Filioque. An Option Now For Eastern Catholics?

[dzheremi]

So you don’t care for it… so why do you post about? Just a question of curiosity.

Hmm? I wrote that I don’t affirm it either way. I don’t say it in the Creed at church, and I don’t say that it is a Church-dividing issue or not. As for why I’m posting about it…it’s the topic of the thread.

The thing is one could argue that miaphysitism is the same as the monophysitism heresy - many do - and no matter how much I correct people on it, some will still continue to believe its a heresy.

Indeed they could and do. The difference, of course, is that the so-called “monophysite” churches have always condemned Eutychian monophysitism, as is obvious from the writings of our Fathers dating back to at least St. Severus, and our affirmation of Christ’s perfect humanity and divinity is explicityl present in our liturgical prayers (see, for instance, the Confession made by the priest before communion, wherein it is confessed that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a moment nor a twinkling of an eye). So it’s not a matter of perception. It’s a matter of what we actually, literally, explicitly affirm. People who believe that miaphysitism is monophysitism are quite simply wrong.

Just because you don’t think something expresses the truth doesn’t mean it doesn’t express the truth.

You asked me if I believed in it, and I gave you my opinion.

But he didn’t ban it.

Indeed, that’s why I keep qualifying my statement. Had he banned it completely, I would only agree with him that much more. But I have always maintained that if the Latin Church really believes that it is teaching “through the Son” (an entirely Orthodox and acceptable idea, as that is what it actually says in the scriptures), then it should teach that to its catechumens and leave the Creed itself alone.

It has to do with the fact that the filioque is supported by the Bible and some of the early Church Fathers, the fact that the filioque has been shown to be an orthodox belief, and the fact that it went unchallenged for +400 years, maybe the filioque isn’t wrong like you think.

Or maybe it’s not as right as you think. We’re not going to agree on this.

My question is if you believe the filioque to be wrong then why did you say:“Probably if it was kept in Toledo only, Toledo would be looked at as odd, but we wouldn’t be talking about it as we do now.” if you believe the filioque does not speak the truth or is wrong then it wouldn’t matter where it was said because if something is wrong then its wrong right?

Indeed, but this is a historical matter. Obviously when it was added locally in Toledo, it did not immediately cause a schism. That only came later once people became aware of what had become by that time widespread Latin belief and practice. So I meant that if it were kept in Toledo only, it would just make Toledo look weird in comparison to the rest of the Church. It probably would not have caused a schism. After all, Spain was Orthodox at the time, and as we have already discussed, it is possible to understand the procession of the Holy Spirit as being from the Father through the Son in a temporal, rather than eternal, sense. This would be the Orthodox understanding, which I personally believe would have held in common belief in Spain at the time (based on what I have read on the history of Orthodoxy in Spain). It is later Western developments, such as the proclamations of the Council of Florence, that explicitly tell us that this is not what the Latins affirmed anymore by using the Filioque. That they meant it to be eternal procession. And that, of course, is wrong and unacceptable. But at the time when it was originally used in Toledo, there had been no such proclamation. So we cannot honestly say that the Filioque itself was a problem at that point, but it definitely became one later.

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

To the above, I think it’s a fundamental misunderstand if one says its a heresy to believe in single procession. On the most basic levels, that’s saying you believe in an omnipotent God but He’s limited to certain conditions of manifestation. Secondly, to say He would be limited to such a condition because He would lack communion is a miss understanding of the Godhead; look at Mor Ephrem’s explanation of the Holy Persons for instance. In his metaphor, God the Father is the sun from whom the rays of light that proceed from are the Son (since they’re the visible manifestation of the sun) and then the Spirit is the warmth of the sun (invisible, but very real). Their communion is not lacking but based on their common source in the Godhead. Both persons proceed from the Father to make Him known, since He alone is hidden. To say warmth would come from the rays of the sun would be erroneous, as that is not the source of heat.

I hope everything is alright and you feel better, Maron Ignatius .

That is very true, I didn’t think of it that way

And thank you, yesterday I was at an infusion, I go once a month - sometimes twice a month - for an infusion, today I feel very fatigued but that is normal for the day after. Good news is my labs are showing improvement!

