Filioque. An Option Now For Eastern Catholics?

[RomanCatholic66]

I watched EWTN a few weeks ago when a priest said from the Maronite Rite that they are allowed to use the Filioque or not as an option for Eastern Liturgies. WHA ?? Has this been settled, then?

 

[babochka]

I watched EWTN a few weeks ago when a priest said from the Maronite Rite that they are allowed to use the Filioque or not as an option for Eastern Liturgies. WHA ?? Has this been settled, then?

In many, but not all, Eastern Churches, the use of the filioque was a self-imposed latinization. I am 43 years old, and my Ruthenian parish has not used it in my memory. Our old service books had it in parentheses, but crossed out with pencil. The new books don’t have it at all. We’ve never used it when singing the creed.

 

[CDB1718]

I watched EWTN a few weeks ago when a priest said from the Maronite Rite that they are allowed to use the Filioque or not as an option for Eastern Liturgies. WHA ?? Has this been settled, then?

The filioque was settled in the first term of union between the Ukrainian Church and Rome. ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM

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.

The Maronites were not party to this quarrel.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

I think that all Maronite and Syriac Catholic parishes still say the filioque unfortunately. Chaldean parishes that use the Reformed translation do not say it, but my diocese still does. Very few Melkite parishes that are still heavily latinized such as those in Venezuela and some parts of Lebanon still say it.

To be honest, I think it shouldn’t be an option, it should be mandatory to remove it from the Creed, that goes for the Western church too

God Bless

 

[malphono]

The filioque was settled in the first term of union between the Ukrainian Church and Rome. ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM

The Maronites were not party to this quarrel.

No, the Maronites had the “filioque” shoved down our throat. Whereas most latinizations were self-assumed, this was one of the few that was imposed by Rome. I believe the same is true for the Chaldeans.

I think that all Maronite and Syriac Catholic parishes still say the filioque unfortunately.

I’m almost ashamed to say it, but yes. Very unfortunately. And I doubt that it’s going to change. There are very few who actually care one way or the other, but there are many who are pleased as punch to do what the Latins do. :banghead:

To be honest, I think it shouldn’t be an option, it should be mandatory to remove it from the Creed, that goes for the Western church too

I can see it in the Western Church because it’s very existence came about because of a Western controversy. That controversy, of course, had nothing to do with the Oriental or Eastern Churches, but we still had it rammed down our throats.

 

[Peter_J]

I watched EWTN a few weeks ago when a priest said from the Maronite Rite that they are allowed to use the Filioque or not as an option for Eastern Liturgies. WHA ?? Has this been settled, then?

It’s always been an option, in a sense, but happily the number of ECs using that option has been gradually declining.

 

[malphono]

RomanCatholic66;10568418:

I watched EWTN a few weeks ago when a priest said from the Maronite Rite that they are allowed to use the Filioque or not as an option for Eastern Liturgies. WHA ?? Has this been settled, then?

It’s always been an option, in a sense, but happily the number of ECs using that option has been gradually declining.

Not among the Maronites, it hasn’t.

 

[Peter_J]

Not among the Maronites, it hasn’t.

Indeed. I’m afraid I’ve never heard of any Maronites parish using the original version of the Creed.

For that matter, it isn’t completely unheard of for parishes that weren’t saying the filioque a decade ago to insert it now. (At least I know of one such case: After moving, several years ago, to where I live now, I visited the nearest UGCC parish. They had the [filioque] in their books, but didn’t say it. But a few weeks ago I went to a liturgy there, and they did say it. )

 

[malphono]

Indeed. I’m afraid I’ve never heard of any Maronites parish using the original version of the Creed.

And you won’t. That was one of the first impositions, which means it dates back to at least 1594, if not longer. There is no printed edition of the Missal or the Office that has the unexpurgated version of the Creed.

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

I have a question on the creed, I think Oriental Catholics and Orthodox can help.

The Armenian text I found says:
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the
maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and
invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the
begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that
is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,
begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the
Father, by Whom all things came into being, in
heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came
down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human,
was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the
Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and
everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on
the third day, ascended into heaven with the same
body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory
of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His
kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and
the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets,
and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan,
preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic,
and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for
the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the
resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement
of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and
in the everlasting life.” Doesn’t even mention proceeds, while the other Oriental Orthodox churches creeds mention the procession the Holy Spirit of the Father, does anyone know why this is? - armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/creed.pdf

 

[dzheremi]

It is my understanding that, as with many other aspects of their church, the Armenians have inherited and preserved a very ancient form of the Creed. I’m not sure exactly where it comes from, but that’s okay. They believe the same as all OO about the procession of the Holy Spirit (which is to say, they believe it is from the Father alone), so this is not a church-dividing issue.

 

[RomanCatholic66]

I think that all Maronite and Syriac Catholic parishes still say the filioque unfortunately. Chaldean parishes that use the Reformed translation do not say it, but my diocese still does. Very few Melkite parishes that are still heavily latinized such as those in Venezuela and some parts of Lebanon still say it.

To be honest, I think it shouldn’t be an option, it should be mandatory to remove it from the Creed, that goes for the Western church too

God Bless

But I heard it from the lips of Fr. Pacwa’s Guest. Surely Fr. Pacwa would have corrected us viewers… These guests are well vetted… This was an Eastern Rite Catholic Priest on EWTN saying his Church was granted the option to use the Filioque. I am asking if so, then what’s holding back The Orthodox? The Papacy only? This is confusing. I have an apologetics forum and people are arguing (debating about whether this is TRUE or NOT… Well, does anyone here know?

