Shift in the Western Understanding of Filioque to Eastern View?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marybeloved
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TrueLight said:
Use the Gregorian calendar. 🙂
Click to expand...
There is actually A LOT of things the Orthodox will concede to if done via Ecumenical Council. In fact as I sad in the past, the Orthodox can accept the Catholic Ecclesiology of having one supreme bishop in the Pope provided that it is accepted by an Ecumenical Council and it is not a dogma.
 
RyanBlack said:
What do you suggest?
Click to expand...
My suggestion is: That they come into full communion with the Holy See. - I pray that in my life time, the Church will be united once again. 🙂

I do have a question, what is the issue with the Filioque? And from my understanding - those who are Byzantine Catholic correct me if I am wrong - Byzantine Catholic are not required to say it during the Divine Liturgy.

One more thing, do Orthodox say “From the Father through the Son”? The CCC states that both “from” and “through” can both be used, so if so what is the issue?
 
Ignatius_Maron said:
My suggestion is: That they come into full communion with the Holy See. - I pray that in my life time, the Church will be united once again. 🙂

I do have a question, what is the issue with the Filioque? And from my understanding - those who are Byzantine Catholic correct me if I am wrong - Byzantine Catholic are not required to say it during the Divine Liturgy.

One more thing, do Orthodox say “From the Father through the Son”? The CCC states that both “from” and “through” can both be used, so if so what is the issue?
Click to expand...
The formula using from. No variant of ‘ekporeuomenon ek tou huiou’ is acceptable to us. What is encouraging is that the Roman Catholic Church has shied away from insisting upon the use of that problematic phrasing in Greek
 
ProVobis said:
I hope that doesn’t mean we have to drop Credo III.

Can we just hum that part? 🙂
Click to expand...
Usually we have a short pause on that when we recite it. And you’ll know if we have Roman Catholic visitors when you hear a voice or two utter the Filioque 😛
 
Cavaradossi said:
The formula using from. No variant of ‘ekporeuomenon ek tou huiou’ is acceptable to us. What is encouraging is that the Roman Catholic Church has shied away from insisting upon the use of that problematic phrasing in Greek
Click to expand...
Ohhh, okay, thank you so much for the clarification. 🙂 One of the many troubles with translation, I hope and pray that soon the issues that have caused this sad division between us, can be corrected.
ConstantineTG said:
Usually we have a short pause on that when we recite it. And you’ll know if we have Roman Catholic visitors when you hear a voice or two utter the Filioque 😛
Click to expand...
ConstantineTG are you Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Usually we have a short pause on that when we recite it. And you’ll know if we have Roman Catholic visitors when you hear a voice or two utter the Filioque 😛
Click to expand...
In the English and other vernacular Masses they normally recite the Apostles Creed which avoids the issue altogether. I haven’t heard the new English translation of the Nicene Creed, which I presume you’re talking about.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Both 😉 👍
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, I think I know what you mean. 😃 There is a Russian Byzantine Catholic site I’ve visited before: rumkatkilise.org/necplus.htm

It explains: “Properly speaking, we should refer to ourselves as Russian Orthodox who are in communion with the Church of Rome, because we are Orthodox in our entire liturgical and spiritual practice according to Holy Tradition of the Byzantine Church and the spiritual traditions of Russian Orthodox Church.”
 
ConstantineTG said:
Usually we have a short pause on that when we recite it. And you’ll know if we have Roman Catholic visitors when you hear a voice or two utter the Filioque 😛
Click to expand...
That’s what happened to me when I went to a Ukrainian EC church with my EC friend.

I was reciting right along and to my dismay realized I was the only voice that recited the Filioque.

I wouldn’t describe so much as a pause. It was more like a very pregnant silence.
 
ProVobis said:
In the English and other vernacular Masses they normally recite the Apostles Creed which avoids the issue altogether. I haven’t heard the new English translation of the Nicene Creed, which I presume you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
Really? My sister from NJ was one of those slip-ups so I pressume they use the English Nicene Creed. Although we do not use the word “consubstantial”. Yet.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Really? My sister from NJ was one of those slip-ups so I pressume they use the English Nicene Creed.
Click to expand...
They may be using it but as I don’t go to English Masses, I haven’t heard it. At the Spanish Mass it would be “que procede del Padre y del Hijo” and in Polish “który od Ojca i Syna pochodzi.” The removal of the bolded would sort of destroy the balance of the Trinity (and poetry) and IMO they could very well take the phrase out altogether but I don’t decide these things. Would it be theologically wrong to remove “qui ex Patri Filioque procedit” from the Creed?
 
ProVobis said:
They may be using it but as I don’t go to English Masses, I haven’t heard it. At the Spanish Mass it would be “que procede del Padre y del Hijo” and in Polish “który od Ojca i Syna pochodzi.” The removal of the bolded would sort of destroy the balance of the Trinity (and poetry) and IMO they could very well take the phrase out altogether but I don’t decide these things. Would it be theologically wrong to remove “qui ex Patri Filioque procedit” from the Creed?
Click to expand...
Considering that the creed was not said in Rome with the Filioque added until some time in the early eleventh century or late tenth century, I don’t think omitting it would be problematic.
 
ProVobis said:
Would it be theologically wrong to remove “qui ex Patri Filioque procedit” from the Creed?
Click to expand...
Was the Creed theologically wrong when it stated “τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον”?
 
ProVobis said:
They may be using it but as I don’t go to English Masses, I haven’t heard it. At the Spanish Mass it would be “que procede del Padre y del Hijo” and in Polish “który od Ojca i Syna pochodzi.” The removal of the bolded would sort of destroy the balance of the Trinity (and poetry) and IMO they could very well take the phrase out altogether but I don’t decide these things. Would it be theologically wrong to remove “qui ex Patri Filioque procedit” from the Creed?
Click to expand...
Wait, upon reading your post again, I think I misread you the first time. Is your question about whether removing the entire phrase “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” would be wrong? If so, I think removing all references to the procession of the Holy Spirit would be a mistake, because it is the strongest implicit affirmation of the Spirit’s divinity in the Creed.
 
RyanBlack said:
Was the Creed theologically wrong when it stated “τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον”?
Click to expand...
No, but I’m looking at the bigger picture/structure of the Creed itself. It starts with the Father, then adds the relationship with the Son, and then the Holy Spirit is introduced but only with the Father (with the Son out of the picture) and then with the Father and Son. See the imbalance I’m talking about here? It has more to do with the poetry and not theology, I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top