How Many EC Churches Have Dropped The Filioque

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not used by the Melkites, Romanians, Ukrainians, or Ruthenians in this country.

You might find it interesting that the first article of the Union of Brest said, in effect, “Don’t make us use the Filioque.”
 
I’ve heard that it is used in some Ukrainian Catholic parishes, as well as by the Maronites. I assume then that would be the acception and not the rule.
 
Cluny said:
It is not used by the Melkites, Romanians, Ukrainians, or Ruthenians in this country.

You might find it interesting that the first article of the Union of Brest said, in effect, “Don’t make us use the Filioque.”
Click to expand...
While it might not be “officially” used I know of a handful of Ruthenian parishes that still have it.
 
I’m lacking a bit on details, but I’ve heard claims of liturgy books with the Filioque both crossed out in some, and written in in others.
 
Seamus_L said:
I’ve heard that it is used in some Ukrainian Catholic parishes, as well as by the Maronites. I assume then that would be the acception and not the rule.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, yes, it is used among the Maronites in all jurisdictions. Also, and to my knowledge, the Syriac CC retains it as well. As I understand things, the Chaldeans recently freed themselves from it, at least officially. I have no idea what their actual practice is, though.
 
malphono said:
the Chaldeans recently freed themselves from it, at least officially.
Click to expand...
Why do you view the Filioque as such an abomination that one must be “freed” of it? Even if not recited in the liturgical creed, all Catholics are bound to give assent to the theological teaching of the Filioque.
 
JMJ_coder said:
Why do you view the Filioque as such an abomination that one must be “freed” of it? Even if not recited in the liturgical creed, all Catholics are bound to give assent to the theological teaching of the Filioque.
Click to expand...
Those who do not recite the filioque in the liturgy and yet are in communion with those who do have not “freed” themselves from the filioque. Clearly, it is a compromise.
 
JMJ_coder said:
Why do you view the Filioque as such an abomination that one must be “freed” of it? Even if not recited in the liturgical creed, all Catholics are bound to give assent to the theological teaching of the Filioque.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call it an “abomination” … but it certainly was a “bomb” 😉 in the sense that its promulgation led to the Great Schism. So perhaps in that light, you might have more sympathy for Eastern churches wanting to be “freed” from it.
 
JMJ_coder said:
Why do you view the Filioque as such an abomination that one must be “freed” of it? Even if not recited in the liturgical creed, all Catholics are bound to give assent to the theological teaching of the Filioque.
Click to expand...
We all know that the original text is filioque-free. The original Syriac redaction, still used by the Syriac OC, is filioque-free. In any case, the use of the filioque among the Maronites is nothing more than a latinization which was imposed, and apparently it’s one that will not go away despite the fact that even Rome has said that all the Oriental and Eastern Churches may revert to the original filioque-free text. The filioque was similarly imposed on the Chaldeans, but they, at least, have in principle (if not yet in practice) reverted to the original.
 
someone told me the other day that when the Pope says mass he will say it without the filoque as a way of reaching out to the orthodox? does anyone know if that is true?
 
I personally have never had a problem with Filioque… When I recite the Creed in my language, I am used to not using it… many years of that will get you used to it, especially as we recited it in every day’s evening prayers. Even now in the Catholic Church, we don’t use it as Malphono pointed out. But when I recite the creed in Latin, I am used to using the Filioque. That is how I learned that.

I think that too many people like to stay divided and like to be polemical about things. On this forum, Ghosty has done a great job in pointing out that the meaning is the same. I don’t want to go off topic and have this thread turn into another Filioque debate.

So, back to the topic of the OP… My church has officially reverted back to using the Creed without the Filioque, following the suggestion, of the Holy Father in Rome, that it should seek its roots and be rich in its tradition. The new missal can be seen in English at:
kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/ReformedMissal_Eng.html
 
Embarrassingly, I don’t quite know how to recite the Creed in English, but do a rough translation of it from our Language. Interestingly, we don’t say the Light of Light part, but just the True God of True God part.
 
antgaria said:
Embarrassingly, I don’t quite know how to recite the Creed in English, but do a rough translation of it from our Language. Interestingly, we don’t say the Light of Light part, but just the True God of True God part.
Click to expand...
lol, oh Anthony.
 
LoL… thanks for the sympathy Chaldean Rite. 🙂

Btw… the two sentences were not related… the Light from Light thing is one that I’ve kind of always been interested as to why we don’t say that part. Was just putting it out there in case people had something to say about it.
 
Am I the only one who finds this controversy a bit tad on the absurd side?
To divide the world into East & West and have all this discord because of whether the HS comes from the Father alone or from the Father AND the Son…when to begin with, we ALL agree that the three Persons are ONE!
And, indivisible, on top of that!

Whether the words were spoken in the first or the tenth century, can we possibly speak of one of the **indivisible **Persons, doing something withOUT the second indivisible Person of the same Unity? And, if we did, what exactly would it mean? What IS the difference?

Honestly…someone please DO explain this to me…maybe I’m just dense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top