Dropping the Filoque

[johnnykins]

What is ‘filoque?’
I have a vague idea, but please enlighten my idea.

jean8

It is Latin for “and the Son” and was added to the Creed. The issues here are two-fold:

1. Is it theologically wrong?; and
2. Was it improper to add it?

As you can tell, it’s a hot button issue. It was also the theological pretext for the split between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[Madaglan]

magdaglan,

“While the Athanasian Creed is a good summary of Christian doctrine on the subjects of the Trinity, and the deity / humanity of Jesus Christ, there are a couple of issues that must be dealt with. First, in regards to the phrase “catholic church,” this does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. The word “catholic” means universal. The true “catholic” church is all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. Please see our article on the universal church. Second, the Athanasian Creed demands belief in all of its tenets for salvation. While we agree with the tenets, we do not believe that all of them are mandatory for salvation.”

To believe ‘catholic’ refers to the RCC would mean only Catholics will be saved. do you really believe this? Oneness Pentecosts believe they are only christians who are saved.
See Mt.7:1-5

Oh dear,
jean8

PS. We recite this Creed in our church. I believe this is for all christians.

I see from your profile that you belong to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

The article towards which you directed me: is that on the LCMS site?

 

[searcher57]

Taboric Light;4892381:

I fail to see what the Apostle’s Creed has to do with the addition of the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed./QUOTE]

quite simple: in adding to it, it ceased being the Nicene-Contantinoplean Creed, and became the Roman Credo.

The Apostle’s Creed was in use before, and is still in use since, the formulation in Council at Nicea, and revision and promulgation in the Council at Constantinople.

The adherence to the Creed of Constantinople is mandated for all Catholics and Orthodox, by the council. It is the creed that defines the faith.

The council did not, however, prohibit the Apostle’s creed from use outside the liturgy.

The Roman Credo, as a translation is imperfect; after the addition of the filioque, it is no longer even a translation, but a new creed, imposed upon the latins by the latins, to combat a heresy that was latin in origin and latin in scope.

I completely agree. Hence, my comment earlier: “I fail to see what the Apostle’s Creed has to do with the addition of the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.” The Apostle’s Creed is not the N-C Creed. It was not condemned by any council and it’s recitation, at least today, (I can’t say anything about then) is devotional, not liturgical. The Apostle’s Creed has no bearing on the properness or improperness of the addition of the filioque to the N-C Creed. Therefore, I don’t see why someone (I forget who did) would use it as a defense for the legitimacy of adding the filioque to the N-C Creed. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear about this earlier. Or are we just thinking on two very different wave lengths?

In Christ through Mary

 

[Taboric_Light]

Taboric Light;4892381:

I fail to see what the Apostle’s Creed has to do with the addition of the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed./QUOTE]

quite simple: in adding to it, it ceased being the Nicene-Contantinoplean Creed, and became the Roman Credo.

The Apostle’s Creed was in use before, and is still in use since, the formulation in Council at Nicea, and revision and promulgation in the Council at Constantinople.

The adherence to the Creed of Constantinople is mandated for all Catholics and Orthodox, by the council. It is the creed that defines the faith.

The council did not, however, prohibit the Apostle’s creed from use outside the liturgy.

The Roman Credo, as a translation is imperfect; after the addition of the filioque, it is no longer even a translation, but a new creed, imposed upon the latins by the latins, to combat a heresy that was latin in origin and latin in scope.

I completely agree. Hence, my comment earlier: “I fail to see what the Apostle’s Creed has to do with the addition of the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.” The Apostle’s Creed is not the N-C Creed. It was not condemned by any council and it’s recitation, at least today, (I can’t say anything about then) is devotional, not liturgical. The Apostle’s Creed has no bearing on the properness or improperness of the addition of the filioque to the N-C Creed. Therefore, I don’t see why someone (I forget who did) would use it as a defense for the legitimacy of adding the filioque to the N-C Creed. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear about this earlier. Or are we just thinking on two very different wave lengths?