 

[dzheremi]

In the filioque we speak of the eternal procession.

Exactly, that’s why we think it’s wrong. It is wrong to say, as the quote you have given says, that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from both Father and Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is what the Creed affirms. Again, it is possible to understand the procession of the Spirit as being from the Father through the Son in a temporal sense, but this is apparently what the Filioque says, according to your own councils. So it is wrong.

Maybe its because I am a Chalcedonian it makes sense to me.

I dunno about that. I know plenty of Chalcedonians who disagree with it, but I guess that’s an issue to be taken up between you and them.

The Council of Florence, to me, explains the consubstantial communion of the Father and Son how the Holy Spirit proceeds. Where we agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, where we disagree is the alone part. I think to say the Father alone, is to separate - eternally - the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son - which I would think would be heresy.

Why do you think that?

Have you though the reason the filioque was added was because it was needed for the Western Christians?

No, because that’s not how communion works. Think about it: The East had many, many heresies rampant in it, as well, but it was by holding fast to established beliefs (such as the Creed) that these heresies were defeated. When someone is out there teaching a novel thing that contradicts the faith of the Fathers, the answer to that is not adding some novel thing yourself to that same faith in answer to the heretic.

Also what of this quote by - a Coptic theologian - Didymus the Blind?

What of it? I’m not sure I agree with your emphasis (and obviously if St. Didymus meant by this that the filioque was correct theology, I’d disagree with him; but the fact that it did not exist in his time makes me think that this cannot be a correct interpretation), but the overall thrust of the quote is not something I disagree with. We do, after all, affirm that the nature of the Holy Spirit is the same as that of the Father and the Son. Consider this: If the quote is to be understood as eternal procession, as you would have it in order to support the Filioque, then it seems that St. Didymus is saying in the bolded sentence that the Spirit does not have a substance before He is given that substance by the Son. But we both agree (or I should hope) that the Son’s divinity is from the Father, so that is not a correct way of looking at things. Rather (and this is how I interpret the quote; I could be wrong), it is correct to say that just as the Son is divine in His origin from the Father alone who is the source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit shares that same divinity in common. Meaning they all have the same nature, as they all have the same divine origin (the Father). So I don’t think it is talking about a temporal “giving” at all, but rather affirming that the divinity is equal and the same among all three Persons.

You say it doesn’t, but could you list for me three ways it does not?

I don’t know if I can think of three ways to say it, but I’ll try:

1. “filioque” means “and the Son”. The Latin for “through” is “per”, which is not found in the modified Creed.
2. The Council of Florence says it doesn’t mean that. It says it means eternal procession, and you agree with that. (As I imagine most Latins, and Maronites following them, do.)
3. You yourself have agreed that it does not mean that, by insisting on dual procession when the Creed itself does not, and going so far as to call the single procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, what is affirmed in the filioque-less Creed, a heresy.

So, no. It doesn’t meant that.

And sorry for not getting back sooner, I was at the hospital yesterday.

Lord have mercy. I hope you are feeling better now.

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

Not really icons. This is a Coptic icon:

http://www.fromallnations.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/copticpainting7-267x300.jpg

This is another:

http://www.coptictamgeed.com/P-STBISHOY.JPG

This is Roman Catholic-inspired religious art with Coptic themes:

http://images.ch-joy.com//uploads/images/ch-joy.com-1e4620090a.jpg

There is far too much of the latter in Coptic churches. I have asked both our priests about it, and they agree, but at the same time suggest that the religious art has been accumulated over time (apparently there is a lot of it in Egypt, and people bring it back as gifts), and to replace all the improper art with proper icons would be prohibitively expensive. The RC-style art is cheap(er). I do not like this explanation, but I don’t have the money to do anything about it anyway. For what it is worth, I have never seen any of that art treated as icons by people in my church (people don’t kiss it, venerate it, etc.; it’s just sort of there). It’s more like they just enjoy being surrounded by things that remind them of Christ and the saints. This might be what happens when you spend centuries in an environment where the primary divide is between Christians and everyone else (and you are the minority), rather than Orthodox and Catholics, or Catholics and Protestants, or some other inter-religious distinction.

