Dropping the Filoque

[mardukm]

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

That’s a worthy point. However, neither did the Latins ever claimed ecumenical authority for the addition of Filioque in the Latin Creed (i.e., it was always a local thing) - though indeed they have insisted on the THEOLOGY (substance of Faith) behind the use of Filioque with the Latin procedit (but not with the Greek ekporeusai). So why can’t the Latins be left alone on the matter?

If the issue is truly the TEXTUAL difference between the ecumenical Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the NON-ecumenical Latin Creed, then surely the TEXTUAL difference between the ecumenical Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the NON-ecumenical Apostles’ Creed should cause the same condemnations to fall upon the Apostles’ Creed. After all, anyone who professes the Apostles’ Creed has made a textual SUBTRACTION from the ecumenical Nicene-Constatinopolitan Creed just as much as one who professes the the Latin Creed with Filioque has made a textual ADDITION to the same ecumenical Creed. In both cases, there is a DIFFERENT CREED that is being professed.

The only way to save the orthodoxy of the Apostles’ Creed is to admit that the intention of the Fathers of Ephesus (and Chalcedon) was to interpret pistin eperan as a reference to the substance of Faith, and not merely to the text.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[johnnykins]

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

You are dead on target, Marduk. Indeed, one could go further and say from the Textualist point of view only the the original GREEK text is allowed - since any translation is, ipso facto, different. That would, no doubt, please HES and others, but it is, of course, ridiculous, though it is the logical extension of what they are saying.

 

[Taboric_Light]

I fail to see what the Apostle’s Creed has to do with the addition of the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. It seems like we’re talking about apples and oranges. The Apostle’s Creed is an ancient and orthodox baptismal creed that, far as I know, people didn’t have a problem with. While an ecumenical creed should be professed during Mass, Divine Liturgy, etc, it does not necessarily negate the baptismal creeds that were orthodox and already well established within a particular church’s tradition.

This, however, does not apply to the filioque. While the the teaching of the filioque is clearly evident in early Latin fathers it was not professed in any creeds. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Apostle’s Creed is a subtraction of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed because the Apostle’s Creed is older. How can it be a substraction when what it is supposedly substracting from did not yet exist?? The filioque, on the other hand, is most definitely an addition.

I do not believe that the initial addition of the filioque in Toledo was wrong. It was a particular church dealing with a particular heresy and they used what was already common through the Latin fathers to defend the true faith by professing it during Holy Mass. That it was later taken up by the so-called “Holy Roman emperors” out of the original context from which it was used was definitely wrong. That a rather weak pope added it to the creed in Rome because of a rather strong emperor was also emphatically wrong. What was the motivation? What was the reason? This is the universal symbol of faith! Rome was not dealing with any heresies that could justify such an action, especially after popes in the previous centuries had expressly forbidden its addition.

All that being said, I do think that it would be a mistake to drop it now for two reasons: 1) the Orthodox still have a problem with the teaching, therefore, it’s being dropped won’t really matter; 2) while its being dropped won’t effect communion with the Orthodox it would most certainly effect schism with traditional Latins.

In Christ through Mary

 

[malphono]

All that being said, I do think that it would be a mistake to drop it now for two reasons: 1) the Orthodox still have a problem with the teaching, therefore, it’s being dropped won’t really matter; 2) while its being dropped won’t effect communion with the Orthodox it would most certainly effect schism with traditional Latins.

Good post. I just have a comment on the last paragraph.

I’m not so sure about item (1). Yes, the Orthodox would still have a problem with the teaching behind it, but that teaching was extant in the West well before the split. By eliminating the word itself, the situation (in theory, at least) should revert to what it was in those ancient days.

As for item (2), you’ve got me there. Some of those folks can be just a bit rigid.

 

[SedesDomi]

All that being said, I do think that it would be a mistake to drop it now for two reasons: 1) the Orthodox still have a problem with the teaching, therefore, it’s being dropped won’t really matter; 2) while its being dropped won’t effect communion with the Orthodox it would most certainly effect schism with traditional Latins.

So even though the filioque shouldn’t be there, it’s better (for political reasons) to leave it in?

 

[johnnykins]

This, however, does not apply to the filioque. While the the teaching of the filioque is clearly evident in early Latin fathers** it was not professed in any creeds**. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Apostle’s Creed is a subtraction of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed because the Apostle’s Creed is older. How can it be a substraction when what it is supposedly substracting from did not yet exist?? The filioque, on the other hand, is most definitely an addition.