In Christ through Mary

 

[johnnykins]

Aramis;4933922:

I completely agree. Hence, my comment earlier: “I fail to see what the Apostle’s Creed has to do with the addition of the filioque in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.” The Apostle’s Creed is not the N-C Creed. It was not condemned by any council and it’s recitation, at least today, (I can’t say anything about then) is devotional, not liturgical. The Apostle’s Creed has no bearing on the properness or improperness of the addition of the filioque to the N-C Creed. Therefore, I don’t see why someone (I forget who did) would use it as a defense for the legitimacy of adding the filioque to the N-C Creed. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear about this earlier. Or are we just thinking on two very different wave lengths?

In Christ through Mary

Then you clearly don’t understand the issue being discussed. The issue is what was prohibited by Ephesus in Canon VII? Here is what Canon VII says:

"When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

"But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html

Does this mean any creed? “Contradictory” or what. The Apostles’ Creed, Athanasian Creed or ANY OTHER creed could be interpreted to fall under the anathema. Yet, they clearly don’t. Therefore what must be prohibited is a “contradictory” or “heretical” creed. If that is the case, the “filioque” is perfectly orthodox (unless you are looking for a pretext for schism).

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

1. That the prohibition was passed by the Council immediately after it had heard Charisius read his creed, which it had approved, and on the strength of which it had received its author, and after the reading of a Nestorian creed which it condemned. From this it seems clear that ἑτέραν must mean “different,” “contradictory,” and not “another” in the sense of mere explanatory additions to the already existing creed.

 

[Taboric_Light]

Taboric Light;4936736:

Then you clearly don’t understand the issue being discussed. The issue is what was prohibited by Ephesus in Canon VII?

Johnnykins,

Thank you for the actual text from the council and for the link to the article. It certainly made things clearer. I did, however, understand the issue being discussed, but apparently I was not clear enough in what I was saying. I will give another attempt.

The context in which my original comment was made earlier in this thread was the discussion concerning the textual argument. To make it clear now: I do not accept the textual argument. To deny any other written creed other than the N-C creed is insanity; it turns a blind eye to the tradition and history of the whole Church. The validity and licitness of the Apostle’s Creed is one proof for the error of the textual argument. However, that is all it is. While the Apostle’s Creed shows the error of the textual argument, it does not in any way effect the properness or the improperness of the addition to the filioque. That is a separate issue.

The addition of the filioque was not proper. That doesn’t mean that the filioque is wrong or contrary to the faith. It just means that it was not at all prudent on the part of the Pope to add the filioque to the N-C creed. By doing so the Pope changed the profession of faith at Rome from the common symbol of faith to a particular expression of that faith in a particular church - what Aramis calls the Roman Credo; and, again, I agree with him.

Regarding the question of whether it was proper or not, I believe that the article you referenced gives some insight. Each instance that was given for adding to the profession of faith happened in the context of conflict. The creed of Constantinople added to the creed of Niceae. The dogmatic decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon were given in addition to the N-C creed. At other ecumenical councils people whose orthodoxy was in question were accepted back after proclaiming their creed, which was then determined to be orthodox. When a heretic comes into communion with the Church in addition to the N-C creed there are also other things they must profess depending on their heresy. When a bishop (orthodox) is consecrated there are professions that he makes in addition to the N-C creed. Excepting the last, all of these examples are from times of conflict. In regards to the last, it is because of those previous conflicts.

In the 11th century when the Pope added the filioque was there a heresy that required its addition? For centuries multiple Popes would not add and, at least one, even spoke against adding the filioque to the creed. They did this in unity and brotherhood with the other patriarchs. Why was it added when it was? Simply put, the Pope was weak; the German emperor was strong and he wanted it. If I remember correctly, it was added at the coronation Mass for that emperor in Rome.

Not adding the filioque was a point of solidarity between the Pope and the other partriarchs. It is no coincidence that the great schism happened shortly after the Pope went against his predecessors and broke that solidarity. Concerning all of this, the Apostle’s Creed has no bearing; it only has bearing in regards to the textual argument. Therefore, I say, yet again, I fail to see what the Apostle’s Creed has to do with the filioque.

