Filioque question in EC divine liturgy

  • Thread starter Thread starter pistis87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pistis87

Guest
I attended my first Eastern Catholic (Melkite) liturgy this weekend and I absolutely loved it, as I have been drawn to the more traditional side of Catholicism and have also enjoyed attending Greek Orthodox liturgies with my girlfriend. One thing about the liturgy stuck out pretty strongly though… I was obviously not surprised at the absence of the filioque in the creed at EO liturgies, but I was surprised at its absence in the EC divine liturgy. On the one hand I found this encouraging, as I think the filioque doesn’t really belong, but on the other hand I was confused as to what this means in terms of communion with the RCC. Some (multi-part) questions:

1.) Is this standard practice? Do ECs always leave out the filioque or did I go to a particularly rebellious parish? 🙂

2.) If it is standard practice for ECs to stick with the original creed, what exactly is the nature of their loyalty to the papacy? Am I to understand the procession of the Holy Spirit from the son as not requisite for full communion with the the western church? Does this indicate that the filioque is not something that Rome is strongly attached to?

Up until now my impression was that for an eastern church to be in communion with Rome they essentially kept the divine liturgy, married clerics, etc, but had to conform completely with Roman theological teaching. However I have heard/read mixed views on this from Eastern Catholics. Any helpful thoughts?
 
It would be no more appropriate to include the Filioque in the EC divine liturgy than it would be in any EO liturgy. It is a tradition of the Western Church, and linguistically it translates so poorly to Greek that it would actually become heresy in that language (with out extensive and careful modification).

Thus is thas no place in the Eastern Liturgies. Oh, if you like the traditional I would also recommend trying out a Latin Mass with your GF as well. You both enjoy it greatly.

God bless,
 
I’ve heard the Pope pray without the Filioque in Greek.

I’ve heard the Pope pray with the Filioque in Latin.

Each language has its own reasons and I have no problems with either.
 
So it’s a linguistic issue then? (btw, we said the creed aloud in English) Some follow-up questions:

1.) So would it be correct to say that for linguistic reasons ECs keep the creed of 381 but that because they’re in communion with Rome they are still to understand the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both Father and Son (or from Father through Son) without saying it?

2.) If the statement in #1 is correct, then what is the reason for the EO hostility towards the filioque? If, as you both seem to be saying, the issue is purely linguistic, do EOs recognize that it is appropriate in Latin, even while it is heretical in Greek? I don’t mean to seem overly skeptical but I would think that if the filioque was simply a linguistic clarification to the creed as it was spoken in Latin (essentially a retranslation into Latin) then the East wouldn’t have had such a problem with it (I would also think that there wouldn’t have been resistance to it in the West, such as from Leo I and Leo III). I know that this linguistic argument is the modern position of the West, but are there patristic sources showing that this was the reason for including the filioque? It always seemed to me that it was more of a reaction against subordination of the Son in the West.

@crazzeto: I am planning on checking out a Tridentine mass next week actually. It’s tough to make it cuz it’s pretty far away.
 
pistis87 said:
So it’s a linguistic issue then? (btw, we said the creed aloud in English) Some follow-up questions:

1.) So would it be correct to say that for linguistic reasons ECs keep the creed of 381 but that because they’re in communion with Rome they are still to understand the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both Father and Son (or from Father through Son) without saying it?

2.) If the statement in #1 is correct, then what is the reason for the EO hostility towards the filioque? If, as you both seem to be saying, the issue is purely linguistic, do EOs recognize that it is appropriate in Latin, even while it is heretical in Greek? I don’t mean to seem overly skeptical but I would think that if the filioque was simply a linguistic clarification to the creed as it was spoken in Latin (essentially a retranslation into Latin) then the East wouldn’t have had such a problem with it (I would also think that there wouldn’t have been resistance to it in the West, such as from Leo I and Leo III). I know that this linguistic argument is the modern position of the West, but are there patristic sources showing that this was the reason for including the filioque? It always seemed to me that it was more of a reaction against subordination of the Son in the West.

@crazzeto: I am planning on checking out a Tridentine mass next week actually. It’s tough to make it cuz it’s pretty far away.
Click to expand...
As I understand it (though we have far more knowlegable EC posters who may grace us with a better answer) is essentially:

In the Greek, due to the word use the Filioque would improperly imply that both the Father and the Son are equally the principal of the Holy Spirit. This is not the teaching the Filioque intends to convey, and it would be heresy.

