Filioque - revisited

[mardukm]

I am starting this new thread on Filioque to split off the discussion from and preserve the purpose of the OP in the “Russian Church and Catholic Church” thread.

Dear brother Scott,

What I’m about to write I’ve already expressed in another thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=283644), but since you’re a new member, I want to save you from having to sift through all those pages.

I believe you’re wrong on both points 1 and 2, I reassert that the extra word “filioque” changes the meaning of that clause in the Creed (which effectively really does mean you’re proclaiming a different faith – a different “I believe …” statement),

That is not true at all. You have to understand that the 2nd Ecum Council’s reason for adding the text “Who proceeds from the Father” to the Creed of Nicea was to defend the Spirit’s divinity. Contrary to the claims of anti-filioque polemicists, the addition was not made to assert the monarchy of the Father. The Creed was formulated as a specific response to combat specific heresies. The monarchy of the Father has never been an issue in or for the Church during that time (and objectively never has been). So, to repeat, the phrase at issue, in the mind of the Fathers of the Second Ecum, was a dogmatic assertion on the divinity of the Holy Spirit, nothing more, nothing less.

So did or does the addition of filioque in the Latin Creed contradict the Faith of the 2nd Ecum? Did or does it entail a denial of the Spirit’s divinity? The answer is a resounding “NO.”

It goes back to St. Jerome and the Latin Vulgate. When he translated John 15:26 from the Greek, he used the word procedit to translate the word ekporeusai. It was the closest Latin word that could be used – unfortunately, it was not a transliteration. Both can be translated as “go forth” or “progress” or “proceed,” but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not – the notion of origination (in fact, while “proceeds” is an accurate translation – actually transliteration – of procedit, it is not so for ekporeusai).

When the Fathers of the 2nd Ecum in 381 formulated the new Creed for a more explicit defense of the Spirit’s divinity, they based the phrase at issue on John 15:26.

Fast-forward to the 4th Ecum in 451. Pope St. Leo requested the Creed of Constantinople to be translated into Latin. Based on Scripture, ekporeusai was again translated to procedit. From thence, for the first time, it spread to Western Christendom. Everyone knew that the intent of the addition to the phrase at issue (i.e., “proceeds from the Father”) was to defend the Spirit’s divinity. But the difference in language resulted in different meanings of the phrase. To the Greeks who used the term ekporeusai with its inherent reference to origination, the phrase defended the Spirit’s divinity by asserting His origin from the Father Who is the Arche of the Trinity. To the Latins who used the term procedit which only referred to a progression or going forth, the phrase defended the Spirit’s divinity by asserting His consubstantial Divinity with the Father.

When the Latins fought the Arians’ peculiar diminution of the Son’s divinity, they added “and the Son” to the phrase at issue to ensure the orthodox teaching of the consubstantial divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So what we have here is not two different Faiths, but two Traditions expressing the SAME Faith (belief in the Spirit’s divinity) in different, equally orthodox, ways.

It is ludicrous for Eastern or Oriental polemicists to claim that the Latins are expressing a different Faith by using “and the Son” - for they would be denying that the Persons of the Trinity are consubstantial, because that is what Latins are professing when they say “The Holy Spirit procedit (not ekporeusai) from the Father and the Son.” It is equally ludicrous for Latin polemicists to claim that Easterns and Orientals are expressing a different Faith by not using “and the Son” – for they would be denying that the Father is the arche of the Trinity, because that is what Easterns and Orientals are professing when they say “The Holy Spirit ekporeusai (not procedit) from the Father.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

and I do not believe for a second that the 7th council accepted a creed with the filioque.

Why?

As mentioned, both Latins and Greeks understood the phrase at issue as an assertion of the Spirit’s divinity. That Faith united them. It wasn’t until the 7th century that a problem occurred. Some Greek monks heard their Latin brethren use “and the Son,” and a debate ensued that the Latins denied the Father’s monarchy. The issue was referred to St. Maximos, who then inquired of the matter to the Latins. The Latins responded that they do not deny the Father’s monarchy and are not denying it by using “and the Son” in the Credal phrase at issue. Of course, the Latins were correct insofar as they never understood the phrase to be a statement on the origin of the Spirit, but rather a statement on the consubstantiality of Persons. This mollified the concerns of St. Maximos, who wisely also understood that the source of the tension was a linguistic difference, as he explained in a letter to the priest Marinus. St. Maximos was easily the greatest religious figure of that time with great influence. His understanding and wisdom on the matter must have spread in the East and there was peace on the matter for over 200 years — until St. Photius renewed the issue in the 9th century (his concerns were orthodox, but they were misplaced).

