For Protestants - removal of filioque?

[mardukm]

As Christians of the Latin Tradition, I am wondering how Protestants feel about the removal of filioque.

I myself am not Latin, but come from the Oriental Tradition. I do not believe filioque is a heresy, if one understands the Latin theological perspective. I don’t mind if filioque is removed or retained.

Many non-Latins feel removing filioque right now would be a good sign of willingness to achieve unity. I disagree. Due to my own background, I feel it is more important that theological understanding come first before any consideration of removing filioque from the Latin Creed.

Also, when discussing the issue with my non-Latin brethren, I have proposed that if the Latin Catholic Church removed filioque from its Creed, it would cause further and unnecessary strife within Western Christendom (i.e., between Protestants and Catholics).

So I have created this poll to get your point of view. I have set it up so you can choose several options at the same time.

Thank you for your participation and comments in advance.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ZDHayden]

One has to remember that the West (before the dreadful Schism) inserted the Filioque clause in order to combat various heresies, among them the Monothelites and Arianism, which originated in the East. Both of these heresies involved misunderstandings concerning Christ: Monothelites denied his humanity, Arian denied his divinity.

 

[ChadS]

To be completely honest I don’t know that many Protestants give the Nicene Creed much thought and even less to the filoque. I was raised in the United Methodist church and in there the Nicene Creed was recited maybe twice a year. If a creed was going to be recited (and that was only occasionally) it was the Apostle’s Creed. There are other mainline denominations that stick with denominational creeds that somewhat mirror either the Apostle’s or Nicene creed, but are completely unique.

On the other hand there are the non-creedal churches that see any creed as man attempting to add to the scriptures. Of course these groups are more likely to be anti-catholic and would care less what happened to Rome, the East or the Flioque.

The discussions about the Filoque are something unique to only the Catholics and the Orthodox, the Protestants probably would probably want to keep it in only because that’s the way they were raised with it. As for theological interpretations that would only be relagated to their best clergy and scholars and probably wouldn’t filter down to the pews.

In my opinion the issue of the Filoque isn’t as simple as removing it to make the Orthodox happy. I think many Orthodox need to try and understand why it’s in there and what exactly Catholics believe about it. This is difficult because I’m sure many Catholics are even fuzzy about it too and what exactly it means. Either form of the creed is completely orthodox and if that can be understood, whether the Filoque is in it or not becomes secondary.

ChadS

 

[Contarini]

As Christians of the Latin Tradition, I am wondering how Protestants feel about the removal of filioque.

I myself am not Latin, but come from the Oriental Tradition. I do not believe filioque is a heresy, if one understands the Latin theological perspective. I don’t mind if filioque is removed or retained.

Many non-Latins feel removing filioque right now would be a good sign of willingness to achieve unity. I disagree. Due to my own background, I feel it is more important that theological understanding come first before any consideration of removing filioque from the Latin Creed.

Also, when discussing the issue with my non-Latin brethren, I have proposed that if the Latin Catholic Church removed filioque from its Creed, it would cause further and unnecessary strife within Western Christendom (i.e., between Protestants and Catholics).

So I have created this poll to get your point of view. I have set it up so you can choose several options at the same time.

Thank you for your participation and comments in advance.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

I agree that the Filioque should not be removed without theological understanding, but I think that theological understanding already exists in spades–among theologians, that is. Certainly the Catholic Church could do a much better job of spreading that theological understanding at the grass-roots level–but what else is new?

The “theological understanding” necessary for removing the Filioque was already possessed by Pope John VIII in the 9th century. The Western Church wantonly chose to disregard this theological understanding, and centuries of tragedy have followed.

I don’t think dropping the Filioque would affect relationships with Protestants. The few Protestants who care about the Filioque per se are not very ecumenical anyway. The recent decision by the bishops of the ACNA to omit the Filioque in certain ecumenical contexts (actually a very narrow decision and really not a big deal as far as I can see) was met with protests by the more Reformed elements of the ACNA. But that was mostly because they didn’t want a rapprochement with the Orthodox because of soteriological issues. These folks are just as hostile to Catholicism as to Orthodoxy–maybe more so (though that’s irrational). So, again, it wouldn’t matter.

Ecumenical Protestants are generally at least as interested in union with the Orthodox as they are in union with Catholics.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

One has to remember that the West (before the dreadful Schism) inserted the Filioque clause in order to combat various heresies, among them the Monothelites and Arianism, which originated in the East. Both of these heresies involved misunderstandings concerning Christ: Monothelites denied his humanity, Arian denied his divinity.

No, the Filioque was inserted specifically to fight a form of Arianism existing in Spain. Arianism was dead in the East by that time. I don’t think Monothelitism had anything to do with it (and monothelites do not exactly deny Jesus’ humanity–they just compromise it in the opinion of the orthodox).

I think it’s beyond question that the Filioque has no business in the Creed in Greek. The question is whether it should be used in the Creed when said in Latin or in a liturgical tradition deriving from the Latin one. The present RC position is yes. I say no. I try to remember not to say the Filioque on Sunday morning, but I often forget out of habit (as happened yesterday).