Those are some beautiful icons Maybe its just me but it seems to me that the first one has some similarities to Syriac icons and the second one seems to have similarities to Byzantine icons. Again beautiful icons! I got one question though, how much would it be to get the proper icons for just one church?

 

[dzheremi]

I do not know. The Byzantine-style icons (neo-Coptic, if you will) are cheap and plentiful, from what I have seen (of course, 99% of what is available are rather low-quality productions), but I don’t see too many Coptic icons of the first style these days. You are right, by the way, regarding the similarities between it and Syriac icons. The Oriental churches seem to have developed similar iconographic principles which differentiate them from Byzantine iconography (and if you look at Georgian icons, you can still see that influence, despite the fact that they’ve been Chalcedonians now for centuries).


Coptic icon of Christ and St. Mina, 6th/7th century


Ethiopian icon triptych “The One who listens”, 15th century

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Syriac icon of the resurrection, 13th century


Armenian illustrated Gospel manuscript, from Istanbul (undated). Armenian icons are a bit harder to find, but this shows the style of Armenian religious art, which has obvious affinities to the Coptic, Syriac, etc.

 

[Peter_J]

Well why would you say something if you know you are wrong? What I mean is your right about if something is wrong its wrong… Only thing is the filioque is not wrong and I never said that it would be wrong to “to deprive the Franks and the Mozarabs or whoever of their right to affirm it” it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that the filioque is supported by the Bible and some of the early Church Fathers, the fact that the filioque has been shown to be an orthodox belief, and the fact that it went unchallenged for +400 years, maybe the filioque isn’t wrong like you think.

I think this is the fundamental problem – I mean on both sides, not just our (Catholic) side. That is to say, people on both sides see their position as fact (that has been shown) and the other side just has to accept it.

Why, then, do we even bother with dialogue?

 

[RomanCatholic66]

At the second ecumenical council the procession from the Son was not explicitly mentioned since there was no error to defend. When the error arose then it was addressed, the filioque was also addressed in the creed;

First in Spain, then France and Germany, fifth, sixth and seventh centuries. Benedict the VIII approved and it was accepted at Lyons and Florence. What everyone agreed on at Florence with Bessarion and John the Theologian is where the West picks up- 8th session

As we see the early church fathers support also.

“We must confess the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost” agreed upon by Basil and Ambrose and proclaimed at Lyons and Florence.

There is “no” different Faith. To put this in proper perspective, there is no difference in the Creeds. There is “only” various incorrect understandings of the Creed.

If one would like to hold to the point that the Original Creed be upheld, then Amen. The rest is lack of reading and understanding.

One more time…

“We must confess the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost” agreed upon by Basil and Ambrose and proclaimed at Lyons and Florence.

With all due respect, this is not an answer to my question.

 

[RomanCatholic66]

The argument that the Orthodox and the Heterodox do not share the same faith is not posturing, however. For at least some Orthodox this difference is exemplified (not in toto, of course) by the filioque, in that they cannot agree with it any more than the Latins may disagree with it, and as such there is no middle ground or compromise. There are others for whom the filioque is regarded as a more manageable issue (e.g., Met. Kallistos Ware), but still even those would not say that therefore the faith of the two communions is the same.

Fair enough, but just for the record this was a rhetorical question. I don’t particularly care to discuss your status as a communicant anywhere, either.

As you see it.

Question still not answered.

 

[dzheremi]

What question is that, RC66? This thread moves fast, so please restate it. Thanks.

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

Exactly, that’s why we think it’s wrong. It is wrong to say, as the quote you have given says, that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from both Father and Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is what the Creed affirms. Again, it is possible to understand the procession of the Spirit as being from the Father through the Son in a temporal sense, but this is apparently what the Filioque says, according to your own councils. So it is wrong.

What makes it wrong to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Father and Son?

I dunno about that. I know plenty of Chalcedonians who disagree with it, but I guess that’s an issue to be taken up between you and them.

Then maybe its just me haha

Why do you think that?