Rather the Filioque teaches that the Father is the principal, and that the Holy Spirit is generated through the Son. So the best anology would be that of a stream acting as the principal source of water, filling a lake through a river. The rivier is not a principal, it is the conduet through with the water passes.

I hope my explaniation helps you at all.
 
crazzeto said:
As I understand it (though we have far more knowlegable EC posters who may grace us with a better answer) is essentially:

In the Greek, due to the word use the Filioque would improperly imply that both the Father and the Son are equally the principal of the Holy Spirit. This is not the teaching the Filioque intends to convey, and it would be heresy.

Rather the Filioque teaches that the Father is the principal, and that the Holy Spirit is generated through the Son. So the best anology would be that of a stream acting as the principal source of water, filling a lake through a river. The rivier is not a principal, it is the conduet through with the water passes.

I hope my explaniation helps you at all.
Click to expand...
Thanks again for the response. This has always been my understanding of the meaning of the filioque as well, but it’s still a source of puzzlement when I think about the East/West controversy over the issue. My impression is that EOs don’t necessarily disagree with a “through the Son” understanding of procession, but in my conversations with EOs most of them say that the filioque is a theological (and not simply historical) problem. So did the Western Church just not explain itself very well in 1024 or has our interpretation of the filioque changed since then? And why did so many Westerners fight its addition to the Creed?

Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative or overly critical (my motivation is purely curious). These East/West issues are very interesting to me.
 
pistis87 said:
Thanks again for the response. This has always been my understanding of the meaning of the filioque as well, but it’s still a source of puzzlement when I think about the East/West controversy over the issue. My impression is that EOs don’t necessarily disagree with a “through the Son” understanding of procession, but in my conversations with EOs most of them say that the filioque is a theological (and not simply historical) problem. So did the Western Church just not explain itself very well in 1024 or has our interpretation of the filioque changed since then? And why did so many Westerners fight its addition to the Creed?

Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative or overly critical (my motivation is purely curious). These East/West issues are very interesting to me.
Click to expand...
No change in interpretation, and the Schism is really about much more than the Filioque, it was highly political as well. The church has never failed in explaining it, more just that there have been many reasons presetned as to why it’s a problem:

Translation in Greek creates heresy, thus the Filioque must be heresy (we know this is false)

You are not allowed to change the creed (even though many altered localed creeds are accepted among EO churches)

etc, etc, etc.

Thankfully, at a high level the Filioque is no longer a barrier at all, we have all come to an understanding on the matter. I think there was even a joint declaration on the matter. The only problem exists among lay, novice appologists.
 
crazzeto said:
Thankfully, at a high level the Filioque is no longer a barrier at all, we have all come to an understanding on the matter. I think there was even a joint declaration on the matter. The only problem exists among lay, novice appologists.
Click to expand...
I had gotten that impression from some of the scholarly ecumenical discussions but I didn’t know it was official. Thanks! 😃 Do you happen to know what the declaration/document is called?

As with most of the east/west issues, it seems it can be difficult to sort out the true points of division from the historical and cultural grievances on both sides (especially among the novice apologists 😉 ). In my free time I’ve been learning tons about patristics and the schism but in the grand scheme I haven’t been at it that long. Thanks for the help!
 
pistis87 said:
I had gotten that impression from some of the scholarly ecumenical discussions but I didn’t know it was official. Thanks! 😃 Do you happen to know what the declaration/document is called?

As with most of the east/west issues, it seems it can be difficult to sort out the true points of division from the historical and cultural grievances on both sides (especially among the novice apologists 😉 ). In my free time I’ve been learning tons about patristics and the schism but in the grand scheme I haven’t been at it that long. Thanks for the help!
Click to expand...
I googled a bit for it, but for some reason I can’t find the actual joint declaration only references to the declaration. If I happen to find it I’ll post a link.
 
pistis87 said:
Up until now my impression was that for an eastern church to be in communion with Rome they essentially kept the divine liturgy, married clerics, etc, but had to conform completely with Roman theological teaching. However I have heard/read mixed views on this from Eastern Catholics. Any helpful thoughts?
Click to expand...
Eastern Catholics have been encouraged on numerous occasions by Rome to maintain not only our liturgical, spiritual and disciplinary traditions, but also to maintain our theological traditions and teachings as well. This means that often times we are lead into theological disagreement with Rome, but not necessarily dogmatic disagreement (remember, there is a difference between theology and dogma). One example is that Eastern Catholics tend not to be Thomistic in their approach to theology (I recognize, however, the Thomism is not the sole approach even in the Roman tradition). Instead we tend to be much more Patristic and Liturgical in our approach.