Now, the 7th Ecum, where filioque was used, occurred in the 8th century, before St. Photius renewed the issue, at a time when there was no tension on the matter between East and West. When I say that filioque was used at the 7th Ecum, I do not mean that the Creed of the Council contained filioque. There was a certain point when the bishops were asked to give their professions of Faith, and each bishop confessed their local Creed. It was Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople who professed the Creed with filioque. Coincidentally, St. Maximos’ sphere of influence was Constantinople, and I don’t find it hard to imagine that his wisdom and understanding on the issue was more pervasive in Constantinople than anywhere else in the East (my memory is spotty, but I think I’ve read that Fr. Romanides exhorts Easterns to follow the example of St. Maximos on the matter). So I pose the question again, “why is it so hard for you to believe that filioque could have been used at the 7th Ecum Council?”

At the Council of Florence, the Latins produced the Acts of the 7th Ecum containing Patriarch Tarasius’ profession of Faith with filioque. The Greeks for the most part did not have a response, IIRC (though I think one or two reps claimed it was a forgery).

I’d like to make a final comment on removing the filioque. My position has always been (well, “always” as in “since I joined the Catholic communion”) – if the Latins remove it, that’s great, but it should not be used as a condition for reunion. It is perfectly fine and orthodox in the Latin Creed (though, of course, to be repudiated in the Greek Creed). Reunion can and will only be achieved through the spiritual fruit of understanding, never by one group forcing the other to give up their T/traditions.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Simon,

I thought that the fundamental controversy re the filioque was a Rome’s authority to add it, not the substance of the change itself, and that it simply touched off a crisis that had brewing in ecclesiology for some time. Are you saying that the orthodox actually object to the substance of the change? If that’s the case, then truly, it is rare in history that so many have been divided for so long by so little. Think about what we believe about the trinity! To split the Church of God over the question of how to split the hair of whether the third person (who is all three persons) proceeds from the first person (who is all three persons) or the first and second persons (who are individually and jointly all three persons) strikes me as somewhere between tragedy and farce.

I agree with your point, but I think you are not expressing yourself too well (I see you are a catechumen). I’ve highlighted the segments of your comment that are theologically problematic.

I think what you are trying to say is that the essence of each Person is also contained in the other Persons. It is important not to confuse the concept of One Essence (or Substance) from the concept of the Persons of the Trinity. Each Person is unique, but shares the one Essence, and thus there is One God, and the Source of this Essence is the Father alone. It is wholly incorrect to say that any one Person is “individually and jointly all three Persons.”

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear Catholic87,

Oh…so to my Roman Catholic Brethren why do we say the Filioque…

You say it because it is in your venerable Tradition. If you mean, “why did we start saying it,” your Church started using it to combat the heresy of Arianism.

didn’t the Holy Father recite it without it at one point during a meeting with one of the patriarchs???

He did that probably because he was reciting it in Greek. It is heretical to use “And the Son” in the Greek Creed, but perfectly orthodox to do so in the Latin Creed.

Blessings

P.S. If you have any other questions on the Latin Church’s beliefs on the matter, you should really ask them in the Apologetics or Traditional Catholicism section.

 

[JohnVIII]

…I’d like to make a final comment on removing the filioque. My position has always been (well, “always” as in “since I joined the Catholic communion”) – if the Latins remove it, that’s great, but it should not be used as a condition for reunion. It is perfectly fine and orthodox in the Latin Creed (though, of course, to be repudiated in the Greek Creed). Reunion can and will only be achieved through the spiritual fruit of understanding, never by one group forcing the other to give up their T/traditions.

