Filioque?

[Virginia804]

I don’t know what to do.
I became Catholic 10 years ago, but right from the start began reading people like Isaac of Syria, Olivier Clement, and other early fathers, and find that I resonate with that spirituality more than I do with what I’ll call “cultural Catholic” spirituality.

I so wish the rift were healed, and I keep hearing the issue Filioque is the core problem.

Really?

I’ve read up on the whole thing of it being added to the Nicean Creed, but what I honestly do not understand is why either side is so adamant about this phrasing.

I’m NOT trying to start any sort of a fight or debate, it just seems to me like none of us can say we KNOW what the right phrasing should be regarding the nature of the relationships between/among the members of the Trinity.

So, I know someone who is becoming Antioch Orthodox - Orthodox with a Western rite.

Maybe that is something I should investigate?

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

I don’t know what to do.
I became Catholic 10 years ago, but right from the start began reading people like Isaac of Syria, Olivier Clement, and other early fathers, and find that I resonate with that spirituality more than I do with what I’ll call “cultural Catholic” spirituality.

I so wish the rift were healed, and I keep hearing the issue Filioque is the core problem.

Really?

I’ve read up on the whole thing of it being added to the Nicean Creed, but what I honestly do not understand is why either side is so adamant about this phrasing.

I’m NOT trying to start any sort of a fight or debate, it just seems to me like none of us can say we KNOW what the right phrasing should be regarding the nature of the relationships between/among the members of the Trinity.

So, I know someone who is becoming Antioch Orthodox - Orthodox with a Western rite.

Maybe that is something I should investigate?

the Filioque is just one issue…there is also the problem of the role of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Virginia804]

What’s the issue about the Bishop of Rome?
Is that about the authority of the Pope…I don’t know much about that either.
Also, there’s all the stuff the Catholic Church has (do they?) from the sacking of Constantinople…

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

What’s the issue about the Bishop of Rome?
Is that about the authority of the Pope…I don’t know much about that either.
Also, there’s all the stuff the Catholic Church has (do they?) from the sacking of Constantinople…

well, the big issue is the question of supremacy vs. primacy. Basically, " Is the Bishop of Rome over the other bishops? Or all they all equal and he is the first among them? Is he infallible or not? " i’m still learning about his role myself so I’m sure someone a bit more well read in this area could answer it better

I don’t know much about the sacking of Constantiople either…although I am eager to learn more about it!

 

[5Loaves]

I so wish the rift were healed, and I keep hearing the issue Filioque is the core problem.

Really?

We don’t recite the Filioque in the Eastern Churches, and no one, including the Pope, includes it when the Creed in recited in Greek.

You might find “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation” useful to read.

 

[Hesychios]

Greetings sister!

We don’t recite the Filioque in the Eastern Churches, and no one, including the Pope, includes it when the Creed in recited in Greek.

As I understand it, this is correct.

However it is clear from Allatae Sunt that Popes did require Greeks to use the filioque in the past, both in Constantinople and on Crete .

At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition. It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church had no power to add the phrase “and from the Son.”…

… The latter position was taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7. Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres, who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors. Rather they required that Orientals and Greeks add “and from the Son” to the Creed, in order to remove doubts about their orthodoxy, “to make a definite trial of the faith and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to say the same Creed as the Latins.”

and

“Similarly, Pope Callistus III, when he sent Brother Simon of the Order of Preachers to Crete in the capacity of Inquisitor, commanded him to watch carefully that the Greeks said “and from the Son” in the Creed, since in Crete there were many Greek refugees from Constantinople which had fallen to the Turks two years earlier (Gregory of Trebizond, epistola ad Cretans, in his * Graeciae Orthodoxae*, quoted by Allatius, p. 537, and confirmed by Echardus, Scriptorum Ordinis Sanai Dominici, vol. 1, p. 762). It may be that the Pope suspected that the Greeks from Constantinople were weak in this dogma of the faith.”

I think it can be seen that this policy had a negative effect. Venice held the Greek island from 1204 to 1645AD, and the Greek population was essentially Eastern Catholic, at least under the law (as evidenced by the appointment of an inquisitor). Today the Catholic former Archdiocese (presently a diocese) of Crete is rather small.

Wisely, the Catholic church seems to no longer insist upon it for the Greeks. I don’t know when the policy changed though, I would be interested to find out (perhaps under Pope John XXIII ?).

It’s a bit like closing the barn door after the horses get out

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia has stated publicly several times that things like the filioque, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc. are really non-issues. There are difficulties involved in each of those theologoumena, but not difficulties that justify separation. He stated this at Orientale Lumen VIII (I believe, but I’ll have to double check), and has written about it in his book “The Orthodox Church.” I believe Fr. John Meyendorff felt the same way (see his book “Byzantine Theology”).