In Christ through Mary

See the Athanasian Creed - in part:
“The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

See it WAS in an accepted Creed!! And a Creed that may be either ex ante or ex post Nicea - it’s not clear, but often attributed to the 500s. I point out that different translations of the Nicene Creed also have different wordings.

Also, the faith expressed with the filioque in Latin - as explained - is NOT a different faith. I note the prohibition at Ephesus is not limited to ex post differences despite your implication above.

The real issue is that the Orthodox DO NOT accept the Catholic interpretation of the filioque, because if they did they, per force, rejected a valid ecumenical council - Florence - which they have rejected saying it taught error. That is, if the Orthodox agree they accept the Catholic understanding - which was clearly set forth in Florence - how could they have rejected Florence? (I know they won’t want to say Scholarious sold out to the Turks or the “St” Mark of Ephesus was merely a xenophobic crank.)

Sorry folks, given my acquaintance with Orthodox family and friends, I used to think as you do. However, after “meeting” so many Orthodox on this Board - especially former Catholic converts to Orthodoxy - I know longer buy their bona fides on this issue. When Hes comes back and says he accepts the Catholic understanding of the filioque and is not just causing trouble with disingenuous and specious arguments, I’ll rethink my position.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Taboric Light,

I fail to see what the Apostle’s Creed has to do with the addition of the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. It seems like we’re talking about apples and oranges. The Apostle’s Creed is an ancient and orthodox baptismal creed that, far as I know, people didn’t have a problem with. While an ecumenical creed should be professed during Mass, Divine Liturgy, etc, it does not necessarily negate the baptismal creeds that were orthodox and already well established within a particular church’s tradition.

This, however, does not apply to the filioque. While the the teaching of the filioque is clearly evident in early Latin fathers it was not professed in any creeds. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Apostle’s Creed is a subtraction of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed because the Apostle’s Creed is older. How can it be a substraction when what it is supposedly substracting from did not yet exist?? The filioque, on the other hand, is most definitely an addition.

Good points. HOWEVER:

You are no longer proposing the TEXTUAL argument proferred by several Orthodox opponents of filioque. You are actually promoting the substance of Faith argument. In effect, you argue that the SUBSTANCE of faith in the Apostles’ Creed is orthodox, therefore, even if the text of the Apostles Creed is different (i.e., a “different Creed” per the TEXTUAL argument), it is still orthodox. You simply cannot refute the fact that to profess the Apostles Creed would be to SUBTRACT from the TEXT of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. But you are definitely correct that there is no subtraction from the SUBSTANCE of Faith even though there is a subtraction of TEXT. Thus, the REAL question REMAINS:

Does a different TEXT mean a different FAITH. This redounds to the ultimate question:
Is the SUBSTANCE of Faith contained in Filioque used with the Latin procedit, but not with ekporeusai, orthodox? I believe that it is.

I do not believe that the initial addition of the filioque in Toledo was wrong. It was a particular church dealing with a particular heresy and they used what was already common through the Latin fathers to defend the true faith by professing it during Holy Mass. That it was later taken up by the so-called “Holy Roman emperors” out of the original context from which it was used was definitely wrong. That a rather weak pope added it to the creed in Rome because of a rather strong emperor was also emphatically wrong. What was the motivation? What was the reason? This is the universal symbol of faith! Rome was not dealing with any heresies that could justify such an action, especially after popes in the previous centuries had expressly forbidden its addition.

But, as stated earlier, there was never an attempt by the Pope, at the time the addition was made, nor by the “Holy Roman emperor” to impose the TEXTUAL addition universally. It was initially a local matter, and always was, until the Greeks sought to interfere into the affairs of the Western Church. Why couldn’t the Greeks at that time take the example of St. Maximos the Confessor? It seems the Greeks at Florence were willing to approach the Latins in that Spirit of understanding (and certainly, the Fathers of the Union of Brest had the same spirit as the Confessor). I don’t know what has happened since then. It seems to me the only concern of the Fathers during the first millenium was in preserving the monarchy of the Father. This was amply addressed at Florence. I am not at all sure about (and in fact reject) this later development within Eastern Orthodoxy of using the Essence/ Energies distinction as an argument against the theology of Filioque. The modern EO argument of using the Essence/Energies distinction against Filioque places an unacceptable (perhaps even heterodox?) distinction WITHIN the Godhead itself, which NO Father in the first millenium ever did.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SedesDomi]

The modern EO argument of using the Essence/Energies distinction against Filioque places an unacceptable (perhaps even heterodox?) distinction WITHIN the Godhead itself, which NO Father in the first millenium ever did.