Blessings

I do not disagree with the teaching about the Filioque (as I used to when I was EO). But I still think it would really be the right thing to do if it were removed from use in any and all uses everywhere in the Church. Not only can you find (prior to it’s addition in Rome) about a half a dozen popes saying that it should not be added to the Creed (and lets also not forget about the Silver Tablets placed in Rome by Pope Leo III wherein the Latin Creed was written without the Filioque), but I think it can be shown that there were actually two ecumenical matters (not just one) that came out of the counsel of Constantinople at the time of Photius. One was the reinstatement of Patriarch Photius, but the other was that the Creed of Nicaea not have any additions (word additions, not just faith additions). Anything that Pope John the VIII agreed to at this counsel is of ecumenical force, and there is little doubt in my mind that Pope John VIII was in full agreement with Patriarch Photius in this counsel with regard to the matter of the Creed being unchangeable. (The other matters of this counsel were not ecumenical because Pope John did not agree, such as equal prerogatives granted to Constantinople that Rome has was not ecumenical)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

I do not disagree with the teaching about the Filioque (as I used to when I was EO). But I still think it would really be the right thing to do if it were removed from use in any and all uses everywhere in the Church. Not only can you find (prior to it’s addition in Rome) about a half a dozen popes saying that it should not be added to the Creed (and lets also not forget about the Silver Tablets placed in Rome by Pope Leo III wherein the Latin Creed was written without the Filioque), but I think it can be shown that there were actually two ecumenical matters (not just one) that came out of the counsel of Constantinople at the time of Photius. One was the reinstatement of Patriarch Photius, but the other was that the Creed of Nicaea not have any additions (word additions, not just faith additions). Anything that Pope John the VIII agreed to at this counsel is of ecumenical force, and there is little doubt in my mind that Pope John VIII was in full agreement with Patriarch Photius in this counsel with regard to the matter of the Creed being unchangeable. (The other matters of this counsel were not ecumenical because Pope John did not agree, such as equal prerogatives granted to Constantinople that Rome has was not ecumenical)

Good points all. But I ask you to consider the following:

Most (if not all) historians interpret the creation of the silver tablets by Pope St. Leo III as a politico-ecclesiastical statement against Charlemagne’s pretensions for Church power (since Charlemagne was a strong proponent for the official addition of filioque as a universal expression of the Creed, and not just a local expression). And most (if not all) Catholic apologists today interpret Pope John VIII’s agreement with St. Photius on the same matter as driven by purely politico-ecclesiastical motives in order to effect a reunion for Pope John to solidify his tenuous position in the Western lands.

However, very few know (I’ve only read less than a handful of Catholic and non-Catholic sources assert this - of note is the old Catholic Encyclopedia) that there was actually a dangerous movement from a few monasteries in France in the 9th century that interpreted filioque in the heretical sense of double Procession (i.e., Procession from two sources). So I fully agree with the wisdom of Pope St. Leo III and Pope John VIII in their assertions that filioque should not be added to the Creed, for they were combatting the heresy of double Procession that was simmering within certain quarters of the Latin Church. Of course, most of the Latin Church did not hold this heresy. Most (if not all) historians interpret the maintenance of filioque in the Latin Church despite these papal decrees to mean that the Pope was just being ignored. I think It is more likely, and more sensible, that the Latin Church was aware of the true motive for these papal decrees (to combat the heresy of double Procession), and that those local churches which never held such a belief (which was most of them) did not feel compelled to remove filioque from their Creed since the purpose of the decrees did not apply to them.

(Btw, regardless of all this, as far as Pope John VIII is concerned, I’m in that camp of Catholic apologists who believe that he quickly repudiated his agreements with Patriarch Photius when it was discovered that the original papal documents sent to the Council at Constantinople for ratification were tampered with.)

When reunion was first attempted at the Council of Lyons, the Latin Church explicitly condemned the notion of double Procession, a condemnation that was repeated at the Council of Florence. So we now have Ecumenical (and not just papal) decrees that explicitly assert what Popes St. Leo III and John VIII (and St. Photius) intended theologically by removing filioque from the local Latin Creed.

With these explicit Conciliar decrees condemning double Procession, I don’t see a justification for removing filioque from the local Latin Creed today since the theological concern of the Greeks has already been explicitly addressed. What is left now is to educate people on the actual purpose of filioque in the Latin Creed.

I truly feel this education is the better if not best remedy for the situation in today’s atmosphere. Removal of filioque today would be worse for ecumenical relations on two fronts - 1) It would perpetuate the lie that the Western Church was historically teaching a heresy; 2) it could have deleterious effects on healing the Western schism between Catholics and Protestants.

