. This is really unnecessary and harmful.

As you yourself clearly agree: “No doubt the phrase “and the Son” is susceptible to misinterpretation”. That is not good enough for a creed of the universal church. The interpolation should if anything, clarify theology, not confuse it.

This would begin to rectify our relationship. I am not saying that this alone will bring the crises of schism to an end, but for any Orthodox like myself, it will be a fine start.

 

[Ghosty]

“Through the Son” has the same meaning, in Latin theology, as “and from the Son”, so it could certainly be translated that way. I’ve heard some Eastern Orthodox reject even “through the Son”, however, so it wouldn’t be a fix for everyone. That the Latin Church understands it as “through the Son” can be seen quite clearly in the Articles of the Union of Brest (which created the Ukrainian Catholic Church). Article One states:

Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

This article wasn’t problematic in the view of Rome because it stated precisely the Latin teaching and understanding as well. This article remains, for me, the best articulation of the problem and the traditional belief in Procession of the Holy Spirit.

I personally don’t have a problem with either version, nor do I have a problem with the Latin Church dropping it entirely and simply using the Greek text. The only difficulty with that would be what I said earlier, namely that it might seem like the Church was dropping the actual teaching itself, and that would cause problems in the long run. I’d rather see the theological question settled first, before any further changes are made to any Creeds, so as not to cause more confusion.

As far as the Latin language goes, I believe it can be rendered “through the Son”, and both have been used in the past. It just happened that since both expressions have the same meaning one was ultimately chosen over the other in theological discussions and definitions.

All I know is that we don’t use it in the Melkite Church, and I have no problem with the theology of the Filioque as defined by the Latin Church, so it’s not an issue for me directly.

Peace and God bless!

Hi Ghosty,
Please see my comment to follow.
As I read this (please let me know if you agree) the quote here provided preserves the monarchy of the Father as First Cause.

Thus, the concept here supported would be not qui ex Patre Filioque procedit as from the son, but something else.

Forgive me but I am not well versed in Latin, so you would have to help me out here! What is the Latin translation for through the Son? Some have stated that qui ex Patre Filioque procedit can serve adequately in both senses, and that may be so.

However, if that is the case one must still recognize that it is only in the sense of Proceeds from the Father Through the Son (preserving the monarchy of the Father as cause) that the filioque can be interpreted as an Orthodox statement and this is the position of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Thus, at the very least, the Latin phrase (if it cannot be changed because of limitations in the Latin language), should be translated into English (and all other languages where the distinction is possible) with the proper sense as *through. *So far, the Latin Catholic church has not seen fit to make this clear and it stands as a serious obstacle, possibly even heretical, in the way it is expressed in English and used in the liturgy.

I for one, as an Orthodox Christian, would be satisfied if this change in interpretation were made formally and recited as corrected for:* through the Son*. I think that the issue of the canonicity of the interpolation could be eventually worked out (understood as an amplification of the text, not as an addition), if the distinction were made clear.

This issue should not be an insurmountable obstacle to us.

Pax et Bonum,

 

[Hesychios]

All I know is that we don’t use it in the Melkite Church, and I have no problem with the theology of the Filioque as defined by the Latin Church, so it’s not an issue for me directly.

Peace and God bless!

Perhaps I am trying too hard

I do not disagree with anything you have stated here, and having been an Eastern Catholic myself for a time I understand what you have illustrated (such as the quote from Brest).

What I would like to see is a way around this impasse. I don’t think I am being unreasonable, this is not a case of Latin bashing on my part.

I just think that if the true sense of the Latin understanding were correctly translated into English, Swahili or what-have-you, instead of the unfortunate ambiguity carried over from the Latin, we would see enormous progress.

It is not enough to say one thing, and then explain that we mean something different. It is possible to say exactly what is meant and yet…