Are you saying the Essence/Energies distinction itself might be heterodox?

 

[Taboric_Light]

So even though the filioque shouldn’t be there, it’s better (for political reasons) to leave it in?

Gee, don’t I feel sheepish. I can see how what I said could definitely be interpreted that way. I’ll attempt to be clearer. When I said that it was wrong for the Pope to add it to the Creed in the 11th century I meant that it wasn’t prudent. In the same way, I believe that it would not be prudent to take it out now. Later possibly, but not now.

I think an analogy will serve better: After Vatican II there was, in the West, liturgical madness and it drove many people away from the Church. The sudden and drastic liturgical changes were definitely not prudent. While I think it would be a very good thing for Rome to get back to a more traditional liturgy, it would not be prudent of Pope Benedict to do what was done a few decades ago and once again make a sudden, drastic liturgical change. Like last time many people will leave. Two wrongs don’t make right. Instead, Benedict and others are taking baby steps which is much more prudent.

Hope that helps.

In Christ through Mary

 

[SedesDomi]

Two wrongs don’t make right. Instead, Benedict and others are taking baby steps which is much more prudent.

Hope that helps.

In Christ through Mary

Makes sense.

 

[mardukm]

Are you saying the Essence/Energies distinction itself might be heterodox?

Heaven forbid! This is what I, as an Oriental, accept: The Essence/Energies distinction as taught by the Oriental and Eastern Fathers was not an actual ontological distinction within the Godhead. The ONLY distinction that Orientals accept within the Godhead is the distinction of Persons. The Essence/Energies distinction is instead a merely epistemological distinction. It was(and is) the manner by which Orientals and Easterns express the notion that we are able to come close to God (in Western terms, have a “relationship with God”), despite the fact of God’s UTTER “otherness.” It is a way for us finite human beings to somehow comprehend that otherwise incomprehensible fact.

No Father of the early Church ever taught that there was an ACTUAL or ontological distinction WITHIN the Godhead of Essence/Energies. This is why the Easterns (though not the Orientals) often say the Essence IS God, and the Energies IS God. I would direct anyone to read St. John Damascene who used the language of “Essence/Energies of God” (popular with both Easterns and Orientals), but simultaneously professed the language that “God is simple” (popular with both Westerns and Orientals).

When the Fathers in the first millenium first came upon the Filioque controversy, it was ONLY about the issue of the Father’s monarchy. This matter was settled at the Council of Florence (though the language used at Florence bears further study) where the Latins admitted that the doctrine of Filioque in NO way demeans or interferes with the fact of the Father’s monarchy or the reality of his being the SOLE Source of the Trinity.

IMHO, modern EO’s, particularly the polemic ones, have introduced a whole new argument in their rejection of the theology of Filioque. Some are utilizing the Energies/Essence distinction against the theology of Filioque (I’ve never heard nor read an Oriental propose the argument - it is a development of thought unique, it seems, to Byzantines). The argument goes:

1. We admit that the Fathers say that the Spirit proceeds THROUGH the Son;
2. But we reject that the Procession - i.e., the generation of the very Being of the Holy Spirit from the Father - involves the Son in any way;
3. Thus, when the Fathers say that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, it must ONLY refer to the energetic manifestation, NOT the generation of the very Being of the Holy Spirit.

In effect, it is saying that only PART of the Holy Spirit comes through the Son (the Energy), while the other Part (the Essence) does not.

As an Oriental, I utterly reject this rhetoric. The Holy Spirit cannot be divided. I confess that the ENTIRE BEING of the Holy Spirit originates FROM the Father THROUGH the Son from and in eternity. I confess that the Holy Spirit cannot be divided, and that what comes through the Son in the Economy is the ENTIRE BEING of the Spirit, not just His Energies, yet WE can only experience the Energies, not the Essence, of the Spirit of the Son in the Economy. I also confess that the “throughness” of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit is part of their ETERNAL relationship within the Trinity, whether in Procession or in the Economy.