Blessings,
Mardiuk

 

[malphono]

When reunion was first attempted at the Council of Lyons, the Latin Church explicitly condemned the notion of double Procession, a condemnation that was repeated at the Council of Florence. So we now have Ecumenical (and not just papal) decrees that explicitly assert what Popes St. Leo III and John VIII (and St. Photius) intended theologically by removing filioque from the local Latin Creed.

With these explicit Conciliar decrees condemning double Procession, I don’t see a justification for removing filioque from the local Latin Creed today since the theological concern of the Greeks has already been explicitly addressed. What is left now is to educate people on the actual purpose of filioque in the Latin Creed.

I truly feel this education is the better if not best remedy for the situation in today’s atmosphere. Removal of filioque today would be worse for ecumenical relations on two fronts - 1) It would perpetuate the lie that the Western Church was historically teaching a heresy; 2) it could have deleterious effects on healing the Western schism between Catholics and Protestants.

Generally I don’t involve myself with these endless threads on filioque, but I’m making a partial exception here. (By “partial” I mean that I’m commenting on a post and adding a thought or two, but am not, and will not, get into any of the arguments from Greek language (ultimately stemming from philosophy) that inevitably take over this discussion.)

I’m not a fan of the filoque being used by the East and Orient if for no other reason than it is a clear latinization. OTOH, it’s use in the West is another matter entirely, and you’ve covered the basis (and bases) for that rather nicely. I agree that it’s removal at this stage would give credence to a lie, but I don’t buy the expression “Western schism” regarding Protestants. "Western heresy (or heresies) is more to the point, but I digress.

In any case, the amount of vitriol that the EO in particular expend when dealing with what really is a very simple issue never ceases to amaze me. (I often wonder why the same vitriol is not present over the addition of “Deum de Deo” as well.)

 

[JohnVIII]

…I truly feel this education is the better if not best remedy for the situation in today’s atmosphere. Removal of filioque today would be worse for ecumenical relations on two fronts - 1) It would perpetuate the lie that the Western Church was historically teaching a heresy;…

Since a proper understanding of what is actually meant by “the Father and the Son” seems to always require further explanation anyway, why not use the opportunity of the removal of “and the Son” to teach! It would be a good idea to teach the distinction between doctrine with discipline. It should be made clear that the Magisterium is inerrant in teaching doctrine but not with regard to discipline. The doctrine (when correctly explained) concerning the filioque is true, but method of teaching this truth (via its inclusion in the Creed) may not be the right way to teach it.

…2) it could have deleterious effects on healing the Western schism between Catholics and Protestants…

What?

…So I fully agree with the wisdom of Pope St. Leo III and Pope John VIII in their assertions that filioque should not be added to the Creed, for they were combatting the heresy of double Procession that was simmering within certain quarters of the Latin Church…

This seems to be the primary error that most err in understanding the filioque today, so it follows then that now would be a good time to go back to not having it in the Creed. BTW, even the term “double Procession” needs further explanation as this too can be understood in an orthodox way as well as unorthodox way.

You know what analogy that finally did it for me?..

Picture two tuning forks next to each other. Both are the same note. One represents the Father, and the other represents the Son. The “source” of the Holy Spirit is the Father alone, so have only one of the two tuning forks struck so that it sounds; then see what happens to the other tuning fork that was not struck. Because they are the same note the vibration “proceeding” from the one that was struck causes the other that was not struck to also start vibrating as well. The result, the sound (the Holy Spirit) proceeds from both tuning forks even though the origin of the sound began with only one.

…But you can’t add a long paragraph like this one in the Creed, and the phrase “proceeds from the Father and the Son” can be taken oh so many ways!

Whether or not the filioque is in the Creed is the way a teaching is taught, not the teaching itself, that is, it is an issue of discipline, not an issue of doctrine. I think I am ready to accept the Churches teaching that Rome will not teach error in doctrine, but, is it not so that Rome can (and has) made errors with regard to discipline? Once again, the removal of the filioque from the Creed would present an opportunity for Rome to do what it does best - teach the Faith!

 

[Shiranui117]

Since a proper understanding of what is actually meant by “the Father and the Son” seems to always require further explanation anyway, why not use the opportunity of the removal of “and the Son” to teach! It would be a good idea to teach the distinction between doctrine with discipline. It should be made clear that the Magisterium is inerrant in teaching doctrine but not with regard to discipline. The doctrine (when correctly explained) concerning the filioque is true, but method of teaching this truth (via its inclusion in the Creed) may not be the right way to teach it.

