How Many EC Churches Have Dropped The Filioque

[JMJ_coder]

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.

It wasn’t the cause, but it was cited as an excuse. The real reason (in my opinion) is that East and West viewed each other as “different” and acted accordingly in the worst of human traditions.

 

[JMJ_coder]

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.

A “latinization” – so is the Council of Chalcedon and subsequent Councils a “byzantinization” on Coptic Catholics, or Chaldean Catholics?

I don’t have an issue with not reciting the Filioque in the creed, but I do with certain attitudes that sometimes accompany this reversion:

1. The Creed is 101% absolutely immutable for all times and forever, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. But, the Holy Fathers of Constantinople didn’t think this way when they altered the Creed of Nicene, nor did the Holy Fathers of Second Lyons. The faith is not carved in stone in some stunted state (as the Orthodox tend to view it), but alive and growing. The Development of Doctrine, while never changing the essence of our faith, expounds and clarifies things so we are ever growing toward greater understanding, being led by the Spirit to all truth.
2. That the Filioque’s theology is somehow flawed or incompatible with the Eastern Churches. As has been pointed out innumerable times on these forums, the premise of the Filioque is valid in all Catholic Churches.
3. That a Church’s traditions cannot be altered. This is similar to #1, but applying to praxis instead of the eternal faith. The idea the Western devotions or liturgical usage can never be adopted by Eastern Churches or vice versa is an attitude that flies in the face of the historical development of the Church.

 

[Hesychios]

It wasn’t the cause, but it was cited as an excuse. The real reason (in my opinion) is that East and West viewed each other as “different” and acted accordingly in the worst of human traditions.

I have the following as a list of complaints included in the Bull of excommunication crafted by Cardinal Humbert and Cardinal Frederic (future Pope Stephen IX or X). This then, if accurate, would seem to indicate what the western Catholics thought of the eastern Catholics.

I feel confident someone out there would have access to the wordier full text, but I don’t…

• …they [the Greeks] sell the gift of God
• …they castrate their guests
• …they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins
• …they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world
• …they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar
• …they say that the law of Moses is accursed
• …they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
• …they state that leave is ensouled (animatum)
• …they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth
• …they refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan
• …they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.

 

[malphono]

A “latinization” – so is the Council of Chalcedon and subsequent Councils a “byzantinization” on Coptic Catholics, or Chaldean Catholics?

I don’t have an issue with not reciting the Filioque in the creed, but I do with certain attitudes that sometimes accompany this reversion:

1. The Creed is 101% absolutely immutable for all times and forever, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. But, the Holy Fathers of Constantinople didn’t think this way when they altered the Creed of Nicene, nor did the Holy Fathers of Second Lyons. The faith is not carved in stone in some stunted state (as the Orthodox tend to view it), but alive and growing. The Development of Doctrine, while never changing the essence of our faith, expounds and clarifies things so we are ever growing toward greater understanding, being led by the Spirit to all truth.

Yes, Constaninople was an Oecumenical Council. Lyons II was certainly a Western Council, but I have no intention of engaging in yet another pointless discussion on the number of Oecumenical Councils.

2) That the Filioque’s theology is somehow flawed or incompatible with the Eastern Churches. As has been pointed out innumerable times on these forums, the premise of the Filioque is valid in all Catholic Churches.

I have no problem with the filioque per se: to echo antgaria, I say it happily when reciting or singing the Credo in Latin.

OTOH, I’ve no gumption for another filoque argument thread. I never participate in them and I will not get involved in one now.

3) That a Church’s traditions cannot be altered. This is similar to #1, but applying to praxis instead of the eternal faith. The idea the Western devotions or liturgical usage can never be adopted by Eastern Churches or vice versa is an attitude that flies in the face of the historical development of the Church.

If by “altered” you mean latinized, I disagree totally. The practices of the Latin Rite are lovely (at least the EF practices are), but they are the product of development in the West. Their existence in the East and Orient, particularly when they displace authentic Eastern and Oriental practices, will always be problematic to me.

 

[CristusRex]

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.

Are You so kind to show us some proof about these impositions ?

 

[malphono]

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.

You’re probably better off: the current ICEL version in English (at least that’s what they call it) is horrendous. Better to wait until the revised version appears. Supposedly, that will be better. We’ll see …

The absence of “Light from Light” in the East Syriac is interesting. As best I know, it is in the original text. The words are included in the West Syriac redaction.

 

[SyroMalankara]

We never used the filioque and continue to not use it…

 

[Cluny]

Are You so kind to show us some proof about these impositions ?

ChristusRex, don’t you think Eastern Christians will have a pretty good idea about foreign (i.e., Latin) customs forced on their Liturgies to make them look like the Roman mass–and probably a better idea than you have?

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Sunflower,

Am I the only one who finds this controversy a bit tad on the absurd side?

No.

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!

By this same logic then, the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Yet the Fathers of the church wisely refused to speculate upon that, and no one inserted the concept into the Creed.

And, indivisible, on top of that!