Eternity encompasses temporality - i.e., though Eternity can consider itself apart from temporality, temporality cannot divorce itself from Eternity. Thus, the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son in temporality cannot be divorced from the Procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son in Eternity, since “throughness” is part and parcel of the ETERNAL relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit. In other words, the only and irrefragable reason that the Spirit comes THROUGH the Son in the Economy is because it is in the Eternal nature of their relationship that the Spirit IS (ontologically speaking) through the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

johnnykins , the so called Athanasian Creed is a purely western creed written up after the Filioque became popular in the west. It was not a writing of St. Athanasios and is unheard of in the east.

 

[johnnykins]

johnnykins , the so called Athanasian Creed is a purely western creed written up after the Filioque became popular in the west. It was not a writing of St. Athanasios and is unheard of in the east.

Oddly for some time the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Toronto listed it on their website as a fundamental document of Orthodoxy. I guess some things are more fundamental than others.

I might also point out the schism didn’t occur until at least the 11 century - the Photian schism being healed. The Athanasian creed probably dating from the 500s. What’s several hundred years of the filioque not being a real problem among friends?

Let’s face it the schism was over politics, different languages, and unfortunate pride on both sides. the theological differences being a convenient pretext only.

 

[Formosus]

The schism occured in the 11th century because that is when Rome gave in and added the text to the Creed in Rome. Before that it was an oddity of the Carolingian territories and Germanic lands. The addition into the Roman Creed was even condemned by Pope Leo VIII when he healed the Photian schism. So it wasn’t 500 years with the creed in use, it was 500 years of others in the Latin church using the wrong creed without permission.

 

[Ghosty]

The schism occured in the 11th century because that is when Rome gave in and added the text to the Creed in Rome. Before that it was an oddity of the Carolingian territories and Germanic lands. The addition into the Roman Creed was even condemned by Pope Leo VIII when he healed the Photian schism. So it wasn’t 500 years with the creed in use, it was 500 years of others in the Latin church using the wrong creed without permission.

The Romans certainly did utilize the filioque long before the Great Schism, even if not in the Creed itself. St. Maximos the Confessor defended the Roman use of the filioque, after all, and that was well before the time of Photius.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

The schism occured in the 11th century because that is when Rome gave in and added the text to the Creed in Rome. Before that it was an oddity of the Carolingian territories and Germanic lands. The addition into the Roman Creed was even condemned by Pope Leo VIII when he healed the Photian schism. So it wasn’t 500 years with the creed in use, it was 500 years of others in the Latin church using the wrong creed without permission.

I wouldn’t say it was 500 years without permission - only 200 years between the time Pope Leo VIII forbade it and the time it was formally adopted by Benedict VIII - and even then, clearly not as a universal addition (which could only be done through an Ecumenical Council), but only for the Latin Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear all,

IMHO, modern EO’s, particularly the polemic ones, have introduced a whole new argument in their rejection of the theology of Filioque. Some are utilizing the Energies/Essence distinction against the theology of Filioque (I’ve never heard nor read an Oriental propose the argument - it is a development of thought unique, it seems, to Byzantines). The argument goes:

1. We admit that the Fathers say that the Spirit proceeds THROUGH the Son;
2. But we reject that the Procession - i.e., the generation of the very Being of the Holy Spirit from the Father - involves the Son in any way;
3. Thus, when the Fathers say that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, it must ONLY refer to the energetic manifestation, NOT the generation of the very Being of the Holy Spirit.

In effect, it is saying that only PART of the Holy Spirit comes through the Son (the Energy), while the other Part (the Essence) does not.

As an Oriental, I utterly reject this rhetoric. The Holy Spirit cannot be divided. I confess that the ENTIRE BEING of the Holy Spirit originates FROM the Father THROUGH the Son from and in eternity. I confess that the Holy Spirit cannot be divided, and that what comes through the Son in the Economy is the ENTIRE BEING of the Spirit, not just His Energies, yet WE can only experience the Energies, not the Essence, of the Spirit of the Son in the Economy. I also confess that the “throughness” of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit is part of their ETERNAL relationship within the Trinity, whether in Procession or in the Economy.

Eternity encompasses temporality - i.e., though Eternity can consider itself apart from temporality, temporality cannot divorce itself from Eternity. Thus, the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son in temporality cannot be divorced from the Procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son in Eternity, since “throughness” is part and parcel of the ETERNAL relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit. In other words, the only and irrefragable reason that the Spirit comes THROUGH the Son in the Economy is because it is in the Eternal nature of their relationship that the Spirit IS (ontologically speaking) through the Son.