…But you can’t add a long paragraph like this one in the Creed, and the phrase “proceeds from the Father and the Son” can be taken oh so many ways!

Whether or not the filioque is in the Creed is the way a teaching is taught, not the teaching itself, that is, it is an issue of discipline, not an issue of doctrine. I think I am ready to accept the Churches teaching that Rome will not teach error in doctrine, but, is it not so that Rome can (and has) made errors with regard to discipline? Once again, the removal of the filioque from the Creed would present an opportunity for Rome to do what it does best - teach the Faith!

Though, calling Mary the “Mother of God” can be taken oh so many ways as well, so it’s something of a moot point, isn’t it?

 

[JohnVIII]

Though, calling Mary the “Mother of God” can be taken oh so many ways as well, so it’s something of a moot point, isn’t it?

No, actually you are making a very good point, it’s not moot at all! There was alot of discussion at the 3rd Ecumenical Counsel as to whether or not the Creed should have more said in it about Mary, the Mother of God. Some said that her perpetual virginity should be added to the Creed, for example. But the conclusion of the counsel was that it would be better for the Creed remain as it is without any further additions, otherwise it may promote the idea that the Faith itself can be changed which could end up causing schism in the Church.

Imagine what might have happened if the Creed remained unchanged for 1000 years and then, after that 1000 years, it had a short phrase about the Mother of God added, such as, “…born of the virgin Mary, who never knew original sin…”. Now if the Supreme Magesterium added something like that to the Creed I’m sure it would be correct teaching, but would it be a good idea to add it to the Creed? I would bet you that such an addition to the Creed would end up bringing about massive needless schisms in the Church. And isn’t it true that “schism is worse than heresy”? This would be an error in discipline, not an error in doctrine.

 

[Shiranui117]

No, actually you are making a very good point, it’s not moot at all! There was alot of discussion at the 3rd Ecumenical Counsel as to whether or not the Creed should have more said in it about Mary, the Mother of God. Some said that her perpetual virginity should be added to the Creed, for example. But the conclusion of the counsel was that it would be better for the Creed remain as it is without any further additions, otherwise it may promote the idea that the Faith itself can be changed which could end up causing schism in the Church.

Imagine what might have happened if the Creed remained unchanged for 1000 years and then, after that 1000 years, it had a short phrase about the Mother of God added, such as, “…born of the virgin Mary, who never knew original sin…”. Now if the Supreme Magesterium added something like that to the Creed I’m sure it would be correct teaching, but would it be a good idea to add it to the Creed? I would bet you that such an addition to the Creed would end up bringing about massive needless schisms in the Church. And isn’t it true that “schism is worse than heresy”? This would be an error in discipline, not an error in doctrine.

You make a good and valid point there; we don’t explain the Real Presence in the Creed, either, for instance.

 

[stephraim]

I’m still a fan of “through the Son”, though that can also be interpreted in different ways. I can’t recall specifically, but I think I remember reading that the original addition to combat the heresy was actually something like “per Filium”, rather than Filioque.

 

[dvdjs]

I often wonder why the same vitriol is not present over the addition of “Deum de Deo” as well.

Don’t you mean the failure to delete it? It was, after all, in the Creed of Nicea.

 

[scottm]

When I say that filioque was used at the 7th Ecum, I do not mean that the Creed of the Council contained filioque. There was a certain point when the bishops were asked to give their professions of Faith, and each bishop confessed their local Creed. It was Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople who professed the Creed with filioque. Coincidentally, St. Maximos’ sphere of influence was Constantinople, and I don’t find it hard to imagine that his wisdom and understanding on the issue was more pervasive in Constantinople than anywhere else in the East (my memory is spotty, but I think I’ve read that Fr. Romanides exhorts Easterns to follow the example of St. Maximos on the matter). So I pose the question again, “why is it so hard for you to believe that filioque could have been used at the 7th Ecum Council?”

Hi. Are you saying that the “filioque” was accepted by the Council as a whole?
Here’s why that’s hard to swallow: once a year on the Byzantine Orthodox calendar there’s a feast day celebrating the 7th council. It occurs a week or two after Pascha. It’s “icon Sunday” – people bring icons from home, and everyone parades around the church with their icons. The 7th council is the one that declared icons are okay, see.