I hope this makes my position clearer and why I am saying what I am.

In Christ through Mary

 

[johnnykins]

The addition of the filioque was not proper. That doesn’t mean that the filioque is wrong or contrary to the faith. It just means that it was not at all prudent on the part of the Pope to add the filioque to the N-C creed.

Whether it was prudent or not, is irrelevant. Arguments can certainly be made either way. If we’re going to discuss prudence - then we’re on another topic altogether.

The issue really is was the addition licit (assuming it is in fact orthodox - a fact many on this thread dispute). The other arguments you make apparently go toward the issue whether the addition was “prudent”. You seem to believe that changes in time of conflict are allowed as proper, but those otherwise are not. What do you mean by “conflict” - apparently longstanding issues between the east and west, as well as within the west don’t qualify? By the 11th century the concept and usage was ancient. The very use of it as a pre-text belies the conflict. Perhaps it was not “prudent”, perhaps it was necessary?

The issue of the Apostle’s Creed I agree is not an issue of prudence - it’s an issue of licitness. If you are saying the addition was in fact licit - we have no problems. We can discuss prudence otherwise

 

[George_Largess]

Greetings: (in the East, Glory to Jesus Christ!).

I have attended Divine Liturgy at both Ukrainian, Russian and Melkite Greek Catholic Churches in the U.S. and in Milan and the “Filioque” is omitted.

I am Latin Rite and have no objection to the Eastern Churches omitting the “Filioque”. I believe that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth as Jesus taught us.

George Largess

Pax vobiscum/Eirene meta soi.

 

[Taboric_Light]

I believe that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth as Jesus taught us.

George Largess

Pax vobiscum/Eirene meta soi.

Welcome George and thank you. It is always great to be reminded that it is the Spirit that guides the Church through all of this. It also reminds me to stay rooted in prayer, not in arguments. Again, thank you.

In Christ through Mary

 

[jean8]

I see from your profile that you belong to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

The article towards which you directed me: is that on the LCMS site?

magdalan,
sorry, I can’t recall the article.
the url is www.lcms.org

God bless,
jean

 

[JohnVIII]

Actually Basil could not have said that creed because he died two years before the council. Both Gregorys were there, though one died eight years later and the other fourteen years later. They would have supported it or at least accepted the council’s ratification of it. One cannot reference their earlier writings as evidence of anything.

Although Saint Basil died before the 2nd Ecumenical Council alot of what he taught went into the final version of the Creed. For example, the prayer that was normally said: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit”, Saint Basil used to say: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, together with the Holy Spirit”. Saint Basil was asked about this difference and he said that it was part of the teachings of the Holy Apostles that had been verbally passed down. In the final version of the Creed we find the same wording: “… the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified …”. It may be a very subtle thing but it shows that the Fathers of the Church were very careful at getting exactly the right wording into the Holy Creed.

 

[Apophatic]

Although Saint Basil died before the 2nd Ecumenical Council alot of what he taught went into the final version of the Creed. For example, the prayer that was normally said: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit”, Saint Basil used to say: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, together with the Holy Spirit”. Saint Basil was asked about this difference and he said that it was part of the teachings of the Holy Apostles that had been verbally passed down. In the final version of the Creed we find the same wording: “… the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified …”. It may be a very subtle thing but it shows that the Fathers of the Church were very careful at getting exactly the right wording into the Holy Creed.

Subtle, yes, especially when so many today stomp around with hob-nailed boots.

I made the statement you referenced because Magdalen, in a earlier post, had said that the Cappadocians had never recited that creed. Basil’s fingerprints, however, are definitely all over that creed.

Subtlety in Greek versus the same in Latin has been such a sore spot in Church history. I know of many sad differences that arose because Latin had to use only one word with two subtleties that were easily covered by two separate words in the Greek(or the other way about).