In lieu of what I wrote above, I was apprised of another anomaly in the EO use of the Essence/Energies distinction against Filioque.

An EO poster wrote:

As well, in Orthodox thinking any such Procession as through the Son is temporal (by that I mean in time after creation, not as a fundamental principle of Divinity), not an eternal Procession.

My response:

mardukm:

I definitely disagree with you there. The relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son does not change. The EO cannot claim that the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son in temporality is different from their relationship in eternity without bordering on heterodoxy. Your assertion places an unacceptable feature of changeablility in the Godhead.

So, not only does the use of the Essence/Energy distinction against Filioque result in dividing the Person of the Holy Spirit, it also results in admitting change into the Godhead.

I pray my Eastern Catholic brethren become more aware of this trend in EO polemics, and be more wary of accepting things just because it comes from the EO. There does not seem to be an official stance on this rhetoric as of yet in the EOC, but the prevalence of this novel and unpatristic rhetoric is very disturbing. And given that the ecclesiology of the EOC is more ground-up than top-down, it scares me to think that such rhetoric, if efforts to stop it now are not initiated, will somehow bear some sort of official stamp among the EOC.

The Essence/energies distinction has no place in the Filioque debate. As one can see, attempts to put it in that context will result in heterodoxy.

Forgive me if I sound harsh or overly urgent about this matter, but unity is a deep concern to me. I would love for there to be unity between the apostolic Churches, but we can’t do that at the expense of Truth.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

There is one more thing I would like to add, especially for the benefit of my Eastern Catholic brethren. If you study the Council of Blachernae, you will notice that it nowhere makes distinction between Energy and Essence in its assertion of the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son. The idea that the manifestation only involves the Energies is a completely novel idea which has its source from modern EO polemicists (even a few apologists), not from historic EO’xy. Likewise, unlike the rhetoric of some modern EO, the Council of Blarchenae never states that the manifestation only occurs in temporally. Rather, the Council explicitly states that the manifestation occurs in eternity AND temporally. I just want you, my Eastern Catholic brethren, to be assured that my objections to this modern EO rhetoric is not an opposition to your own venerable Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

Manifestation and procession of the energies (eternally) was taught by St. Gregory Palamas, it is not a product modern polemics. The idea that its a temporal procession alone is indeed a product modernity though.

 

[mardukm]

Manifestation and procession of the energies (eternally) was taught by St. Gregory Palamas, it is not a product modern polemics.

From what I know of post-Schism Eastern teaching on the matter, it was taught that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit is through the Son. The Council of Blachernae appropriately uses the analogy of the sun, rays and light. The sun, IIRC, is the Father, the rays = the Son, and the light = the Spirit. The light manifests itself through the rays. But is it that the Person of the Spirit (analogized as light) is manifested through the Son (analogized as rays), while we can only experience/perceive the Energy (which is what I believe Blachernae is saying given its analogy), or is it that ONLY the Energy manifests through Son (which is the rhetoric of modern EO that divides the Person of the Spirit)?

Every Eastern and Oriental knows that the idea of Essence (the superessential nature), Energy, and Person are three distinctive terms used in describing the Godhead.

From what I understand, the argument of the Eastern Fathers post-schism goes as far as this:

1. The Son is not the Source of the superessential nature of the Godhead.
2. The Superessential nature of the Godhead does not originate through the Son.
3. The Holy Spirit manifests himself through the Son.
4. The manifestation occurs in Eternity.

So far, the arguments would not be incompatible with the statement, “The Person of the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally through the Son.”

The post-Schism Eastern Fathers, however, never argued, as some modern EO do, that ONLY the Energy proceeds through the Son. The Eastern Fathers never argued using those terms, rightly, because that would cause an unacceptable division WITHIN the Godhead, as it is admitted that the manifestation occurs IN ETERNITY.

Obviously, more precise language is still needed before agreement occurs, but the rhetoric of some modern EO is certainly not the solution. I propose that perhaps the term “manifests” would be an appropriate synonym for “proceeds through.” That way, the entire Person of the Spirit is preserved without division.

The idea that its a temporal procession alone is indeed a product modernity though.

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk