Research on the "East-West Schism"

[dvdjs]

Florence was never accepted by the Church. It was accepted by a majority of the Bishops, however that is not what makes a Council Ecumenical in the Orthodox World, as you should know.

The Orthodox are fuzzy on that point. After all, if reception by the church is the essential criterion, then Chalcedon is out. Florence was held within the EP through the fall of Constantinople; it was not repudiated until the sultan was appointing the EP.

And yet sources which I see quoted by other Catholics (like Catholic Encyclopedia) disagree and say you’re a heretic for your belief in a single procession. While Catholic teaching may state it, “clearly” is not how I’d describe it, especially since I’ve seen plenty of Catholics on this forum mention a belief in double procession.

You are conflating double procession with a double origin or source. I am less concerned than Ghosty about double procession as being a poor choice of words: procession does not imply origin or source. period.

Btw, what Catholic article are you referring to? This one (newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm) only refers specifically to monothelitism as heresy. I would also ask you to provide a primary source to back up your claim that Pope Leo considered the addition of the filioque to be heresy,

Actually I’ve never renounced my original arguments, in fact I have little doubt that those who coined it believed in double procession, after all they added it for the explicit purpose of arguing against Arians, people who believe the second person was a created being, thus the filioque pronounced Christ equal in Godhood (which is correct) at the expense of the Holy Spirit (which is incorrect). Teaching the line with the single procession interpretation would have done nothing to counter Arianism. Only a double procession interpretation created a new argument.

First, you are conflating double procession with a double origin or source. Second, the shift was the new criterion of ease of understanding, as opposed to your initial misinformed claims about canon VII of Ephesus. From your first post on the thread: in reference to the Constantinopolitan Creed … “the Council of Ephesus pronounced anathema upon those who would change” . (Didn’t see anything about unilateral in the post. But weren’t the revisions of Constantiople I unilateral?)

There is a difference between what is believed by those who coin a term, those who teach a term, and those who are taught a term. If any of those groups accept double procession my argument is correct.

You are conflating double procession with a double origin or source,

Fallacious attacks at my arguments don’t help your argument.

Fallacious attacks? No one is attacking your arguments, and no fallacies have been shown. Rather, as I pointed out originally, it is important to know the truth to dispel confusion. I think the discuss should alleviate your confusion about the the canons of Ephesus, and about the distinction between procession and origin.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Given that the Creed was originally written in Greek and then translated, does it not follow that the interpretation of the Creed should follow the Greek where possible? It’s like what a lot of Protestants do, they look at a word in the bible and interprete it entirely within an English framework (for example the word “until” which they use to prove the Theotokos had other children) wheras that just happens to be the closest word to the Greek and doesn’t convey the totality of the meaning.

There is no word in Latin that can translate the Greek ekporeusai. The closest thing that the Latins could have used would be the same word used for “begetting,” and that could certainly not be used (I’m sure you’ll agree). So procedit was the only option. The only question that needs to be answered is whether procedit used with filioque in the Creed was ever used by the Latins to mean that there were two sources or two spirations of the Holy Spirit. The answer is a resounding NO. The first time the Greeks ever brought up the discrepancy was during the time of St. Maximos the confessor, and it was understood and accepted that the Latin procedit does not have the same meaning as the Greek ekporeusai, and that by using the term procedit with filioque, the Latins did not contradict the fact that the Arche of the Trinity was the Father alone.

The difference is of course in the Armenian Creed the differences seem to be flushing out some of the theology, changing nothing further. Nothing in the Armenian Creed can be even interpreted to be unorthodox.

I’m glad you are looking to the meaning instead of the mere text. Please give our Latin brethren the same benefit of the doubt, and see what the Latin Church teaches to see if it is orthodox or unorthodox. So far, you have not given any indication that you are aware of what the Latins teach.

The problem is that words convey meaning across time, so while altering the words does not cause you to change your faith, someone two generations down the road may well interprete it differently if they do not receive proper direction, and the problem is, most don’t. In fact as (I believe you mentioned), the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the double procession is proper belief, and goes so far as to say it is one of the “principle errors of the Greek Church”

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a Magisterial document of the Latin Church, so please don’t try to base the TEACHING of the Latin Church on that.

There is now, there wasn’t when the objections started.