It is important for theological reasons to preserve the monarchy of the Father.

In other words, the Son is Begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father is Un-Begotten, and Un-Proceeding.

What does begotten mean, and what does proceeding mean? How do these two concepts differ? No one really knows, this is beyond our ability to understand.

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.

You are not dense.

There has been just far too much speculation on the subject.

 

[CristusRex]

ChristusRex, don’t you think Eastern Christians will have a pretty good idea about foreign (i.e., Latin) customs forced on their Liturgies to make them look like the Roman mass–and probably a better idea than you have?

So, in what way were these foreign (i.e. Latin) customs forced ? Could U give me a link to a papal act that forces these **imposed **changes ?

 

[Hesychios]

So, in what way were these foreign (i.e. Latin) customs forced ? Could U give me a link to a papal act that forces these **imposed **changes ?

You seem to have doubts.

 

[Deacon_Lance]

THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

 

[Hesychios]

So, in what way were these foreign (i.e. Latin) customs forced ? Could U give me a link to a papal act that forces these **imposed **changes ?

Please see Allatae Sunt from Benedict XIV.

Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. But when he later received the Armenians into union he obliged them to include it (Harduin, vol. 9, p. 435B) perhaps because he had learned that the Armenians were less averse to the addition then were the Greeks.

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.

Most interesting is this admission to the apparent arbitrary enforcement of these demands…

1. The obvious conclusion from the foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others in different circumstances among different peoples.

Eventually all of the Eastern Catholic churches were pressured into accepting the dogma of double-procession in principle. Even when they were not commanded to recite it.

The fact that some Eastern Catholics were not required to recite the interpolation is referred to as a ‘concession’. This concession was only given when it was fairly certain that the people in question were not challenging the dogma as a matter of principle.

 

[Seamus_L]

Are Eastern Catholic priests who say the Filioque going against directives from there Bishops ?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Before getting into the specifics of the filioque, as an Oriental Catholic, I’ve always wondered, how was the deposition of Patriarch Ignatius justifiable? On what grounds was he removed and replaced by a friend of the Emperor, who wasn’t even a clergyman?

Even under the Eastern Orthodox ‘first in honor only’ model of the Papacy, should not Ignatius’ appeal have been heard by the Pope and his illegitimate deposition reversed?

 

[antgaria]

THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

Deacon Lance,

Thanks for that link. It is nice to have handy, especially since the “East-West” debate always comes up…

 

[antgaria]

The absence of “Light from Light” in the East Syriac is interesting. As best I know, it is in the original text. The words are included in the West Syriac redaction.

I know that it was in the original {or at least I believe it is}. As far as I could read, it is in the Greek and the Latin… and the English {I checked… }. If I remember correctly, we in the East received the Creed from Mar Marutha. I wonder if it was given as such, or maybe just thus approved in our Synod, or whether it was by choice to leave that out…

Like I said, something that I’ve always kind of just wondered. I should probably have ask my bishop… he knows just about everything there is to know about liturgy and our church history. Just haven’t had a chance to ask about that. So I took the moment to bring this up, in case people here knew about it.

 

[Diak]

Are Eastern Catholic priests who say the Filioque going against directives from there Bishops ?

I don’t think the issue is the priests. At our recent Eparchial clergy conference we sang the Creed both in Ukrainian and English in unison with our bishop without it. There are some older parishoners who still use it out of habit. It largely has no “doctrinal” significance with them but rather is a relic of their memory from the displaced persons camps, being attended to by polonized/latinized clergy, etc.

The first person I know of to make it publically “doctrinal” in recent times within the UGCC was Fr. Kovpak, who since has been excommunicated from the UGCC.

 

[Cluny]

So, in what way were these foreign (i.e. Latin) customs forced ? Could U give me a link to a papal act that forces these **imposed **changes ?

To give a couple of examples from the experience of the Ruthenians in the USA, various papal decrees, including Cum episcopo, Ea semper (We’ve always done it that way), and Cum data fuerit ordered the suppression of married Ruthenian prests and forbade priests to administer Chrismation (Confirmation) to the newly baptized, whether infants or others.

I don’t know if forbidding infant communion happened in their homelands, or whether this was just imposed in the diaspora.

 

[dvdjs]

To give a couple of examples from the experience of the Ruthenians in the USA, various papal decrees, including Cum episcopo, Ea semper (We’ve always done it that way), and Cum data fuerit ordered the suppression of married Ruthenian prests and forbade priests to administer Chrismation (Confirmation) to the newly baptized, whether infants or others.

I don’t know if forbidding infant communion happened in their homelands, or whether this was just imposed in the diaspora.

The question was raised in response to your claim of forced latinizations in the liturgy. Now, you abruptly shift gears. What should we make of that?

Your claim that Cum data fuerit “…forbade priests to administer Chrismation (Confirmation) to the newly baptized, whether infants or others” is news to me. Never heard of this or saw it being enforced in any BC church; but I did see many examples to the contrary. Are you sure of your claim?