 

[JohnnyReb]

I don’t think dropping the Filioque would affect relationships with Protestants. The few Protestants who care about the Filioque per se are not very ecumenical anyway. The recent decision by the bishops of the ACNA to omit the Filioque in certain ecumenical contexts (actually a very narrow decision and really not a big deal as far as I can see) was met with protests by the more Reformed elements of the ACNA. But that was mostly because they didn’t want a rapprochement with the Orthodox because of soteriological issues. These folks are just as hostile to Catholicism as to Orthodoxy–maybe more so (though that’s irrational). So, again, it wouldn’t matter.

Ecumenical Protestants are generally at least as interested in union with the Orthodox as they are in union with Catholics.

Edwin

Edwin, based on my personal observations, it seems that many continuing Anglican groups are leaning more towards the reformed side of the tradition anyway. Some Continuing Anglicans of the Anglo-Catholic flavor are warming up to the idea of becoming part of the ordinariates set up by the RCC to come into communion with Rome. This is an interesting development to me.

While there were some rublings, they did vote to remove Filoque. If they are concerned about overtures towards the Orthodox, it sounds like some theological misunderstandings need to be dispelled. Flioque was likely adopted uncritically from the Roman Catholic Church by Protestants as it is.

I do find such hostility towards Orthodoxy, and Catholicism as well, to be unwarrented. Its not like by removing Filoque they are beginning to set up some Orthodox ordinariate by which the ACNA would come into communion with Orthodoxy anyway.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

One issue with the Nicene Creed that I wasn’t aware of is that the Fathers of the Church, in compiling the Nicene Creed, chose direct quotes from Scripture.

If that is true, and I’ve no doubt, then the “Filioque” cannot be referenced with a direct scriptural quote.

One reason why the Filioque should be removed from the Nicene Creed include that the Council(s) that established the Creed, did so for the entire Church.

There is therefore the canonical issue and the theological issue, i.e. the Latin theological teaching on the Filioque that is not that of the Eastern Churches. The Latin Church’s teaching is perfectly legitimate, but should not be imposed on the East or on anyone.

So because the Nicene Creed was always intended as a Creed for the universal Church, no one Church i.e. the Latin should alter it for any reason.

In fact, when the Filioque was inserted to combat Arianism (the Arians, all three groups, ignored the argument anyway), the heresy of Sabellianism arose BECAUSE of the placement of the Filioque in the Creed. And then the East reacted to what it saw as an aberration of orthodox Triadology/Trinitarian doctrine.

Of course, proper theological grounding at the local level is necessary for such a change. The UGCC, in various areas, is removing the Filioque but not before proper catechesis to prepare people for the change.

On the other hand, I think RCIA should be mandatory for all Catholics, cradle and convert . . .

Alex

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I don’t think that removing the filioque from the Creed would be a big theological hurdle in itself. I think what would be important would be the process in which it was removed. If Rome decided that it needed to be removed without and kind of ecumenical consultation, then I think we would end up being in the same boat as when Rome unilaterally inserted in the first place.

I read a post here where someone said they hardly ever say the creed. In my congregation it is a part of every service. Currently, we are using the Nicene and we will continue to use until Epiphany and then switch to the Apostles creed and then the one time a year on Trinity Sunday we will trot out the Athanasian creed.

 

[Nine_Two]

When I was a protestant I wouldn’t have cared.

As someone who is Orthodox I think the best thing that can be said is that removing it wouldn’t hurt relations, it wouldn’t improve them on its own.

When it comes to the Filioque, I believe what the Latin Church teaches regarding it to be orthodox, the problem comes when a great number of members of the Catholic Church, seemingly the majority although I have no numbers to back that up, nor do I assert it actually is a majority, just a lot, interprete it in a heretical manner and don’t bother to check with the Church for how it should be interpreted. It becomes a stumbling block instead of the clarification it was supposed to be, rendering any argument for keeping it to be moot.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, based on my personal observations, it seems that many continuing Anglican groups are leaning more towards the reformed side of the tradition anyway.

“Continuing Anglican” generally refers to the groups who left in the late 1970s over the ordination of women and the revision of the BCP. They tend to be Anglo-Catholic, though they span the spectrum.

The ACNA is dominated by evangelicals, many of whom are Reformed in theology. It’s a different group from the Continuers.

The Reformed Episcopal Church is, as its name indicates, the most clearly Reformed branch of American Anglicanism. It left the Episcopal Church in the 19th century in protest against Anglo-Catholicism, and it is now part of the ACNA.

The ACNA is a pretty broad tent at this point. Time will tell whether there will be further splits or not. But the outrage expressed by some of the more Reformed folks over the overtures of the leadership toward the Orthodox does not bode well (at least from my perspective).

The movements of Continuers toward Rome in response to the Pope’s invitation have been few, tentative, and sporadic.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

As Christians of the Latin Tradition, I am wondering how Protestants feel about the removal of filioque.

I myself am not Latin, but come from the Oriental Tradition. I do not believe filioque is a heresy, if one understands the Latin theological perspective. I don’t mind if filioque is removed or retained.