Both sides, East and West, are in agreement that the only real issue left dividing us is the role and infallibility of the papacy. To this I think that both sides need to look to the Melkites as the example. The Melkites have been the most vocal in standing up for the rights and dignity of the Christian East and have refused to allow themselves to be dominated by Rome. Instead the Melkites seek to live out communion with the Bishop of Rome, while at the same time remaining fully Orthodox. Yes, this has its problems, difficulties, and vexations. It is a position that is misunderstood by both Roman Catholics (not Rome itself) and Orthodox alike. But at least someone is living communion instead of just talking about it and how great it will be if/when we get there.

 

[jbm0117]

As an Eastern Catholic, I did put a lot of thought and research into this. My conclusioin like Metro Ware they are all non-issues. I do think that the Pope should say first among equals and work for a total communion. We are all Human and will argue about the smallest of things. To me living my life and trying to be a good person and be kind to others, it does not matter to me.

 

[Virginia804]

It sounds like the issue of the Filioque may actually have to do with the primacy of the pope, since some of the friction was about whether people should be forced to include it or not. Nobody likes to be forced to say they believe things.

I agree we should treat it as a non-issue, because in all honesty, I don’t think either the East or the West would say they have a complete understand of the relationships of the members of the Trinity. Maybe they should get together and work on a new form of the creed, that eliminates either version. Maybe saying the Holy Spirit issues from the Father and/or/not also the Son is more than we should be saying. Maybe all we should say is that we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, and leave out that last phrase altogether. I’m sure I don’t know the solution, but I think if we all pray that the Holy Spirit reveal to the leaders of both the East and the West the desire to reconcile, the wisdom to do that will be granted to them.

Maybe if we here pray for that, it will be one more voice, and eventually there will be enough voices.

Thanks.

 

[Alethiaphile]

The fundamental problem is not the Filioque clause itself so much, as it is the the false theology that developed behind it in the West after the schism, starting with St. Anselm. This is the theology of the double, eternal procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son “equally” and “as from one principle”, as it was defined at the western councils of Lyons and Florence. This means that the Father and the Son act together, jointly, and equally, in eternally processing the Spirit. It divides the Trinity into the Father and the Son above, and the Spirit underneath them, in an inverted triangle. There is simply no other way to honestly characterize it. This image of the Trinity detracts from the monarchy of the Father as the unique eternal source of the Godhead, and divides two persons in the Trinity against the other in a way abhorrent to the Fathers. That is why it is important.

 

[peresieh]

John 15:26 (NKJV) “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you FROM THE FATHER, the Spirit of truth who PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER, He will testify of me.”
Other versions have “who goes out from the Father” or similar wording. The bottom line is that Holy Scripture, in the words of Jesus Himself, states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. That is why the addition of the Filioque to the Creed is not accepted by Eastern Christians.

 

[Virginia804]

But maybe since it also says “whom I will send to you” makes it sound like the son is involved in the sending in a critical way. Maybe that’s why Bishop Kallistos says it’s a non-issue. How about if the phrase were “who proceeds from the Father and who is sent by the Son”?

 

[prodromos]

How about if the phrase were “who proceeds from the Father and who is sent by the Son”?

I believe that expression is completely orthodox, but unfortunately it does not negate what has been ‘infallibly’ defined by the Council of Ferrara-Florence which cannot in any way be accepted by the Orthodox.

John

 

[Formosus]

The fundamental problem is not the Filioque clause itself so much, as it is the the false theology that developed behind it in the West after the schism, starting with St. Anselm…

The theology behind the Latin Filioque definitely goes back to St. Augustine at least. St. Anselm was really just continuing an already developed tradition in the west.

 

[Virginia804]

I wonder how far back it really does go. What did St. Augustine base it upon, and why is it that if someone proposes something so theologically unsound, why do they still get cannonized? St. Augustine is saint to the Orthodox and the Catholics alike (different subject here, since I’m just venting about Origen not being canonized). But seriously, what did Augustine base it upon?

 

[Joseph_LaMothe]

I am a RC marring a Ukrainian Catholic and have been focused on this point recently. It is actually mostly a linguistic problem. The reason that it is a problem for the Greeks to say it is that it is a problem for the Greeks! It is heritical!!! The Latin, however, is not the same thing and is not heritical. This is why their can be a joint statment of belife (sugested above, PLEASE do read it!)