That’s a self-refuting statement if I ever saw one! If there was no tradition among the Latins already, how do you suppose the objections ever started? In fact, when the objections first started (as mentioned above during the time of St. Maximos), the problem was settled with the authority of St. Maximos. About 200 years later, St. Photius, who did not understand Latin, decided to make an issue over the matter. Though he was orthodox in his understanding, his lack of knowledge of the Latin language caused his complaints to be a source of disunity.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I insist that the Creed itself, and in its totality must be judged by the Greek. If you wish to add a few words to it they may be judged in their original language, but the words around them must be judged in Greek.

Sorry. This kind of approach simply does not work. After over a millenia of being regarded heterodox by the Eastern Orthodox, we (of the Oriental Tradition) have learned that in order to work towards unity, we need to understand what the other party has to say according to what they say about themselves. You won’t be able to do that by imposing your own standard on others. You can’t let the cow tell about the horse. If you are truly interested in unity through understanding, you have to let the horse tell about the horse. You have to ask yourself, “what are the Latins trying to teach by using filioque?” Do yourself a favor and ask the Latins over in the Apologetics Forum that question.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[5Loaves]

For what it’s worth: “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?An Agreed Statement of the
North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation” one of the many statements of the The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation. Same resources on the US Catholic Bishops site.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Orthodox are fuzzy on that point. After all, if reception by the church is the essential criterion, then Chalcedon is out. Florence was held within the EP through the fall of Constantinople; it was not repudiated until the sultan was appointing the EP.

Err the Russian Bishops repudiated it almost immediatly, and many of the Greek Bishops were not far behind. One Bishop (the EP) would not make something an ecumenical council (and I say that not knowing specifically what he thought).

You are conflating double procession with a double origin or source. I am less concerned than Ghosty about double procession as being a poor choice of words: procession does not imply origin or source. period.

That is what the whole debate of the filioque is all about, isn’t it?

Btw, what Catholic article are you referring to? This one (newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm) only refers specifically to monothelitism as heresy. I would also ask you to provide a primary source to back up your claim that Pope Leo considered the addition of the filioque to be heresy,

That’s the article, you might want to keep reading, Fourth paragraph in.
As to Pope St. Leo. He errected tablets in the Vatican with the original Constantinopoline-Nicene Creed on them to prevent what he saw as error overtaking the Church. Too bad he didn’t foresee a man like Charlemagne coming around.

First, you are conflating double procession with a double origin or source. Second, the shift was the new criterion of ease of understanding, as opposed to your initial misinformed claims about canon VII of Ephesus. From your first post on the thread: in reference to the Constantinopolitan Creed … “the Council of Ephesus pronounced anathema upon those who would change” . (Didn’t see anything about unilateral in the post. But weren’t the revisions of Constantiople I unilateral?)

First don’t worry about repeating points. Just ignore bits if you have to repeat the point. Second I still hold the same claims about Canon 7 of Ephesus. It’s called additional arguments, I’m not limited to just what I put forward.
And you’re right that it doesn’t say anything about unilateral vs. multilateral, however it is the general understanding in the East that for a council to be overidden it would take another council, something which has played out a number of times in the West. And no, you seem to not understand the meaning of “Unilateral”, Constantinople I was a meeting of the Bishops of all the Church, all Bishops could attend, and several Metropolia were represented. As opposed to “unilateral” where it is only representatives of a single Metropolis (Local Church) which makes the change.

You are conflating double procession with a double origin or source,

Say it again.

Fallacious attacks? No one is attacking your arguments, and no fallacies have been shown. Rather, as I pointed out originally, it is important to know the truth to dispel confusion. I think the discuss should alleviate your confusion about the the canons of Ephesus, and about the distinction between procession and origin.

Actually you dismissed an argument based on faulty reasoning. That’s a fallacy.

 

[mardukm]

For what it’s worth: “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?An Agreed Statement of the
North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation” one of the many statements of the The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation.