So, if every year Orthodox celebrate the 7th council, and if the “filioque” is a problem for them, then how can we say that the 7th council okay’ed the filioque? Contradictory, don’t you think?

I can accept your round-about way of endorsing the filioque, but at the same time, on it’s face the extra Latin word changes the meaning – because it’s ambiguous. That’s just plain as day. You can’t lay the two versions side-by-side and say, “Well, yes, plainly they are identical in meaning.” It isn’t so. For reason of clarity combined with the fact that it ain’t the one voted on by a council, the Latin version ought to be discarded.

Let’s hold an Eighth Ecumenical council and pick a version of the Creed, or vote that both versions are acceptable when read in the way that you described. I’d be cool with a Council voting that both are acceptable when understood the way you described.

 

[mardukm]

but I don’t buy the expression “Western schism” regarding Protestants. "Western heresy (or heresies) is more to the point,

Good point.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

Since a proper understanding of what is actually meant by “the Father and the Son” seems to always require further explanation anyway, why not use the opportunity of the removal of “and the Son” to teach! It would be a good idea to teach the distinction between doctrine with discipline. It should be made clear that the Magisterium is inerrant in teaching doctrine but not with regard to discipline. The doctrine (when correctly explained) concerning the filioque is true, but method of teaching this truth (via its inclusion in the Creed) may not be the right way to teach it.

You make an excellent suggestion. But though attractive, I don’t think it is realistic. The official Catholic magisterial explanation on filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory on which I based my explanation in the OP has been around for over 15 years. And even with today’s standards of communication, we still have way too many EO asserting that filioque is a heresy, or, as brother Scott put it, represents a “different Faith.”

Education must come first, and then - maybe in the next generation - we can talk about removing filioque without any repercussions.

mardukm:

1. it could have deleterious effects on healing the Western schism between Catholics and Protestants…

What?

From what I’ve read, the Anglicans and EO have had talks on the issue, and the Anglicans don’t seem willing to remove filioque - at least not according to the terms insisted upon by the EO. The Lutherans are more amenable, but are not united on the matter. I don’t know about the other Protestant confessional bodies.

I just think removing filioque would place another - and wholly unnecessary - obstacle on that ecumenical front. Suppose the CC and EOC reunite, and a Protestant body wishes to return to the Western Church, but insists on maintaining filioque? Are we going to have to call an Ecumenical council? Does not the Latin Patriarch have the prerogative and competence to make the local decision? If not, then why do we Easterns/Orientals complain about patriarchal rights? It gives me a headache just thinking about it. Making removal of filioque a condition of union is more trouble than it’s worth, IMO.

This seems to be the primary error that most err in understanding the filioque today, so it follows then that now would be a good time to go back to not having it in the Creed. BTW, even the term “double Procession” needs further explanation as this too can be understood in an orthodox way as well as unorthodox way.

I agree. I’ve lobbied for the removal of the term “double Procession” from the language of our Latin brethren because of its heterodox implications. But I do that only because that term is not part of the ancient Tradition of the Latin Church. However, filioque is. It would be a lot easier, and less problematic ethically and theologically, to oppose the term “double Procession.”

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

You know what analogy that finally did it for me?..

…But you can’t add a long paragraph like this one in the Creed, and the phrase “proceeds from the Father and the Son” can be taken oh so many ways!

That was an awesome analogy! Very clear and concise, and makes you involve all the senses. You are correct, such an explanatory text does not belong in a Creed, but FYI, that very explanation was asserted by the Council of Florence - though in more abstract terms. The Council of Florence dogmatically taught that there is only one Source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit (i.e., the Father), while the Son is the Cause of the Holy Spirit just as the Father is.

In terms that students of St. Palamas might understand - the Son is not the Source of the Spirit’s hypostasis, but He is a Cause in the sense that the Divine Essence is part and parcel of the hypostasis. The Divine Essence of the Spirit ekporeusai and procedit from the Father and procedit from the Son.

Whether or not the filioque is in the Creed is the way a teaching is taught, not the teaching itself, that is, it is an issue of discipline, not an issue of doctrine. I think I am ready to accept the Churches teaching that Rome will not teach error in doctrine, but, is it not so that Rome can (and has) made errors with regard to discipline? Once again, the removal of the filioque from the Creed would present an opportunity for Rome to do what it does best - teach the Faith!