Many non-Latins feel removing filioque right now would be a good sign of willingness to achieve unity. I disagree. Due to my own background, I feel it is more important that theological understanding come first before any consideration of removing filioque from the Latin Creed.

Also, when discussing the issue with my non-Latin brethren, I have proposed that if the Latin Catholic Church removed filioque from its Creed, it would cause further and unnecessary strife within Western Christendom (i.e., between Protestants and Catholics).

So I have created this poll to get your point of view. I have set it up so you can choose several options at the same time.

Thank you for your participation and comments in advance.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well said brother! And I am not simply saying it because I belong to the Latin Rite. If my mind serves me correct,the Creed was changed in 381 A.D. from the original one formulated in 325 A.D.? If correct, the church changed it due to attacks by heretics and had to make it more clear;hence the church has the authority change it when deemed necessary.

 

[LutheranDK]

@OP

I am a little unsure of what to think of this. The Filioque has no direct basis in Scripture, or Tradition, that much is true.
However!
As it has also correctly been pointed out, Filioque was inserted to basically flip the bird to heretics - defining orthodoxy (and I use this word in its Greek meaning, not its modern English one). And the CASE, that the Holy Spirit at least proceeds THROUGH, or VIA, the Son, is hard to dismiss - since we see that Jesus has the authority to bestow the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.

Often when I recite the Nicene creed (and it’s become part of my evening prayer), I leave out the Filioque, because I am unsure as to the correctness of the EXACT wording of it; if, as I said, He proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son instead of from the Father AND the Son. But this one word is subservient to the following:
Nicene Creed:

Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets;·

The intention of the Council was not, to the best of my knowledge, to determine the exact internal workings of the Holy Trinity, but to establish the fact that the Holy Spirit IS God - this is one reason why Nicaenum from 325 was revised in Constantinopel in 381.

 

[gcnuss]

I think that the Filioque is something of a red herring, distracting our attention from a number of issues between East and West. I suspect that most Christians, both East and West, have little idea of what the controversy is. The Filioque is just a flag that says “we’re different.”

Having been brought up in the Western tradition, the Filioque is part of my background. If it were to be removed, I would probably continue to add it in my mind whenever the Creed is said.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

This seems to be on point. This is from a statement issued after a round of Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue. This was issued in 1998.

(8) Lutherans, together with many other Western Christians, now widely recognize that the addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed, which took place locally by a unilateral action of the Latin Church and without the action of an Ecumenical Council, was illegitimate and contributed to disunity among Christians. Moreover, many Lutherans are now convinced that the original Creed without the Filioque addition could and should be restored in their worship . This need not contradict the Lutheran Confessions, which commit Lutherans to “the decree of the Council of Nicaea” (CA I). It is especially important to note that this article commits Lutherans not simply to the teaching of “the synod of Nicaea,” but to the decree —that is, the text— of Nicaea, and to the specific doctrinal decisions embodied in that text. But the text of “the synod of Nicaea,” that is the text of A.D. 325, amplified by the First Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381, as reported in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), does not include the Filioque. It simply says that the Holy Spirit is to ek tou patroH ekporeuomenon (“the one proceeding from the Father”), in line with the Gospel of St. John (John 15:26). On this basis, Lutherans can now acknowledge that the Filioque is not ecumenical dogma, but has the status of a local tradition which is not binding on the universal church.

(9) For this reason the Lutheran members of this dialogue are prepared to recommend to their Church that it publicly recognize that the permanently normative and universally binding form of the Nicene Creed is the Greek text of A.D. 381, and that it undertake steps to reflect this recognition in its worship and teaching. This would be a way of enacting in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America the Lutheran World Federation resolution of 1990, which found it “appropriate” that member churches “which already use the Nicene Creed in their liturgies may use the version of 381, for example in ecumenical services,” and further found it appropriate that Lutherans preparing common vernacular texts of the Nicene Creed together with Orthodox churches “may agree to a version without the ‘western’ filioque.”

 

[Reuben_J]

I think that the Filioque is something of a red herring, distracting our attention from a number of issues between East and West. I suspect that most Christians, both East and West, have little idea of what the controversy is. The Filioque is just a flag that says “we’re different.”

Having been brought up in the Western tradition, the Filioque is part of my background. If it were to be removed, I would probably continue to add it in my mind whenever the Creed is said.

You know what, that’s what I was about to say. Agreed fully. I can’t speak for the Orthodox but for most Catholics, probably many of them may see the word ‘Filoque’ for the first time here.

An important question that should be asked, does the ‘Filoque’ change the concept of the Triune God? I think for many of the Christians out there the Trinity is not something that they can really exegise deeply but that their understanding of it is merely superficial, like the three persons being equal, distinct but of the same nature.

The schism was entrapped by History and which it could not get out from. This is about politics. Like there is politic in our parish, it is very difficult to rein and to control. Sometimes you’d come to a point of no return as long as the human centeredness is not overcome.

So I think whether the Filoque is omitted or not, it will not change the relationship between the Catholics and the Orthodox. It got nothing to do with Protestants too, I think. Individual Christians need to make their own choice and the first move for reconciliation if they want to otherwise the stalemate is something that we have to bear into the distant future.