There was also an Official Clarification on Filioque put out by the Vatican, IIRC. Do you have a link to that, or are the two documents (the Official Clarification and the Statement from the North American Consultation) actually the same thing?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

There is no word in Latin that can translate the Greek ekporeusai. The closest thing that the Latins could have used would be the same word used for “begetting,” and that could certainly not be used (I’m sure you’ll agree). So procedit was the only option. The only question that needs to be answered is whether procedit used with filioque in the Creed was ever used by the Latins to mean that there were two sources or two spirations of the Holy Spirit. The answer is a resounding NO. The first time the Greeks ever brought up the discrepancy was during the time of St. Maximos the confessor, and it was understood and accepted that the Latin procedit does not have the same meaning as the Greek ekporeusai, and that by using the term procedit with filioque, the Latins did not contradict the fact that the Arche of the Trinity was the Father alone.

Yep, we’ve been over that. Use that term for the Latin version of the Creed, however that doesn’t change the fact that you must always go back to the original language when interpreting.
Additionally I’m not familiar with St. Maximos defense of the filioque, would you mind providing a link or citations?

I’m glad you are looking to the meaning instead of the mere text. Please give our Latin brethren the same benefit of the doubt, and see what the Latin Church teaches to see if it is orthodox or unorthodox. So far, you have not given any indication that you are aware of what the Latins teach.

Actually to be honest I’m not entirely comfortable with the alterations with the Armenian text, however at worst they seem to be poetic in nature. However I also have absolutely no knowledge of the Armenian language so I have to go by the English translations therein. However the filioque is different because there is so much room for interpretation, and as I said I’ve heard it interpreted by Catholics as double-procession.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a Magisterial document of the Latin Church, so please don’t try to base the TEACHING of the Latin Church on that.

Actually it has an imprimatur, which means the Archbishop who gave it has varified that it is free of doctrinal error.

That’s a self-refuting statement if I ever saw one! If there was no tradition among the Latins already, how do you suppose the objections ever started? In fact, when the objections first started (as mentioned above during the time of St. Maximos), the problem was settled with the authority of St. Maximos. About 200 years later, St. Photius, who did not understand Latin, decided to make an issue over the matter. Though he was orthodox in his understanding, his lack of knowledge of the Latin language caused his complaints to be a source of disunity.

Hmm? What I meant was everything starts somewhere. Arianism has tradition, that doesn’t make it right.

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry. This kind of approach simply does not work. After over a millenia of being regarded heterodox by the Eastern Orthodox, we (of the Oriental Tradition) have learned that in order to work towards unity, we need to understand what the other party has to say according to what they say about themselves. You won’t be able to do that by imposing your own standard on others. You can’t let the cow tell about the horse. If you are truly interested in unity through understanding, you have to let the horse tell about the horse. You have to ask yourself, “what are the Latins trying to teach by using filioque?” Do yourself a favor and ask the Latins over in the Apologetics Forum that question.

Blessings,
Marduk

The problem is unity for the sake of unity is worthless. Protestants come on the non-Catholics forum all the time saying how we should all be united because we accept the essentials and everyone can accept whatever else they want. The problem is this all breaks down when you try to discus what is “essential”.

Unity is a fine goal, but not one worth sacrificing ones very being to attain.

I understand quite well what the modern Catholic Church teaches on the filioque, my issue is on how few Catholics seem to, and that in itself is reason enough to avoid it.

 

[mardukm]

The problem is unity for the sake of unity is worthless. Protestants come on the non-Catholics forum all the time saying how we should all be united because we accept the essentials and everyone can accept whatever else they want. The problem is this all breaks down when you try to discus what is “essential”.

I’m not talking about trying to determine what is essential and what is not. I’m talking about trying to understand what the other party is trying to say.

Unity is a fine goal, but not one worth sacrificing ones very being to attain.

Nothing is sacrificed when understanding is the goal - except perhaps bigotry and hate (not at all saying you are displaying this).

I understand quite well what the modern Catholic Church teaches on the filioque, my issue is on how few Catholics seem to, and that in itself is reason enough to avoid it.

As suggested before, why don’t you do a poll in the Apologetics section to determine what Latin Catholics believe. Ask them if they believe that that there are two sources of the Holy Spirit. Simple as that. In any case, even if the majority of Catholics believe something different from what the Catholic Church teaches, how do you propose that is a reflection on the Church herself - or are you saying the Orthodox Churches have no sinners at all? Does not the Church have both tares and wheat within her fold?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Yep, we’ve been over that. Use that term for the Latin version of the Creed, however that doesn’t change the fact that you must always go back to the original language when interpreting.