 

[RomanCatholic66]

I think that all Maronite and Syriac Catholic parishes still say the filioque unfortunately. Chaldean parishes that use the Reformed translation do not say it, but my diocese still does. Very few Melkite parishes that are still heavily latinized such as those in Venezuela and some parts of Lebanon still say it.

To be honest, I think it shouldn’t be an option, it should be mandatory to remove it from the Creed, that goes for the Western church too

God Bless

WHY should the Western Church accept something for herself she has never used when She seems to allow it for the Eastern Rites?

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t understand your train of thought, RC66: Because the Maronites may use (or have been granted the option to use, or whatever) the filioque clause in their recitation of the Creed, that means the Orthodox are now only “held back” by the Roman Papacy? I don’t see the connection between the two, or understand what you mean by “held back”.

 

[RomanCatholic66]

It’s always been an option, in a sense, but happily the number of ECs using that option has been gradually declining.

Well you seem to know your “ONIONS” better… Do you have a linked source I can use for my Facebook Debates Forum?

RJ

 

[murraymuzz]

I think the acceptance or rejection of the Filioque ultimately comes down to the belief in the development of doctrine as proposed by Bl. John Henry Newman.

To me the Filioque makes sense when you consider how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. My understanding is that the intense love shared between the Father and the Son begets the Holy Spirit.

To be honest I haven’t heard of any good arguments for rejecting the Filioque other than it was not originally in the Nicene Creed, which then leads to my first point.

Perhaps there are other reasons to reject the Filioque which I have not come across and I would personally love to hear them.

 

[malphono]

But I heard it from the lips of Fr. Pacwa’s Guest. Surely Fr. Pacwa would have corrected us viewers… These guests are well vetted… This was an Eastern Rite Catholic Priest on EWTN saying his Church was granted the option to use the Filioque. I am asking if so, then what’s holding back The Orthodox? The Papacy only? This is confusing. I have an apologetics forum and people are arguing (debating about whether this is TRUE or NOT… Well, does anyone here know?

Where such an “option” exists, the subject phrase would appear in parentheses in the printed text. This does not exist in any Maronite liturgical book, irrespective of language. To the contrary, all Maronite liturgical books invariably contain the latinized form of the Creed, exactly as it appears in Latin books (again, irrespective of language).

For example, in the anglophone diaspora, the Creed is identical to the “new” translation currently approved for use by the ICEL. The only difference is the use of the first person plural (“We”). The Arabic text also contains the subject phrase, as it has since at least 1594, and has not changed. The same is true of the formal Syriac text.

Now as for “what’s holding back the Orthodox,” that’s a different question entirely. It’s one that has been debated over and over in this forum, and I am not reopening that discussion here.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Doesn’t even mention proceeds

While its Biblical, its also analogically used to relate to origin in nature and time so we may understand through human means such as measurement with math, lines, numbers etc. [There is but one nature with God,] In other words whatever is posterior to another in nature must depend according to its own nature, on the nature of another.

Athanasius and Augustine state the imperfection found in human generation are not in divine procession.

There is no diversity of nature within the Trinity. We have diversity of persons in opposition to relations.

In this sense the original understanding of procession fails. Don’t know why the Creed is composed as it is, but to me this could very well be the understanding.

 

[Peter_J]

dzheremi and RomanCatholic66,

I don’t understand your train of thought, RC66: Because the Maronites may use (or have been granted the option to use, or whatever) the filioque clause in their recitation of the Creed, that means the Orthodox are now only “held back” by the Roman Papacy? I don’t see the connection between the two, or understand what you mean by “held back”.

Presumably, “held back” as in “held back from becoming Catholic (i.e. in-communion-with-Rome)” . However, I think that’s very misleading; so what say we put it as “What about Catholics bothers the Orthodox?”, or something like that?

But I heard it from the lips of Fr. Pacwa’s Guest. Surely Fr. Pacwa would have corrected us viewers… These guests are well vetted… This was an Eastern Rite Catholic Priest on EWTN saying his Church was granted the option to use the Filioque. I am asking if so, then what’s holding back The Orthodox? The Papacy only? This is confusing. I have an apologetics forum and people are arguing (debating about whether this is TRUE or NOT… Well, does anyone here know?

Well, there are many many things about Catholics that Orthodox are unhappy about (and I’m definitely not going to try to list them). The one that’s relevant to this thread is just what you mentioned at the beginning: some Eastern Catholics (in addition to all virtually all Latin Catholics (excepting those who have mass in Greek)) say that “filioque” in the Creed.

I guess the question is: Did the EC priest on EWTN make it sound like the Orthodox were happy about ECs having the option of inserting the filioque?

 

[Peter_J]

Where such an “option” exists, the subject phrase would appear in parentheses in the printed text. This does not exist in any Maronite liturgical book, irrespective of language. To the contrary, all Maronite liturgical books invariably contain the latinized form of the Creed, exactly as it appears in Latin books (again, irrespective of language).

Hmmm … I hadn’t been thinking of it that way; but you’re quite right. We shouldn’t call it an “option” if you guys don’t also have the option of not inserting it.