That’s a great concluding paragraph.

To be honest, aside from the two reasons I gave (the effect for ecumenical relations), I have two other really big problems with the idea of removing filioque:

1. It would be the height of hypocrisy to make the removal a condition of union because it is the Eastern and Oriental Churches that have historically insisted upon the preservation of local Traditions as a condition of union.
2. The canonical argument against filioque is not patristic nor Traditional. It is utterly modern. I can’t find any trace of it before the 20th cventury, maybe the nineteenth. If you read the traditional Eastern sources against filioque, their arguments were purely theological, not canonical. Just read St. Photius’ Mystagogy, the Synod of Blarchanae, St. Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. They never argued, “Rome cannot add this text because it takes an ecumenical council to change the text of the Creed.” Their argument was consistently, “Rome cannot add this text because it changes the Faith that has been established by the ecumenical councils in the Creed.” Conclusively, the only way to resolve this issue is to educate each other on the theological meaning of our respective Traditions on the matter.

I feel the canonical argument from non-Catholics is merely a canard by triumphalists, and I have absolutely no sympathy for triumphalists, no matter what Tradition (Eastern, Orient, Western) they are from. Having said that, to repeat what I stated earlier, once there is a concerted effort at education, maybe in the next generation (or sooner – or later), then let’s talk about removing filioque from the Western Creed. Removing filioque before understanding occurs is like removing the bandage before the wound has healed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Scott,

Hi. Are you saying that the “filioque” was accepted by the Council as a whole?

No. I’m saying that no one had a problem with it when they heard it from the president of the council because everyone knew he was only professing his local Creed. As stated, the bishops were all asked to make their confession of Faith, they each professed their local Creeds, and not all the Creeds were perfectly identical. And I’m saying that the text of one’s local Creed was not the main concern of the early Church, but rather the Faith contained in that Creed. Finally, I’m also saying that, due to understanding inspired by St. Maximos, the East at that time did not view filioque as heretical.

Here’s why that’s hard to swallow: once a year on the Byzantine Orthodox calendar there’s a feast day celebrating the 7th council. It occurs a week or two after Pascha. It’s “icon Sunday” – people bring icons from home, and everyone parades around the church with their icons. The 7th council is the one that declared icons are okay, see.

So, if every year Orthodox celebrate the 7th council, and if the “filioque” is a problem for them, then how can we say that the 7th council okay’ed the filioque? Contradictory, don’t you think?

I don’t understand the logic. The Council did not formulate a profession of faith with filioque. All I’m saying is that there was one bishop who made a profession of his local Creed with filioque, among other bishops who made professions of their local Creeds, and no one made a fuss about it.

I can accept your round-about way of endorsing the filioque, but at the same time, on it’s face the extra Latin word changes the meaning – because it’s ambiguous. That’s just plain as day. You can’t lay the two versions side-by-side and say, “Well, yes, plainly they are identical in meaning.” It isn’t so. For reason of clarity combined with the fact that it ain’t the one voted on by a council, the Latin version ought to be discarded.

On its face, if you lay the two versions side-by-side, even without filioque, the Latin and Greek Creeds are NOT identical in meaning, because ekporeusai and procedit do not mean exactly the same thing. However, despite the difference in meaning, they are both perfectly orthodox, and they both perfectly represent the original intention and teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council…

Let’s hold an Eighth Ecumenical council and pick a version of the Creed, or vote that both versions are acceptable when read in the way that you described. I’d be cool with a Council voting that both are acceptable when understood the way you described.

I’d be cool with that too. Of course, I don’t think it’s necessary because the Latin Creed has never been heretical, but it would be helpful. What I do think is necessary is better education of the masses on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Don’t you mean the failure to delete it? It was, after all, in the Creed of Nicea.

Since the text used is otherwise that of the Niceo-Constaninopolitan Creed of 381, and since that phrase does not appear in the Greek, it can also be seen as an addition, albeit a totally innocuous one.

 

[dcointin]

I have some honest questions that I was hoping Mardukm and others could address about the Filioque.

This is what the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 decreed:

“We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.”

What is meant by “as from one principle”… “as by one single spiration”?

I understand that Catholics are not saying that the Holy Spirit has its origin in the Son in the same sense that he has his origin in the Father, but I’m not sure what is being said.