What I mean by that is we disagree because I am talking from an eternal sense - which is what the filioque explains. So to separate - eternally - the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, would go against the creed but this of course is if you are talking from an eternal perspective of the creed. You say that the creed cannot be used with an eternal perspective and that is why we disagree from the start. I needed to be more clear on it, if one has an eternal perspective and then believes the Father alone then one would break the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son as spoken in the creed which would, I think would be heresy. I take it you have the Greek perspective which explains only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as “the principle without principle” which of course would be the Father alone. I hope I worded this all correctly.

No, because that’s not how communion works. Think about it: The East had many, many heresies rampant in it, as well, but it was by holding fast to established beliefs (such as the Creed) that these heresies were defeated. When someone is out there teaching a novel thing that contradicts the faith of the Fathers, the answer to that is not adding some novel thing yourself to that same faith in answer to the heretic.

But how does it contradict the faith of the Fathers when in defense of the filioque there are a number of writings from the Fathers.

What of it? I’m not sure I agree with your emphasis (and obviously if St. Didymus meant by this that the filioque was correct theology, I’d disagree with him; but the fact that it did not exist in his time makes me think that this cannot be a correct interpretation), but the overall thrust of the quote is not something I disagree with. We do, after all, affirm that the nature of the Holy Spirit is the same as that of the Father and the Son. Consider this: If the quote is to be understood as eternal procession, as you would have it in order to support the Filioque, then it seems that St. Didymus is saying in the bolded sentence that the Spirit does not have a substance before He is given that substance by the Son. But we both agree (or I should hope) that the Son’s divinity is from the Father, so that is not a correct way of looking at things. Rather (and this is how I interpret the quote; I could be wrong), it is correct to say that just as the Son is divine in His origin from the Father alone who is the source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit shares that same divinity in common. Meaning they all have the same nature, as they all have the same divine origin (the Father). So I don’t think it is talking about a temporal “giving” at all, but rather affirming that the divinity is equal and the same among all three Persons.

We both agree to that, and if you look - again - at the Council of Florence it explains the filioque with that “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration”

"but the fact that it did not exist in his time makes me think that this cannot be a correct interpretation" I don’t think that is correct to say. There were many writings from early Church Fathers and such that are used to support doctrine of a much later date.

I don’t know if I can think of three ways to say it, but I’ll try:

1. “filioque” means “and the Son”. The Latin for “through” is “per”, which is not found in the modified Creed.
2. The Council of Florence says it doesn’t mean that. It says it means eternal procession, and you agree with that. (As I imagine most Latins, and Maronites following them, do.)
3. You yourself have agreed that it does not mean that, by insisting on dual procession when the Creed itself does not, and going so far as to call the single procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, what is affirmed in the filioque-less Creed, a heresy.

So, no. It doesn’t meant that.

Like with most languages words can have different meaning, yes “per” in Latin means through but so does “ex” and there are few others that mean through. Now it has to do with the verbs used, if you use the Latin verb then you speak of an eternal procession, if you use the Greek verb then you speak of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone who is “the principle without principle”. Peter J has shared this link and I want to go back to it because I think it explains it best: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

Lord have mercy. I hope you are feeling better now.

Thank you, I had an infusion, and I feel very tired today which is normal for the day following the infusion. The infusion went well, good news is there is improvement in my lab results

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

I do not know. The Byzantine-style icons (neo-Coptic, if you will) are cheap and plentiful, from what I have seen (of course, 99% of what is available are rather low-quality productions), but I don’t see too many Coptic icons of the first style these days. You are right, by the way, regarding the similarities between it and Syriac icons. The Oriental churches seem to have developed similar iconographic principles which differentiate them from Byzantine iconography (and if you look at Georgian icons, you can still see that influence, despite the fact that they’ve been Chalcedonians now for centuries).

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8pn93OG1Q1rbe06io1_500.jpg
Coptic icon of Christ and St. Mina, 6th/7th century

http://tseday.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/ethiopian-christ-icon-found-500-years.jpg?w=700
Ethiopian icon triptych “The One who listens”, 15th century

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RbrN_ko6idw/R-aU5azJzTI/AAAAAAAABqM/LeM0pPm4hqM/s400/SyriacReserection.jpg
Syriac icon of the resurrection, 13th century

http://hmmlorientalia.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/apip_33_pp169_170.png?w=1024&h=611
Armenian illustrated Gospel manuscript, from Istanbul (undated). Armenian icons are a bit harder to find, but this shows the style of Armenian religious art, which has obvious affinities to the Coptic, Syriac, etc.