Exactly, and in the original language, we know that the Creed is saying that there is only one Arche or principaliter of the Holy Spirit. So now, all we have to determine is if the Latin Creed contradicts this teaching of the original Greek Creed. If you have followed the debates on this matter closely, you will find that there is no contradiction.

Additionally I’m not familiar with St. Maximos defense of the filioque, would you mind providing a link or citations?

Sorry. I don’t have the time right now to look it up. Perhaps others will. And I wouldn’t say St. Maximos defended filioque. IIRC, he was simply asking about the discrepancy, and the Latins simply explained it to his satisfaction.

Actually to be honest I’m not entirely comfortable with the alterations with the Armenian text, however at worst they seem to be poetic in nature. However I also have absolutely no knowledge of the Armenian language so I have to go by the English translations therein. However the filioque is different because there is so much room for interpretation,

I’ve read certains sects argue that the Nicene Creed is a formula for polytheism. How could they possibly claim that? Anyway…there are only two ways to interpret filioque. If used with the Greek ekporeusai, it means that there are two Sources of the Holy Spirit, which is heterodox - and the reason why Easterns and Orientals don’t use it in their Creed. If used with the Latin procedit or the Greek proienai, it does NOT mean there are two Sources. Simple as that.

and as I said I’ve heard it interpreted by Catholics as double-procession.

I completely agree with you about the danger in using the term “double-procession” - which is why I strongly oppose its use - but I sincerely doubt you will find a Latin who thinks “double procession” means that there are two sources of the Holy Spirit. Once again, I recommend doing a poll in the Apologetics Forum.

Actually it has an imprimatur, which means the Archbishop who gave it has varified that it is free of doctrinal error.

Actually, no. An Imprimatur simply lets a piece of literature be printed - it has nothing to do with the orthodoxy of the material. What you need to look for if you want to determine the orthodoxy of the material is the nihil obstat. But I doubt you’ll find that it was given by a bishop or anyone else with magisterial authority. So, to repeat, please don’t assign to the Catholic Encyclopedia a magisterial authority it does not at all possess.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

The problem is unity for the sake of unity is worthless. Protestants come on the non-Catholics forum all the time saying how we should all be united because we accept the essentials and everyone can accept whatever else they want. The problem is this all breaks down when you try to discus what is “essential”.

Unity is a fine goal, but not one worth sacrificing ones very being to attain.

I understand quite well what the modern Catholic Church teaches on the filioque, my issue is on how few Catholics seem to, and that in itself is reason enough to avoid it.

The Problem, 9-2, is that the Orthodox understanding of the Petrine role is sufficiently different that they feel it not essential to the church.

In that, then, the focus of unity with Rome and it’s Pope, which is to Catholics the one true measure of fidelity to the Church of Old and of Now. The Orthodox hold to the faith (tho’ look at older Orthodox materials shows no less theological drift than the Catholic documents show, and really, no more, either) but reject the Petrine Role and Authority, and seek reasons to do so.

 

[dvdjs]

Err the Russian Bishops repudiated it almost immediatly, and many of the Greek Bishops were not far behind. One Bishop (the EP) would not make something an ecumenical council (and I say that not knowing specifically what he thought).

You are dead wrong about the Russian Bishops. Bishop Tikhon (ret, OCADOW) wrote a scathing rebuke of that nonsense over at the Indiana list. Look it up. The repudiation was a decision of the czar and him alone. The Metropolitan was exiled. I am glad that you admit to a lack of knowledge about what was going on in Constantinople. Perhaps you will do some “research” on this as well.

That is what the whole debate of the filioque is all about, isn’t it?

If so, then the debate is utterly fatuous. Correct yourself on your misunderstanding of the terminology - stop arguing semantics - and then we can reach theological agreement.

That’s the article, you might want to keep reading, Fourth paragraph in.
As to Pope St. Leo. He errected tablets in the Vatican with the original Constantinopoline-Nicene Creed on them to prevent what he saw as error overtaking the Church. .

So you retreat from the claim of a charge of heresy. Good.

Too bad he didn’t foresee a man like Charlemagne coming around

ROFL. Really.

First don’t worry about repeating points. Just ignore bits if you have to repeat the point. Second I still hold the same claims about Canon 7 of Ephesus.

The plain facts of history are against you on this claim in your initial post on the thread.