As far as the filioque is concerned, remember that for a time it’s use in the Creed was even condemned by Rome, not necessarily because Rome saw the theology behind it as heretical, but because Rome recognized that no sui iuris Church had the authority to insert it into the Creed and require its use universally. As an attempt to encourage Eastern Catholics to return to their roots, Rome has, in the past Century, encouraged the removal of the filioque from the Creed among Eastern Catholics. So by removing it from the Creed Eastern Catholics on the one hand are being true to their own identity and tradition, and on the other hand they are being obedient to Rome.

By the way, you didn’t happen to attend the DL at Holy Transfiguration in McLean VA did you? If so, I was the guy next to you and your friend trying to help you out. 😃 Oh, and don’t worry about the parish being a dissonant parish or anything like that, Holy T is as avid about maintaining communion with Rome as it is about maintaining our authentic Eastern/Byzantine tradition. 👍
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Eastern Catholics have been encouraged on numerous occasions by Rome to maintain not only our liturgical, spiritual and disciplinary traditions, but also to maintain our theological traditions and teachings as well. This means that often times we are lead into theological disagreement with Rome, but not necessarily dogmatic disagreement (remember, there is a difference between theology and dogma). One example is that Eastern Catholics tend not to be Thomistic in their approach to theology (I recognize, however, the Thomism is not the sole approach even in the Roman tradition). Instead we tend to be much more Patristic and Liturgical in our approach.

As far as the filioque is concerned, remember that for a time it’s use in the Creed was even condemned by Rome, not necessarily because Rome saw the theology behind it as heretical, but because Rome recognized that no sui iuris Church had the authority to insert it into the Creed and require its use universally. As an attempt to encourage Eastern Catholics to return to their roots, Rome has, in the past Century, encouraged the removal of the filioque from the Creed among Eastern Catholics. So by removing it from the Creed Eastern Catholics on the one hand are being true to their own identity and tradition, and on the other hand they are being obedient to Rome.

By the way, you didn’t happen to attend the DL at Holy Transfiguration in McLean VA did you? If so, I was the guy next to you and your friend trying to help you out. 😃 Oh, and don’t worry about the parish being a dissonant parish or anything like that, Holy T is as avid about maintaining communion with Rome as it is about maintaining our authentic Eastern/Byzantine tradition. 👍
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response! LOL no, I was at St. John Chrysostom in Atlanta. Even as I stumbled through the liturgy I was actually able to help some of my friends out because I know some of the more important Greek terms (theology classes in college!) and I’ve had a little experience with Greek Orthodox DLs.

In response to your 1st and 2nd paragraphs, then, I would like to pose a quick hypothetical: suppose there was an EO parish that was feeling particularly ecumenical and decided to hook back up with Rome. From what you’re saying it sounds like if the parish added Benedict XVI’s name to the diptychs then they’re in communion with Rome (no further changes needed, since they’re supposed to keep Eastern traditions). Is this accurate? If not, then what else would necessarily have to be changed doctrinally/dogmatically (aside from primacy of the see of Peter)?

Another question…does one have to do anything to ‘convert’ to EC from RC, or just start going to an EC church? Is it frowned upon? (I know it’s frowned upon for ECs to go to a Roman rite church, they’re supposed to stay with their EC churches). I have fallen in love with patristic theology and the DL, and Thomistic thought was always kind of frustrating to me. It’s nice to know that this plurality exists within the CC.
 
pistis87 said:
Thanks for the response! LOL no, I was at St. John Chrysostom in Atlanta. Even as I stumbled through the liturgy I was actually able to help some of my friends out because I know some of the more important Greek terms (theology classes in college!) and I’ve had a little experience with Greek Orthodox DLs.