These icons are so beautiful! Thank you for sharing them and your knowledge If you have anymore please share! I just wanted to share this and find out what you guys think - especially you dzheremi, I drew this on some of my free time

 

[dzheremi]

What makes it wrong to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Father and Son?

Not only does it misquote the Savior’s words, it also destroys the sense by which we can talk of the Father as the origin of the Godhead. The Father is divine, and the Son originating from the Father is of equal and the same divinity. If the Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son, then how is He equal to both, as is established without controversy? This is what Orthodox mean when they talk about the “subordination” of the Holy Spirit via the acceptance of the Filioque in the West. One is God, the Father of everyone, one is Jesus Christ His Son, the Word, and one is the Holy Spirit, as we pray (both liturgically and privately in the Agpeya) daily. It’s not one, and one, and two. That’s not the Trinity.

Then maybe its just me haha

Well, you and other Eastern Catholics, I take it.

You say that the creed cannot be used with an eternal perspective and that is why we disagree from the start.

Huh? I nowhere said it can’t. I think everything in the Creed is eternal, in fact.

I needed to be more clear on it, if one has an eternal perspective and then believes the Father alone then one would break the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son as spoken in the creed which would, I think would be heresy.

Did you not read and agree earlier with the other Maronite poster who alluded to St. Ephrem in supporting the eternal procession of the Spirit as being from the Father alone? I believe you did. Why are you going back to this error?

I take it you have the Greek perspective which explains only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as “the principle without principle” which of course would be the Father alone. I hope I worded this all correctly.

I don’t know anything about that. I’m not a Greek, and except for the Fathers we share in common with the Byzantines (and scant few others, should they appear in modern works, as Byzantines sometimes do in the works of the likes of Fr. Matthew the Poor), I am largely unaware of their theology or the philosophical underpinnings of it. I took St. Shenouda the Archimandrite as my baptismal saint for a reason.

But how does it contradict the faith of the Fathers when in defense of the filioque there are a number of writings from the Fathers.

Forgive me, but this is a bit like pointing to your earlier (unsourced) quote from St. Didymus the Blind and saying that this is proof that the Alexandrians likewise supported the Filioque. Anyone may use a Father for his own ends (and indeed there is enough variation between them that a crafty apologist may construct any number of arguments that are said to have “Patristic support”). In that way, it doesn’t really mean anything in particular, but that the Latin tradition has developed a particular understanding of earlier (pre-Filioque, we could call them) Fathers that they take as evidence for their belief in the Filioque. So there is something to be said for contradictory understandings of those same saints. After all, the Chalcedonians thought that the Tome of Leo supported and protected the Orthodox Christology of St. Cyril, and we do not agree with them on that, either. Similarly in our tradition there is no support for the Filioque; that later Latins see things differently is of no consequence. We are not talking about St. Arsenius or Sts. Maximus and Domatius here. All sides agree that the Filioque is a later addition and development (or so I was taught in RCIA myself).

We both agree to that, and if you look - again - at the Council of Florence it explains the filioque with that “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration”

We do not both agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds/is eternally from Father and Son. I do not agree with that.

"but the fact that it did not exist in his time makes me think that this cannot be a correct interpretation" I don’t think that is correct to say. There were many writings from early Church Fathers and such that are used to support doctrine of a much later date.

Indeed there are. My only point is that he could not have had the Filioque in mind. That’s what later Latins took it to mean. The filioque is in no way a part of Alexandrian tradition. We were out of communion with the Latins over a century before it was even formalized at the Council in Toledo, and St. Didymus lived well before even the post-Chalcedonian schism.

Like with most languages words can have different meaning, yes “per” in Latin means through but so does “ex” and there are few others that mean through. Now it has to do with the verbs used, if you use the Latin verb then you speak of an eternal procession, if you use the Greek verb then you speak of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone who is “the principle without principle”. Peter J has shared this link and I want to go back to it because I think it explains it best: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

I understand that, my point is that we don’t talk about the Holy Spirit being eternally from Father and Son in the first place. The eternal origin of Holy Spirit, like the origin of the Only-Begotten Son, is the Father. Period.