And you’re right that it doesn’t say anything about unilateral vs. multilateral, however it is the general understanding in the East that for a council to be overidden it would take another council, something which has played out a number of times in the West. And no, you seem to not understand the meaning of “Unilateral”, Constantinople I was a meeting of the Bishops of all the Church, all Bishops could attend, and several Metropolia were represented. As opposed to “unilateral” where it is only representatives of a single Metropolis (Local Church) which makes the change.

Apparently you do not know who was at Constantinople I.

Actually you dismissed an argument based on faulty reasoning. That’s a fallacy.

Please be specific. If I made an error of fact or reasoning, I would be happy to stand corrected.

 

[Diak]

Additional research as well as prayer and maturing discernment can often take the unncessary ascerbity of polemicism out of this argument. The modern Orthodox theologian I perhaps respect above all others, Archbishop Kallistos Ware, is a vivid and honest example of this.

“The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences”

He’s saying something not unlike the Union Fathers in the Union of Brest. Hardly a scathing and open damnation of the Catholic Church as heretical, and honestly accepting a lack of “basic doctrinal differences”. An unnecessary addition, yes as the need for the conversion of the neo-Arians subsided, but certainly not worthy of any epithet of heresy.

 

[Diak]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine_Two
Err the Russian Bishops repudiated it almost immediatly, and many of the Greek Bishops were not far behind. One Bishop (the EP) would not make something an ecumenical council (and I say that not knowing specifically what he thought).

You are dead wrong about the Russian Bishops. Bishop Tikhon (ret, OCADOW) wrote a scathing rebuke of that nonsense over at the Indiana list. Look it up. The repudiation was a decision of the czar and him alone. The Metropolitan was exiled. I am glad that you admit to a lack of knowledge about what was going on in Constantinople. Perhaps you will do some “research” on this as well.

dvdjs is spot on. This was largely a political matter, as was the erection of the first Patriarch of Moscow - only done after Boris Godonov placed the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias, under house arrest until he acceded to Godonov’s candidate, not elected by any Synod, to be the first Patriarch of Moscow.

St. Peter Mohyla had constructed a proposal of dual communion between Constantinople and Rome but was unable to act on it before his untimely death and the annexation of much of his Kyivan Metropolia by Moscow (see the works of Archbishop +Vsevelod of blessed memory). Certainly in that case the filioque was again not, as Archbishop Kallistos put it, “basic doctrinal differences”.

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, no. An Imprimatur simply lets a piece of literature be printed - it has nothing to do with the orthodoxy of the material. What you need to look for if you want to determine the orthodoxy of the material is the nihil obstat. But I doubt you’ll find that it was given by a bishop or anyone else with magisterial authority. So, to repeat, please don’t assign to the Catholic Encyclopedia a magisterial authority it does not at all possess.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m not responding to the rest of your post because I think we’re going in circles. I respect your opinion, I just don’t see the debate moving anywhere, I’ll respond to this bit even if it’s starting to get off topic. You’re thinking of the Imprimi Potest, which is the basic authorization to print something, the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, according to the disclaimer in my copy of the NAB states “The Nihil Oblstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or amphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.” Now I grant that this doesn’t make it the official word of the Church (as the disclaimer goes on to say), however it does have the base requirement that what follows is correct doctrine.

 

[Nine_Two]

You are dead wrong about the Russian Bishops. Bishop Tikhon (ret, OCADOW) wrote a scathing rebuke of that nonsense over at the Indiana list. Look it up. The repudiation was a decision of the czar and him alone. The Metropolitan was exiled. I am glad that you admit to a lack of knowledge about what was going on in Constantinople. Perhaps you will do some “research” on this as well.

Not knowing what was going on in a single Bishopric is not the same as no knowledge.

If so, then the debate is utterly fatuous. Correct yourself on your misunderstanding of the terminology - stop arguing semantics - and then we can reach theological agreement.

The entire debate is semantics.

So you retreat from the claim of a charge of heresy. Good.

Just what do you think “error” means? One can certainly not be in error and claim orthodoxy.

ROFL. Really.

Yes. Really. Charlamagne was one of the worst things to ever happen to the Western Church.

The plain facts of history are against you on this claim in your initial post on the thread.

You have not shown that.

Apparently you do not know who was at Constantinople I.

Why is a roll call relevent? I know that the Roman Metropolia was not there, however Rome did accept the council after the fact.

