Filioque. An Option Now For Eastern Catholics?

[Lester_S]

I think I have read that before, but it’s been a while. (Several years ago I read many such articles.)

Rather than getting into yet another I-say-you-say-internet-“debate”, let me refer to the best Catholic explanations I can think of:

The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit
The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue? (that one is an agree Catholic-Orthodox statement)

Thanks, brother Peter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Very good, dives more into the love aspect with Augustine and Aquinas biblically. I’ve seen this used before in collaboration also. The article above that is a good article on Eastern understanding and a honest attempt to understand and evaluate the West in relation. If you notice though it is common to clearly understand the East and so-so on the West. Part of the reason this issue continues and more than likely will until the two sides sit down.

 

[Schism_hater]

Can any orthodox christians point me to the pre schism schism/riots that took place before the schism to end all schisms on the basis of the filoque. What I am saying is that the filoque was used for hundreds of years in different places of western christianity before the eventual full schism but I can’t find the absolute **** hitting the fan before hand from its use which clearly it should have its meaning was not original christian meaning.

We can debate over semantics of what it does nor does not mean but the simple fact from my study is that the east was not all over the west for its use for many a long year before the eventual main schism.

This clearly indicates to me that it is a matter of politics rather than a matter of faith.

As soon as Eastern monks heard the Filioque recited by western monks in and around Jerusalem in the late 700s/early 800s, they protested. St. Photius wrote an entire treatise on the subject The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit in the 800s, and in turn the Frankish church wrote decrees accusing the Byzantines of heresy for omitting it.

So the idea that it only became an issue after the schism is clearly erroneous.

 

[dvdjs]

As soon as Eastern monks heard the Filioque recited by western monks in and around Jerusalem in the late 700s/early 800s, they protested. St. Photius wrote an entire treatise on the subject The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit in the 800s, and in turn the Frankish church wrote decrees accusing the Byzantines of heresy for omitting it.

So the idea that it only became an issue after the schism is clearly erroneous.

1. It became a church dividing issue only after the schism.
2. what are these decrees of the “Frankish church” ?

 

[Aramis]

1. It became a church dividing issue only after the schism.
2. what are these decrees of the “Frankish church” ?

It was already causing theologians to rail prior to that point. Like, from about 5-6 years after it was adopted. The Iberian formula (et filos) and the Roman formulation (filioque) both make use of a term that was mis-translated.

The latin for ekporousis is procedit. The Greek creed uses ekporousis. Ekporousis is to flow from the direct object in which it originates. In other words, the greek speaks directly about the holy spirit originates in the Father.
The latin for proenai is also procedit. proenai is to flow through or out from, but has little or no implication of origin.

The latin word procedit should not have been used for ekourousis… The Latin (and English) use of the creed uses the word (except in Orthodoxy) to mean the same as proenai…

The problem is, once you get the greek theologians going “it’s heresy” they will not, perhaps cannot, admit the error of their translation back from the latin. And their later counterparts react to the translation issue by claiming the “heresy” begins in the mistranslation into Latin, pushing the error back to the 4th-6th century, and enabling their twisted views of the papacy to benefit. This is still a not uncommon mindset. (HG Hilarion has, in the past, hinted at this interpretation, and I’ve met several Orthodox priests who hold it.)

The truth is, the Credo in Latin is NOT the same as the Creed in Greek… because of bad translation when the Credo was adopted. It’s emblematic of a poor grasp of the greek, and so shows that the translation was in fact needed…

 

[GaryTaylor]

It was already causing theologians to rail prior to that point. Like, from about 5-6 years after it was adopted. The Iberian formula (et filos) and the Roman formulation (filioque) both make use of a term that was mis-translated.

The latin for ekporousis is procedit. The Greek creed uses ekporousis. Ekporousis is to flow from the direct object in which it originates. In other words, the greek speaks directly about the holy spirit originates in the Father.
The latin for proenai is also procedit. proenai is to flow through or out from, but has little or no implication of origin.

The latin word procedit should not have been used for ekourousis… The Latin (and English) use of the creed uses the word (except in Orthodoxy) to mean the same as proenai…

The problem is, once you get the greek theologians going “it’s heresy” they will not, perhaps cannot, admit the error of their translation back from the latin. And their later counterparts react to the translation issue by claiming the “heresy” begins in the mistranslation into Latin, pushing the error back to the 4th-6th century, and enabling their twisted views of the papacy to benefit. This is still a not uncommon mindset. (HG Hilarion has, in the past, hinted at this interpretation, and I’ve met several Orthodox priests who hold it.)

The truth is, the Credo in Latin is NOT the same as the Creed in Greek… because of bad translation when the Credo was adopted. It’s emblematic of a poor grasp of the greek, and so shows that the translation was in fact needed…

Another good point. Here’s a link for others who want to further read.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

 

[dvdjs]

It was already causing theologians to rail prior to that point.

Yes, but that theological railing did not force a schism, even though the filioque was not abandoned.

 

[Aramis]

Yes, but that theological railing did not force a schism, even though the filioque was not abandoned.

Considering the railing by the earlier theologians was the basis of St. Gregory Palamas’ and St Mark of Ephesus’ calls for anathematizing the Romans, yes, very much yes they did.