I think that the split came much earlier than was “Official” with the rise of Constantinople in the East and rise of Latin in the West. We suddenly were in two political realities and speaking two different languages. Surely a Recipe for disaster.

I found one Eastern Catholic theologian very helpful in much of this, as he was just as learned in the Western Tradition. He used to say in his lectures, “We are what make you Catholic! We keep the Western Church from just being Latin.” Now there is certainly more to the story but his point is very well taken. I also know of a Latin Ecclesial theologian that has embarked on a exhaustive study of the East.

These are good things. When we can understand each other, we will find it easier to walk together.

Say, would any of you here know of any good sources on the Internet for the writings of Gregory Palamas. In English please, my Greek is not up to that challenge.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII

Although Saint Basil died before the 2nd Ecumenical Council alot of what he taught went into the final version of the Creed. For example, the prayer that was normally said: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit”, Saint Basil used to say: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, together with the Holy Spirit”. Saint Basil was asked about this difference and he said that it was part of the teachings of the Holy Apostles that had been verbally passed down. In the final version of the Creed we find the same wording: “… the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified …”. It may be a very subtle thing but it shows that the Fathers of the Church were very careful at getting exactly the right wording into the Holy Creed.

IIRC, St. Basil’s whole point was to combat those who depended on textual variations in the prayers of the Church to demean the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He clearly taught that what was codified (even Scripture) cannot be taken on its own without simultaneous recourse and appeal to the Tradition of the Church. From St. Basil’s point of view, the whole textual argument is in fact invalid. IOW, textual variations don’t amount to anything. Focusing merely on a textual variation without trying to understand the text from the Traditional belief and teaching of the Church will lead to heterodoxy or schism.

Let us pray for understanding on the patristic theology behind filioque, instead of trying to impose texts on each other.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

If the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son, or through the Son, but only through the divine nature of the Son, then this divides the unity of the divine and human nature of Christ. - This is what I believe. But it can only be true if one also believes that the two natures of Christ became one at the point of the incarnation (the Miaphysite view). If you hold to the Diophysite view (which I’m sure most of you do) then the Holy Spirit can proceed eternally through the Son’s divine nature without dividing the harmony (for Diophysites “harmony” would be a better word than “unity”) of the two natures of Christ; nor would it confuse the nature of the Holy Spirit either.

 

[scottywolf777]

I know this is a dangerous theological water to tread since, I really can’t grasp all the nuances of this issue. What I can speak of is dealing with our Orthodox bretheren and their world view. Much of the differences in theology between east and west seem to be centred on linguistics and cultural understandings…
For instance, ask an Orthodox if he believes in the Immaculate Conception he will firmly say no and that the dogma was created by a western pope in 1854. Does an Orthodox believe the the Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary was protected from sin by a singular grace which they call the protection of the Theotokos -absolutely!
If you ask an Orthodox whether he beleieves in transubstation again no. Does he believe he recieves the real flesh and blood of Jesus in the eucharist again yes! They however do not have St Thomas Aquinas to explain the whole business about changing substance and appearance because Thomas came after the split.
An Orthodox would only fail to appreciate a Saint Francis because he was after the split but, I imagine in heaven St Francis and Saint Seraphim of Sarov probably have their joint petting zoos going jointly. Francis with his wolf and Seraphim with his bear.
Alexander Schmeimen (Sp?) professor of Patristics at St. Vladimir Orthodox seminary in New York gave a talk on the issue where he concluded that he would accept the filioque if the word “with” was substituted for the word “and.”
The ultimate problem will always be centred around the fact that we speak Latin and have a scholastic philosphical mindset and they speak Greek and have a metaphysical and more mystical rationalism than we do. As a wise man once said, “Omnia graecam mihi est!”

 

[Apophatic]

I know this is a dangerous theological water to tread since, I really can’t grasp all the nuances of this issue.

Neither can many in clerical garb, so don’t feel bad.

Alexander Schmeimen (Sp?) professor of Patristics at St. Vladimir Orthodox seminary in New York gave a talk on the issue where he concluded that he would accept the filioque if the word “with” was substituted for the word “and.”