Please be specific. If I made an error of fact or reasoning, I would be happy to stand corrected.

Not only have you made errors, but you carry you post with a snideness that I want nothing to do with. Added to that you haven’t actually made a single argument. This will be the last I responce to you.
I apologize to anyone in this thread if I have come off as rude or abrassive at any time in this discussion.

 

[dvdjs]

Nine_Two:
Sorry if you feel I was being snide. That wasn’t my intention.
You make posts that contain errors. You don’t acknowledge correction of these errors. That posture leads to a directness in responses to you, not for snideness or to be rude, but for the sake of clarity in the midst of a muddle of mistaken ideas.

I regret that you will not respond to my invitation for correction, because I would always like to be better informed.

 

[Ghosty]

Why is a roll call relevent? I know that the Roman Metropolia was not there, however Rome did accept the council after the fact.

It was accepted after Chalcedon; the Council of Ephesus made no mention of it at all. When Constantinople was held it was a purely local Council; not even the other Eastern Patriarchates attended IIRC. The revision of the Creed was indeed made unilaterally by the Constantinople, but was accepted almost a century later, and only AFTER the condemnations of Ephesus.

As for judging the Creed by the Greek, if that’s the case then there is nothing to fuss over at all; the Catholic Church does not allow the filioque in Greek.

Peace and God bless!

 

[5Loaves]

1/1/10 The Circumcision of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: Now the Lord of all that is doth undergo circumcision, in His goodness cutting off the sins and failings of mortals. He this day doth give salvation unto the whole world; and the hierarch and bright daystar of the Creator now rejoiceth in the highest, Basil the wise and divine initiate of Christ.

There was also an Official Clarification on Filioque put out by the Vatican, IIRC. Do you have a link to that, or are the two documents (the Official Clarification and the Statement from the North American Consultation) actually the same thing?

Blessings,
Marduk

Is The Spirit and the Filioque Debate; General Audience November 7, 1990 what you’re thinking of?

Last two paragraphs

Today as well this conciliar text is still a useful basis for dialogue and agreement between the Eastern and Western brethren, even more so since the agreed-upon definition ended with the following declaration: “We establish…that the explanation given of the expression Filioque has been added to the creed licitly and with reason, in order to render that truth clearer and because of the incumbent needs of those times” (DS 1302).

After the Council of Florence the West continued to profess that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son,” while the East continued to hold to the original formula of the Council of Constantinople. But since the time of the Second Vatican Council a fruitful ecumenical dialogue has been developing. It seems to have led to the conclusion that the formula Filioque does not constitute an essential obstacle to the dialogue itself and to its development, which all hope for and pray for to the Holy Spirit.

Or maybe this from the Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity which begins with the preface:

The Holy Father, in the homily* he gave in St Peter Basilica on 29 June in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, expressed a desire that “the traditional doctrine of the Filioque, present in the liturgical version of the Latin Credo, [be clarified] in order to highlight its full harmony with what the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 381 confesses in its creed: the Father as the source of the whole Trinity, the one origin both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

What is published here is the clarification he has asked for, which has been undertaken by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. It is intended as a contribution to the dialogue which is carried out by the Joint International Commission between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

* Pope John Paul II gave in St Peter Basilica on 29 June in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew IVenerable

Don’t know if that is what you had in mind. I think they all basically say the same thing. The Filioque is not something that is on the serious list of issues that separate us. Most of the clergy and laity Catholic and Orthodox have no idea about the various agreed statements and haven’t read any of the discussions at the top on the Filioque. Of course we Byzantine Catholics for the most part proclaim “from the Father” in the Creed and as others have said Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in the Greek, which has no Filioque clause in the Greek because the Greek word meaning “proceeds” has a more specific meaning etc. etc. and I don’t wish to go there…:yawn:

Benedict XVI and Bartholomew I recite the Creed in Greek I don’t understand most of the Greek but hearing this, amplified by the slide show, immediately brings tears to my eyes, …

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother 5loaves,

Or maybe this from the Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity which begins with the preface:

This is the one I was thinking of (ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM). Thank you! My own link to the document was invalid, so I couldn’t verify if it was the same as the one put forth by the North American Catholic-Orthodox Committee.

Hopefully, brother Nine-Two (and others) will take the time to read it.

Blessings,
Marduk