The comment on the heiarchy of the father is important, as this is what the East wants to preserve. St. Thomas Aquanias understood the spriation of the sprit as the exchange of love between Lover (Father) and Beloved (Son). The Latins emphasise the relationship of persons where as the East emphases the transmition of natures.

It is NOT okay to say that the HS is a product of Father and Son in His Divinity as if He gets his nature from them like a child from parents. However, even the East recognises that the HS in His temporal mission is sent BY the Son FROM the Father. In the conception of Jesus the Spirt was sent FROM the Father FOR the Son. In this little Biblical snip of Trinitarian activity we can see the cooperation of the Three in all things and how wording (even my own words I decided to pick) can very eaisly become very hard to follow, especally centeries later and in multiple languages.

Terms like THROUGH the Son have been offered as an atempt to compramise. Both Greek and Latin Fathers knew that the two came about in diffent ways which is why we here Begotton not Made versus Proceeds from. We all acknoldge the difference but have had trouble finding an accurate way of saying it that works in both laguages. However, what is important to know is that Romans agree with Orthodox when the Orthodox call it heritical because the Greek it is understood as the Holy Spirit comes from two sources, dividing the one Godhead. There are two verbs in Greek for one Latin Word, and if the specific form of the Greek is used and understood rather than the broad it is Heritical for both parties. The borad sense of the word is used by Greek Fathers in the sence Latins mean procedere. (Sorry about not putting in the Greek, words, I don’t think it will show up and my Greek is poor, wich is why I find this issue hard to understand).

Read Maximus the Confesser, a great saint that understood the issues of laguage on this matter.

And, the reason for the importance in both sides is that we want to be right about God, if your church does not think it is right, what is the point? Religion is not a social club, and our faith is a difficult demanding one. I am here because the Catholic Church (East and West) is right, even if I don’t always understand. To say, “We where wrong about God” is for a church to be falible about that which is most important. This is why there have been people die rather than change small words around. It is not a small issue, it is EVEYTHING! All Faith is…

 

[Alethiaphile]

The theology behind the Latin Filioque definitely goes back to St. Augustine at least. St. Anselm was really just continuing an already developed tradition in the west.

The Filioque goes back that far, and even farther, but not the full-blown theology of the double-procession that I recounted in my post. Before Lyons and Florence, the Filioque clause was capable of an orthodox interpretation as being a poor expression of “From the Father, trhough the Son”. After Lyons and Florence, it was no longer capable of being so interpreted.

 

[Hesychios]

After Lyons and Florence, it was no longer capable of being so interpreted.

There’s that slippery animal Development of Doctrine again.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

There’s that slippery animal Development of Doctrine again.

Hi Hesychios!

I don’t understand why so many of us Eastern Christians speak so poorly of the idea of development of doctrine. After all, if doctrine didn’t develop we wouldn’t have such concepts as Mary the Theotokos, the Trinity, the one nature and two hypostases of Christ, or homoousios. Nor would we have such concepts as “essence” and “energies.” Perhaps we have a different understanding of what “development of doctrine” means. Would you mind enlightening me. I don’t mean this in any sort of sarcastic way. I’ve seriously been searching and searching to find out why we in the East have such a problem with this idea. My search hasn’t produced any fruits. So I could use some help.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Phillip Rolfes wrote:

Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia has stated publicly several times that things like the filioque, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, etc. are really non-issues… I believe Fr. John Meyendorff felt the same way (see his book “Byzantine Theology”).

Phillip, I think you’ve overstated Metropolitan Ware’s position somewhat, and I’m pretty sure that Fr. Meyendorff did not feel that these were “non-issues”.

Both sides, East and West, are in agreement that the only real issue left dividing us is the role and infallibility of the papacy. To this I think that both sides need to look to the Melkites as the example. The Melkites have been the most vocal in standing up for the rights and dignity of the Christian East and have refused to allow themselves to be dominated by Rome. Instead the Melkites seek to live out communion with the Bishop of Rome, while at the same time remaining fully Orthodox.

Phillip, I have to ask a blunt, but honest question. How does one “live out communion with Rome” and “at the same time” remain “fully Orthodox” when “communion with Rome” requires subscription to universal papal supremacy and papal infallibility? It seems to me you have to maintain one of two things:

1. One can be in communion with Rome without subscribing to dogmas that Rome itself has proclaimed as being revealed by God. Or
2. “Fully Orthodox” means to accept all the post-schism Roman teachings, including universal papal supremacy and infallibility. I don’t see that either. If you believe that, then you basically believe (with the Latin fundamentalists) that the Orthodox Church is non-orthodox and heretical.

Please clarify.