Thank you, I had an infusion, and I feel very tired today which is normal for the day following the infusion. The infusion went well, good news is there is improvement in my lab results

Glory be to God in all things. That is wonderful. May the Lord continue to strengthen you.

 

[dzheremi]

These icons are so beautiful! Thank you for sharing them and your knowledge If you have anymore please share! I just wanted to share this and find out what you guys think - especially you dzheremi, I drew this on some of my free time

Hey, that’s pretty good! It is common to see the Coptic cross surrounded by the inscription “Iisus Pekhristos Epshiri Emefnouti” (Jesus Christ the Son of God), so it’s kind of strange to see that design without it, but you do also see that sometimes, too.

 

[Peter_J]

and as we have already discussed, it is possible to understand the procession of the Holy Spirit as being from the Father through the Son in a temporal, rather than eternal, sense.

Alright, but that also brings back my earlier question: would the Orthodox be willing to put “who proceeds eternally from the Father” in their translations of the Creed (in English and other languages as appropriate) rather than “who proceeds from the Father”?

 

[Peter_J]

You say that the creed cannot be used with an eternal perspective and that is why we disagree from the start.

I was kinda wondering about that myself (though I decided not to say anything until you responded to it). I would have been surprised if you had said that.

 

[dzheremi]

Alright, but that also brings back my earlier question: would the Orthodox be willing to put “who proceeds eternally from the Father” in their translations of the Creed (in English and other languages as appropriate) rather than “who proceeds from the Father”?

You see, we don’t have to. And I don’t mean this in a flippant, “Rome can’t tell us what to do” sort of way, either; I mean it in the sense that the Latin defenders of the Filioque might say that the Filioque was/is necessary to fight Arianism. It is not necessary that we specify “eternal” procession from the Father when it is already understood to mean that without adding anything to it. That is the point of distinguishing in the first place the eternal procession as a matter of origin and what I have been calling “temporal” procession in my posts, meaning within time (keeping in mind that God exists outside of time). Another answer from HG Bishop Youssef puts it like this: “We should not confuse the eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit with the temporal mission of the Spirit. The Procession refers to the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Father - the Spirit proceeds eternally only from the Father. The Sending of the Holy Spirit into our time and space is an entirely different matter.”

So we’re not going to mess with the Creed to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. It seems that this thread reveals a completely different understanding of what the Creed is even referring to on the part of Latins and Orthodox. Nobody in my Church believes it refers to the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit, but rather to His eternal origin, which is one in common with the Son…though as you can see at the above link of course some individuals may be confused on that point, probably as a result of their contact with Western Christians and the modified/Filioque-bearing creed that they use.

 

[Peter_J]

In a way I agree with you: it isn’t necessary translate it as “proceeds eternally”, in the sense that it is true to just say the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father”. It just doesn’t fully capture the meaning of the Greek verb ekporeumenon. (Actually, even “proceeds eternally” doesn’t fully capture the meaning of ekporeumenon. It just comes closer.)

 

[dzheremi]

And that’s fine because, again, we understand it as referring to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father without modifying the Creed at all.

 

[Peter_J]

And that’s fine because, again, we understand it as referring to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father without modifying the Creed at all.

You mean without modifying the translation of the Creed that English-speaking Orthodox have been using for generations. The original text uses the Greek verb ekporeumenon, which means proceeds eternally. (Or, if you like, the line could be translated “who takes his origin from the Father”.) So “without modifying the Creed at all” is really inaccurate.

P.S. In fairness to you Orthodox, the change from ekporeumenon to “proceeds” (Latin: procedere) was first made in the West. But I don’t think that’s a good reason to hang on to it.

 

[dzheremi]

That is really silly, Peter. All versions of the Creed not in Greek are translations. The problem is not necessarily in using a translation, but in making sure that the translations we do use reflect proper theology as found in the original. In Spanish, we still use “procede” in the Orthodox Creed with no problems.