 

[dvdjs]

Because, as the Eastern view goes, the Latins’ change to the Creed has created a situation in which the East and the West do not profess the same faith anymore. You don’t get to have your own when you’d already been using the common version together with the East.

But that is just a posture. The Constantinopolitan addition and editing of the Nicean Creed was done unilaterally in the East and was not affirmed for a considerable time, which included an intervening Ecumenical council. But it was ultimately accepted and judged on its merits, not on the reaction to the fact that unilateral changes were made to the ecumenical creed. It is also interesting to note that not all of the changes were changes were not adopted in the West, and that didn’t seem to matter much either.

The idea that there was a common version was in use together with the East needs qualification. There were a number of Credal formuale. The Creed of Nicea was given ecumenical sanction, but other Creeds, such as the Apostles Creed, remained and remain in common use. I think that it, rather than the Nicean Creed, has been and remains in use at baptism in the West. Moreover I don’t believe that the Creed was part of the Roman liturgy until the second millenium - with filioque. It really isn’t clear that the N-C creed without filioque ever saw much use in the West.

 

[dvdjs]

Thanks Lester, but actually what I am referring to is the filoque as an expression, it was first used at the very least in the early 400’s and from then on in various places.

And thus perhaps even before, or at least roughly at the same time that the Constantinopolitan addition to the Nicean Creed was sanctioned.

 

[dvdjs]

Considering the railing by the earlier theologians was the basis of St. Gregory Palamas’ and St Mark of Ephesus’ calls for anathematizing the Romans, yes, very much yes they did.

That was the setting of hard hearts long, long after the anathemas of 1054.

 

[dzheremi]

But that is just a posture.

The fact that the Orthodox do not recognize your faith as being their faith is “just a posture”? Interesting idea. Try receiving communion from them as a professed partisan of Rome and then tell me that.

It really isn’t clear that the N-C creed without filioque ever saw much use in the West.

I can’t vouch for its use in a liturgical context, but the famous stance (and plaques) of Pope Leo III (795-816), who forbade its addition, should speak for itself.

 

[Peter_J]

The latin for ekporousis is procedit. The Greek creed uses ekporousis. Ekporousis is to flow from the direct object in which it originates. In other words, the greek speaks directly about the holy spirit originates in the Father.
The latin for proenai is also procedit. proenai is to flow through or out from, but has little or no implication of origin.

The latin word procedit should not have been used for ekourousis…

Agreed.

 

[dvdjs]

The fact that the Orthodox do not recognize your faith as being their faith is “just a posture”?

Not at all what I said. Just that the particular argument that had been advanced here lacks substance and can fairly be regarded as posturing.

Try receiving communion from them as a professed partsan of Rome and then tell me that.

My status a communicant in EOC is not an appropriate subject for discussion.

I can’t vouch for its use in a liturgical context, but the famous stance (and plaques) of Pope Leo III (795-816), who forbade its addition, should speak for itself.

I don’t think it does, particularly not in this context.

 

[Peter_J]

My status a communicant in EOC is not an appropriate subject for discussion.

“Communicant in EOC”? Your profile say “Byzantine Catholic”.

And why did you mention it if it isn’t an appropriate subject for discussion?

 

[dzheremi]

Not at all what I said. Just that the particular argument that had been advanced here lacks substance and can fairly be regarded as posturing.

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.

My status a communicant in EOC is not an appropriate subject for discussion.

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.

I don’t think it does, particularly not in this context.

As you see it.

 

[dvdjs]

“Communicant in EOC”? Your profile say “Byzantine Catholic”.

And why did you mention it if it isn’t an appropriate subject for discussion?

I mentioned it in response to remark about it.
I did not say what my status is.
I am a Byzantine Catholic: byl, jesm, i budu.

 

[Peter_J]

I mentioned it in response to remark about it.
I did not say what my status is.

I see.

 

[Peter_J]

The argument that the Orthodox and the Heterodox do not share the same faith is not posturing, however.

I don’t think anyone thinks that the Orthodox and “the Heterodox” (by which you presumably mean both Catholic and protestants) share the same beliefs.

Some might be under the impression that just Orthodox and Catholics share the same beliefs, but that’s about as far as it would go.

 

[Maron_Ignatius]

Because, as the Eastern view goes, the Latins’ change to the Creed has created a situation in which the East and the West do not profess the same faith anymore. You don’t get to have your own when you’d already been using the common version together with the East.

I would have to disagree with you dzheremi

I want to go back to something earlier in this post, I asked about the Armenian creed and why it does not mention procession the Holy Spirit and you stated that:

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.

Now what I am trying to get at is if the Armenians can have a different creed why can’t the Westerners have the Filioque in their creed? According to what you are saying in the first quote; is that by having a different creed or a difference in your creed you “do not profess the same faith anymore” but if that is the case then Armenian Orthodox have a different faith from her Sister Churches, could you clarify this?

Now this is for everyone: My understanding is the creed in the West is saying is that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and passes through the Son, this is why many Orthodoxs and Catholics have been able to agree on this, because this is an orthodox belief - correct me if I am wrong there. Now I am against the latinization of the Filioque(any latinization of Liturgy for that matter) in the Eastern Churches but I am also against the Filioque being taken out of the Creed in the West, in my opinion this would be an easternization of the Western Church.