I do not see how filioque excludes that translation to English. When you and I are doing something together, we are doing it with each other???

The ultimate problem will always be centred around the fact that we speak Latin and have a scholastic philosphical mindset and they speak Greek and have a metaphysical and more mystical rationalism than we do. As a wise man once said, “Omnia graecam mihi est!”

On this as the ultimate problem, I must respectfully disagree. Our ultimate problem is Peter, ie, our concepts of Church. Their ecclesiology sees Peter in every Bishop with a primacy of honour to Rome and the other patriarchs in descending order. We say that Peter alone was given the Keys and that Peter alone was given the task of tending(governing) the flock by Jesus. All of the Apostles were given the binding and loosing by Jesus, hence their authority as Bishops. This and a thousand years of bad blood.

Until this is resolved there will be no reunification. Sorry if I got off topic.

 

[diggerdomer]

I do not see how filioque excludes that translation to English. When you and I are doing something together, we are doing it with each other???

I can see how it could make a difference.

If you AND I go to a baseball game, we are both there whether or not we went together.

However, if I go WITH you to a baseball game, we are going together and acting (in some respects) in unison.

Just some thoughts. Cheers

 

[Apophatic]

I can see how it could make a difference.

If you AND I go to a baseball game, we are both there whether or not we went together.

However, if I go WITH you to a baseball game, we are going together and acting (in some respects) in unison.

Just some thoughts. Cheers

Nasty

I did say doing something with “together” as a qualifier. If we must change the English, I would rather see through the Son. It pointedly excludes your fun with my wording.

 

[prodromos]

I know this is a dangerous theological water to tread since, I really can’t grasp all the nuances of this issue. What I can speak of is dealing with our Orthodox bretheren and their world view. Much of the differences in theology between east and west seem to be centred on linguistics and cultural understandings…
For instance, ask an Orthodox if he believes in the Immaculate Conception he will firmly say no and that the dogma was created by a western pope in 1854. Does an Orthodox believe the the Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary was protected from sin by a singular grace which they call the protection of the Theotokos -absolutely!

Sorry scottywolf but you are incorrect. For we Orthodox, the dogma of the “Immaculate Conception” is an unnecessary solution to a non existent problem. It simply has no place in Orthodox theology. Also, you should read and understand what we are celebrating on the feastday of the Protection of the Theotokos

If you ask an Orthodox whether he beleieves in transubstation again no. Does he believe he recieves the real flesh and blood of Jesus in the eucharist again yes! They however do not have St Thomas Aquinas to explain the whole business about changing substance and appearance because Thomas came after the split.

Again not true! We reject transubstantiation because it claims to be THE explanation of something which cannot be explained. The Orthodox Church accepts a number of attempts to explain the real presence but does not dogmatise any one of them to the exclusion of the others because they ALL FALL SHORT.

An Orthodox would only fail to appreciate a Saint Francis because he was after the split but, I imagine in heaven St Francis and Saint Seraphim of Sarov probably have their joint petting zoos going jointly. Francis with his wolf and Seraphim with his bear.

Actually we have some serious issues with the hagiography of St Francis. We can only hope that it is the error of the hagiographer and is not actually true of St Francis.

Alexander Schmeimen (Sp?) professor of Patristics at St. Vladimir Orthodox seminary in New York gave a talk on the issue where he concluded that he would accept the filioque if the word “with” was substituted for the word “and.”

That would result in the Latin word no longer being “filioque”, so he has basically said it is acceptable if you remove the “filioque”, no?

John

 

[Ghosty]

That would result in the Latin word no longer being “filioque”, so he has basically said it is acceptable if you remove the “filioque”, no?

John

Actually, -que can be accurately translated as “with”. At Florence, for example, the Dogmatic definition fo the filioque said this:

(the Holy Spirit) has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.

The distinction between “and” and “with” is largely an English translation issue. So, by definition, Fr. Schemann was agreeing with the filioque (according to what has been claimed).

Peace and God bless!