Dropping the Filoque

[Taboric_Light]

I agree with Hesychios: having a clearer translation would definitely help. It is not enough for Rome to simple clarify what it means by “and the Son.” Rome has already done this on multiple occasions, most recently (far as I know) is the CDF’s clarification. Despite these numerous clarifications not only are the Orthodox not convinced, but neither are Romans themselves. Keeping that in mind, I think that catechesis is a major issue concerning the filioque. At Mass Romans profess “and the Son;” when they are catechized “through the Son” doesn’t come up all that often. The wording does cause confusion. It doesn’t need to.

In Christ through Mary

 

[LUISV]

I agree with Hesychios: having a clearer translation would definitely help. It is not enough for Rome to simple clarify what it means by “and the Son.” Rome has already done this on multiple occasions, most recently (far as I know) is the CDF’s clarification. Despite these numerous clarifications not only are the Orthodox not convinced, but neither are Romans themselves. Keeping that in mind, I think that catechesis is a major issue concerning the filioque. At Mass Romans profess “and the Son;” when they are catechized “through the Son” doesn’t come up all that often. The wording does cause confusion. It doesn’t need to.

In Christ through Mary

Just to illustrate:
"703
The Word of God and his Breath are at the origin of the being and life of every creature:63

      It belongs to the Holy Spirit to rule, sanctify, and animate creation, for he is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. . . . Power over life pertains to the Spirit, for being God he preserves creation in the Father through the Son.64"
 *Catechism of the Catholic Church*

The filioque is tradition in the Western Church as is the use of Latin as the official language of the Magisterium. All translations, to remain accurate with the Rome, will be made from the Latin texts for the purpose of catechesis and liturgical regularity. It will take an Ecumenical Council to change that. What we are taught about the procession of the Holy Spirit is plain, obvious and very Orthodox. It is time to let this issue lie. We are one Church. Like it or not the divisions within the Church are man made. Based on misunderstandings and desire for secular power. Our leaders may not have the strength to swallow their pride just yet. But if each of us can truly accept the Oneness of the Church, even in our diversity of form, then there is hope of ending the schism.

I pray that soon our leaders Oriental, Orthodox and Latin will be moved to convene in council and reunite the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. And may they have the humility to live by its ruling.

 

[Cluny]

**The filioque is tradition in the Western Church as is the use of Latin as the official language of the Magisterium. **

Nice to know that the ancient liturgical and ecclesiastical languages of the Eastern Churches are not official.

 

[Hesychios]

…All translations, to remain accurate with the Rome, will be made from the Latin texts

for the purpose of catechesis and liturgical regularity.

Well you just put to lie that argument because in this case the rule backfires bigtime. What a disappointment. I hope you are wrong about the reason.

Strictly adhering to the Latin text in this case foils the catechesis, confuses the laity and exposes the faithful to possible heretical notions.

And I have seen it right here at CAF. Latin posters come in on a fairly regular basis and insist upon a double-procession of the Holy Spirit. This place has been salted with posts like that off and on since I first started posting in 2004.

Usually they are corrected in short order by more knowledgeable posters here but it is odd to see so many people reach the point that they want to be apologists for their faith and argue with non-Catholics over the filioque, when they carry such a serious heretical flaw in their “catechized” knowledge base.

I have stated this in the past, and repeat it here. All one need to do is go to any Latin Church parish and take an informal poll of the worshipers coming out of the 7, 9 & 11 AM mass and ask them what the “AND the Son” phrase means in their Creed.

Most will get it wrong. They don’t know their dogma because the Creed is flawed and it is hammered into their heads every Sunday.

I feel strongly that either the church should change the (accurate but inferior) translation from the Latin to more closely conform with the theology or drop it out completely. I have noticed most joint commissions on the subject will suggest that the interpolation be dropped when possible, I guess that’s been why all along.

In Greece the filioque is (reportedly) not used even in the Latin Rite parishes, it has been said that this is because of it’s heretical connotation in Greek. Perhaps others here have heard of that (to me it is secondhand information).

That’s great for the Greeks, but what about the millions of Anglophones around the world?

I think I probably should withdraw my earlier suggestion to change the translations. In light of what has been revealed here (assuming this is the last word on the subject from the Roman perspective). I am now almost convinced that there is no hope for a satisfactory resolution to this without removing it completely from the Latin text of the Creed. :banghead:

Like I said, I hope you are wrong about the reasons for translation being the way it is. But the logic in play is beginning to make more sense now.

Anyway, I do hope you all have a worthwhile and positive Lenten season.

Peace, and all good things,

 

[LUISV]

Most will get it wrong. They don’t know their dogma because the Creed is flawed and it is hammered into their heads every Sunday.

You are sadly correct on this matter. And I agree that in the end the only solution to avoid this common misconception will be the removal of the Filioque from the Creed as used in the Western Church. There is no error in reciting the Creed without the Filioque in any language as long as the underling understanding of the procession is understood. Outside of an echumenical council only popular rejection of the clause by rank and file RC would in time force the change. Understanding by our Orthodox family that we RC Anglophones and others that live with translations from the Latin are not heretics, just sometimes ill-informed as to our own dogma, will go along way to smoothing the path to unity.

As to the use if the Filioque by Churches in communion with Rome, the standing rule since Vatican II has been to allow the Churches to decide to keep or remove it from their own translations in accordance to their own traditions before any Latinization.

 

[Taboric_Light]

LUISV,

I tried to post this before your last post, but I was having technical difficulties. In light of your last post there doesn’t seem to be much point in posting this. However, since you responded specifically to my first post I am submitting this anyways. All that being said, I think that your last response to Hesychios is apt for what I have written here too.

Just to illustrate:
"703
The Word of God and his Breath are at the origin of the being and life of every creature:63

      It belongs to the Holy Spirit to rule, sanctify, and animate creation, for he is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. . . . Power over life pertains to the Spirit, for being God he preserves creation in the Father through the Son.64" 
 *Catechism of the Catholic Church*

The above truth is adequately professed in the Creed without the filioque: “I believe in the Holy Spirit the Lord and Giver of Life”

What we are taught about the procession of the Holy Spirit is plain, obvious and very Orthodox.

As a catechist, I strongly disagree with this statement. While there are definitely many catechists and priest who are plain, obvious, and very orthodox in their teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit, I have found that it is definitely not the norm, is not often taught, and average Joe Roman sitting in the pews doesn’t know any better.

Regardless of dropping/not dropping or translation, catechesis is sorely deficient concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. Since the liturgy is the primary place of catechesis clearer and more accurate translations are more desirable.

In Christ through Mary

 

[johnnykins]

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…

Nonsense Hes. The Church has been amply clear, but you refuse to accept it means what is says. You sound “reasonable”, but let’s face it, you’re not. It’s really just a red herring to sound reasonable. Reasonable, BTW, is accepting that the Catholic Church, means what it says, not saying, they mean something else. Saying the Church means something else, is saying the Church is lying - that’s not reasonable - it’s deceptive.

 

[JohnVIII]

I don’t know if the idea of “degrees of heresy” will fly well with either traditional Catholic or traditional Orthodox, but I really think that’s what this issue really boils down to. The Orthodox canons do not say you are not creating a schism if you separated from your bishop if he is a heretic, rather they say you have that liberty if your bishop “is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church” (canon 15 of the “First - and - Second”). Or, with Catholics I usually hear the term “manifest” heretic. Whether or not the issue of the Filioque can be proven intellectually to be either a heresy or not is of no value; all that matters is that tradition has labeled it as highly questionable. But, if it were not in the Creed it would lower its relevance and would not be considered a “manifest” heresy to most. So, of course, if the faithful were not compelled to confess it or to be in communion with those who confess it, then it would become a non-issue.

 

[johnnykins]

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…

Hes are you saying you AGREE with the Catholic theology of the Filioque as clearly defined by Catholicism? If yes, that’s one thing. If NO, well— that’s another. No quibbling, Hes! Do you agree the Catholic Church’s understanding is orthodox (small “o” - and therefore the same as that of the Orthodox (capital “O”) church)?

 

[Taboric_Light]

Nonsense Hes. The Church has been amply clear, but you refuse to accept it means what is says. You sound “reasonable”, but let’s face it, you’re not. It’s really just a red herring to sound reasonable. Reasonable, BTW, is accepting that the Catholic Church, means what it says, not saying, they mean something else. Saying the Church means something else, is saying the Church is lying - that’s not reasonable - it’s deceptive.

I don’t think Hesychios is being unreasonable. I also don’t think he is being deceptive nor claiming that the Church is lying by saying one thing and meaning something else. At least, this is the impression that I have gotten (Hesychios, if I’m wrong please let me know. I certainly don’t want to misrepresent you). The simple fact of the matter is that “and the Son” is ambiguous. By it the Church means more specifically “through the Son.” It is reasonable to suggest that a less ambiguous translation - we’re not talking about changing the Latin - be given where possible.

Of course, if such a change in translation were made it would push traditional Catholics who are not in communion with our Holy Father, such as the SSPX, even further away. That is something that Rome has to seriously consider. Regardless of what action is taken concerning the filioque - dropping, not dropping, clearer translation, no change in translation - none of it will really do any good until there is good and proper catechesis.

In Christ through Mary

 

[johnnykins]

I don’t think Hesychios is being unreasonable. I also don’t think he is being deceptive nor claiming that the Church is lying by saying one thing and meaning something else. At least, this is the impression that I have gotten (Hesychios, if I’m wrong please let me know. I certainly don’t want to misrepresent you). The simple fact of the matter is that “and the Son” is ambiguous. By it the Church means more specifically “through the Son.” It is reasonable to suggest that a less ambiguous translation - we’re not talking about changing the Latin - be given where possible.

Of course, if such a change in translation were made it would push traditional Catholics who are not in communion with our Holy Father, such as the SSPX, even further away. That is something that Rome has to seriously consider. Regardless of what action is taken concerning the filioque - dropping, not dropping, clearer translation, no change in translation - none of it will really do any good until there is good and proper catechesis.

In Christ through Mary

Well, let’s see how Hes answers whether he agrees that the Catholic understanding is orthodox. Translation issues are always a problem with multiple languages. If he agrees that Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree on the issue - it will truly be interesting to see how he handles the Orthodox rejection of Florence. Honestly, Hes has a problem no matter which way he turns.

 

[mardukm]

If St. Maximos the Confessor understood or was willing to understand that Filioque simply meant “through the Son” and not in any way disruptive of the monarchy of the Father, I don’t see why modern EO cannot adopt that holy attitude, which is full of the spiritual fruit of understanding and wisdom.

I find it disingenuous for Greeks to insist that Filioque be removed. Filioque is completely orthodox when used with the verb procedit, though completely heterodox when used with the word ekporeusai. They are two different words, with similar, but NOT identical meanings. The Latin Creed uses the word procedit, NOT ekproeusai. The English word “proceeds” is derived from the Latin procedit, not from the Greek ekporeusai. If English speaking Greek Christians want clarity in the English translation of the Nicene Creed, the Greeks should change the verb “proceeds” in their English version to “originates.” In other words, they should stop using the English translation based on the Latin (which correctly uses the word “proceeds”), and instead use an English version based on the Greek (which should use the word “originates”). Thence, there can be no mistake that when Western (not Greek) Christians say the Nicene Creed in English with the phrase “proceeds from the Father and the Son,” they do not intend to mean “originates from the Father and the Son.”

The burden is on ENGLISH-speaking Easterns and Orientals to give themselves a proper ENGLISH translation of the Creed, not complain about the English translation that Westerns use.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cluny]

I find it disingenuous for Greeks to insist that Filioque be removed.

Any unauthorized addition of the Creed should be removed, as the Second Council forbade changing it and holy popes fought against this addition.

However, this is the opening article of the Union of Brest, which is applicable here:

1.—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.

 

[johnnykins]

Any unauthorized addition of the Creed should be removed, as the Second Council forbade changing it and holy popes fought against this addition.

Not quite as clear as you suggest. It CAN be interpreted that way - but not necessarily. (Reminiscent of the issue on the Filioque - n’est-ce pas?) See the cites in my first post.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cluny,

I find it disingenuous for Greeks to insist that Filioque be removed.

Any unauthorized addition of the Creed should be removed, as the Second Council forbade changing it and holy popes fought against this addition.

However, this is the opening article of the Union of Brest, which is applicable here:

1.—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.

Thanks for pointing out a weakness in my diction. I assumed everyone would assume that my statement referred to the Latin Creed, not the Greek Creed - after all, the Greek Creed never contained Filioque.

Since I am not of the Byzantine Tradition, I am sorry to say I have not studied the Union of Brest in too much detail, but I think your quotation provides a lot of food for thought.

From my unworthy perspective, the statement from the Eastern Fathers of Brest breathes with the Spirit of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Maximos the Confessor. I notice that the text does not insist that the Westerns get rid of Filioque, but that the Easterns (and by extension the Orientals) not be forced to adopt it. And this is based on "what has been handed down to us “in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the Holy Greek Doctors.” This was St. Cyril’s own response to those Fathers of the Ephesine Council who tried to restrict Cyril only to the language of the Creed in his exposition of the Faith. He protested, rightly, insisting that the Faith is not restricted to the Creed, but is contained in the entire Tradition of the Church.

And therein lies the substance of the Union’s reproof and self-reproof that the quarrel on the issue “greatly impedes unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another.” One also sees the spirit of St. Maximos the Confessor in that holy statement, evincing spiritual fruits. (A quick glance at the Scripture on my signature line would also be relevant and instructive )

Finally, I notice that the statement from the Eastern Fathers of Brest does not focus on the language of the Creed (in the spirit of Pope St. Cyril), but on the substance of the Faith expressed by all, Westerns, Easterns, and Orientals alike.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cluny]

Thanks for pointing out a weakness in my diction. I assumed everyone would assume that my statement referred to the Latin Creed, not the Greek Creed - after all, the Greek Creed never contained Filioque.

Neither did the Latin text for centuries.

By the same token, I think the Old Believers/Old Ritualists would do well to omit the word “true” in the clause about the Holy Spirit in their use of the Creed–not because it’s an error in itself, but an unauthorized addition.

For that matter, so is the word “died” in the ICEL text of the Nicene Creed.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cluny,

There is one huge, insurmountable problem with the rhetoric that depends on the mere TEXT of the Nicene Creed as justification for any argument against unity. Namely, the ubiquitous acceptance of what is generally known as the Apostles’ Creed. Clearly, the TEXT of this Creed is different from the Nicene, yet I would bet my last dollar that there is no Orthodox Christian who would dare to demean this Creed.

However, according to a rhetoric that depends completely on the mere TEXT, and not the SUBSTANCE OF FAITH contained in the Creed, then the Apostles’ Creed must be just as “condemnable” as Latin Creed with Filioque.

As there is no one who would dare cast aspersions on the orthodoxy of the Apostles’ Creed, one must conclude that the early Fathers of the Church have always understood the Ephesine Council’s proscription against proposing pistin eperan as referring not to a different text, but instead to a different Faith (or substance of Faith).

As has been demonstrated numerous times, the SUBSTANCE of the Faith is not changed when Filioque is used with the Latin procedit, though indeed it would be heterodox if used with the Greek ekporeusai.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cluny]

I have nothing against the Apostles’ Creed. But it was not promulgated by an Ecumenical Council.

The Nicene Creed was, and as such, should be recited in the form in which it was promulgated, or in a translation that precisely conveys it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cluny,

I have nothing against the Apostles’ Creed. But it was not promulgated by an Ecumenical Council.

The Nicene Creed was, and as such, should be recited in the form in which it was promulgated, or in a translation that precisely conveys it.

Like you said, since the Nicene Creed was promulgated by an Ecumenical Council. Isn’t your argument that deviations from the TEXT of anything purporting to be a Creed should be condemnable? Isn’t the different TEXT of the Latin Creed the source of the problem? So why should not the Apostle’s Creed, since it has a different TEXT, be condemnable? According to those who use the rhetoric of TEXTUAL difference, the Apostles’ Creed is a Creed with a different TEXT than the Nicene Creed. I ask again - why is the Apostles’ Creed not condemnable?

The prosciption of the Ephesine Council is that there should not be a pistin eperan. Proponents of the TEXTUAL argument claim that pistin eperan should be translated as “different Creed” (while opponents of the textual argument believe pistin eperan should be translated as “different FAITH”). So - since you seem to be a proponent of the TEXTUAL argument, why is the Apostles’ Creed not condemnable, since it is a different TEXT (or different Creed) from the Nicene Creed?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[wynd]

Dear brother Cluny,

Like you said, since the Nicene Creed was promulgated by an Ecumenical Council. Isn’t your argument that deviations from the TEXT of anything purporting to be a Creed should be condemnable? Isn’t the different TEXT of the Latin Creed the source of the problem? So why should not the Apostle’s Creed, since it has a different TEXT, be condemnable? According to those who use the rhetoric of TEXTUAL difference, the Apostles’ Creed is a Creed with a different TEXT than the Nicene Creed. I ask again - why is the Apostles’ Creed not condemnable?

The prosciption of the Ephesine Council is that there should not be a pistin eperan. Proponents of the TEXTUAL argument claim that pistin eperan should be translated as “different Creed” (while opponents of the textual argument believe pistin eperan should be translated as “different FAITH”). So - since you seem to be a proponent of the TEXTUAL argument, why is the Apostles’ Creed not condemnable, since it is a different TEXT (or different Creed) from the Nicene Creed?

Blessings,
Marduk

My guess would be because the Apostles’ Creed is not and has never claimed to be the Nicene Creed of the ecumenical councils.