In response to your 1st and 2nd paragraphs, then, I would like to pose a quick hypothetical: suppose there was an EO parish that was feeling particularly ecumenical and decided to hook back up with Rome. From what you’re saying it sounds like if the parish added Benedict XVI’s name to the diptychs then they’re in communion with Rome (no further changes needed, since they’re supposed to keep Eastern traditions). Is this accurate? If not, then what else would necessarily have to be changed doctrinally/dogmatically (aside from primacy of the see of Peter)?

Another question…does one have to do anything to ‘convert’ to EC from RC, or just start going to an EC church? Is it frowned upon? (I know it’s frowned upon for ECs to go to a Roman rite church, they’re supposed to stay with their EC churches). I have fallen in love with patristic theology and the DL, and Thomistic thought was always kind of frustrating to me. It’s nice to know that this plurality exists within the CC.
Click to expand...
In response to your hypothetical question I would say, yes, essentially all they would really need to do is add the Pope of Rome back into the diptychs. This was pretty much what happened with the Melkites when they decided to officially declare communion with Rome (whether or not there was ever an official separation in the case of the Melkites remains historically unclear). Of course, as Eastern Catholics, we also accept Papal Primacy and even infallibility as being part of the Apostolic Tradition and not innovations of Pius IX and Vatican I, but only when those things are properly understood (I refer you to the many comments of Mardukm on Low, High and Absolutist Petrine views here).

For your second question, in order to officially change one’s canonical status from one sui iuris Church (i.e. the Roman) to another (i.e. the Melkite or one of the other Eastern or Oriental Churches) you would need to petition both your current bishop and the bishop of whatever sui iuris Church you hope to transfer into. This is typically done with the aid of your parish priest (your Melkite pastor if you attend a Melkite Church regularly). You’re usually expected to attend an Eastern parish for a couple of years before they will take your petition seriously. Also, you must be willing to embrace not only the Eastern liturgical life, but also the Eastern way of viewing the Faith itself (which can and often is VERY different from the Roman way). It is also completely possible to be a parishioner at an Eastern parish without officially changing.
 
ProVobis said:
I’ve heard the Pope pray without the Filioque in Greek.

I’ve heard the Pope pray with the Filioque in Latin.

Each language has its own reasons and I have no problems with either.
Click to expand...
Yes, so much nuisance translating things into Latin, it shouldn’t be used at all 😉
 
pistis87 said:
I was obviously not surprised at the absence of the filioque in the creed at EO liturgies, but I was surprised at its absence in the EC divine liturgy. …

1.) Is this standard practice? Do ECs always leave out the filioque or did I go to a particularly rebellious parish? 🙂

2.) If it is standard practice for ECs to stick with the original creed, what exactly is the nature of their loyalty to the papacy?
Click to expand...
I was surprised to see that no one mentioned this by now (perhaps I missed it), but most of the EC did recite the filioque until within living memory. Not so long ago it would have been easy to find pewbooks with the filioque clearly printed in the creed, and scratched out at some later (recent) date.

The only group I can imagine that may have not ever used the filioque is the Melkites, and I wouldn’t care to bet on it.
 
ProVobis said:
I’ve heard the Pope pray without the Filioque in Greek.

I’ve heard the Pope pray with the Filioque in Latin.

Each language has its own reasons and I have no problems with either.
Click to expand...
I don’t remember which Pope so opposed the filioque that he had two plates engraved with the Creed, one in Latin and one in Greek, both without the filioque.

He then had them mounted prominently in Rome, I think probably in the Lateran cathedral.

I am sure someone here has some solid information on it.
 
Hesychios said:
I don’t remember which Pope so opposed the filioque that he had two plates engraved with the Creed, one in Latin and one in Greek, both without the filioque.

He then had them mounted prominently in Rome, I think probably in the Lateran cathedral.

I am sure someone here has some solid information on it.
Click to expand...
I believe it was Pius I or Pius III. I think I referred to him in another response in this thread. They were both good examples of the sort of Western resistance I was talking about; I know I have the benefit of hindsight here but I’m kind of mystified that the addition of the filioque ever happened considering the resistance it received even in the West. If it was merely a problem of translation into Latin and not an innovation I would think the East would have been a bit more understanding…then again maybe not, as things were already strained between East and West.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top