Shift in the Western Understanding of Filioque to Eastern View?

[Vico]

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.

This is what is being used in the USA now in the Latin Ordinary Form:I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
[At the words that follow up to and including and became man, all bow.]
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

But the Byzantine Catholic Church (2006) has:I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-begotten,
born of the Father before all ages.
Light from light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in essence with the Father;
through whom all things were made.
For us and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven
and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried.
He rose on the third day
according to the scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he is coming again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life,
who proceeds from the Father.
Together with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified;
he spoke through the prophets.
In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I profess one baptism for the remission of sins.
I expect the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Okay, let’s look at two passages from John

14:

16 κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν, ἵνα ᾖμεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,

16 et ego rogabo Patrem, et alium Paraclitum dabit vobis, ut maneat vobiscum in æternum,

16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

15:

26 ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ:

26 Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit de me;

26 But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he shall give testimony of me

It seems it would be unfair to cut off the Son, albeit the Holy Spirit would not necessarily be proceeded from Him. Sent maybe? (“ex Patre procedit et de Filio misit”?)

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Well, the pause really was there because you just ended a phrase and you cannot jump right in to the next one. English rules

I’d prefer it sung but our congregation doesn’t want to do it.

 

[Marybeloved]

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.

I don’t think so, we have the Council of Florence to prove otherwise.

 

[Marybeloved]

Personally, I would love to see the Filioque dropped as a plain gesture of willingness to concede an easily concedable point.

Not so easily conceded. If we all agree that the understanding is not heresy, why ask one tradition to sacrifice its more than one thousand years of tradition just to appease another? Others don’t have to recite it-why force Latins to do the creed like Byzantines? We don’t want to force Orientals to abandon their theology if it’s clear that they don’t mean error by their words. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the Greek way is the only way or even the best way to approach the faith-this is not something Orthodox or even Eastern Catholics have been able to demonstrate anywhere I’ve read or looked into the subject. This would be a gross imposition for our recitation to be done according to the East-I don’t get why you think that it’s an easily concedable thing for we in the West to just dump our tradition of the filioque as a mere gesture.

 

[Vico]

Mary - for my part, I’ll requote a relevant paragraph from the CCC (248), together with the two preceeding paragraphs that discuss the Filioque:

This seems to be indicative of a reconciliation, of sorts, of the Western tradition to the Eastern, in the words of the Catholic Church.

The question remains whether this nuanced understanding and explanation would be acceptable to the Orthodox as a long-term answer, settling the controversy.

The dogma has origin in the Nicene Creed term “consubstantial”.

There seems to be no change at all. Notice that based upon being consubstantial:

1. 
   *]the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit
   *] as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.
   
   Are the same as Council of Lyons II (1274):We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.
   And from Letter 15 – Of Pope Leo I, 447 A.D.To Turribius, Bishop of Asturia , upon the errors of the Priscillianists. II. (1) The Priscillianists’ denial of the Trinity refuted.
   And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons.
   Reference:CCC 248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t think so, we have the Council of Florence to prove otherwise.

The council of Florence, with its tiny delegation of Greek bishops (two dozen or so), can hardly be called Ecumenical from our viewpoint. Surely that is an understandable sentiment is it not? That is basically the same approach that the West takes with Trullo.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think so, we have the Council of Florence to prove otherwise.

What does it prove? And do you know what the meaning of “Ecumenical” is?

 

[Marybeloved]

What does it prove? And do you know what the meaning of “Ecumenical” is?

It proves what many Orthodox have claimed right here at CAF before and that I’m sure you’re aware of - they can reject a council even if their Bishops participate and vote on it and accept it. What’s your proof that Florence was not ecumenical like the councils of the first 8 centuries? Please give actual proof and not mere condescension that proves nothing (like asking me if I know what a ecumenical council is without even bothering with so much as an attempt to show why a council like Florence cannot be so) - and while you’re at it, be sure to explain why Chalcedon or any other council after it should be considered ecumenical per that standard you’re using (whatever it is). Thanks.

 

[Marybeloved]

The council of Florence, with its tiny delegation of Greek bishops (two dozen or so), can hardly be called Ecumenical from our viewpoint. Surely that is an understandable sentiment is it not? That is basically the same approach that the West takes with Trullo.

Well, alright, but don’t many orthodox here argue that they don’t have to accept an ec. council’s pronouncements if they don’t feel that it’s orthodox? Considering that, then surely CTG’s statement that they would merely by virtue of holding an ec.council is at best an overstatement. The very history of the church (conciliar) testifies to the truth that it’s never so neat and tidy (or easy) as far as unity of the church is concerned.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Where did you arrive at the historic dates from?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Forthodoxwiki.org%2FFilioque&ei=FYFlUIb4H4Sp0AGMnICQBw&usg=AFQjCNHt4DktxPBdv1jAhHQjVh70xGhnUQ&sig2=kwJUKgC-QODrZ1no0eLRvg

 

[GaryTaylor]

The dogma has origin in the Nicene Creed term “consubstantial”.

There seems to be no change at all. Notice that based upon being consubstantial:

1. 
   *]the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit
   *] as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.
   
   Are the same as Council of Lyons II (1274):We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.
   And from Letter 15 – Of Pope Leo I, 447 A.D.To Turribius, Bishop of Asturia , upon the errors of the Priscillianists. II. (1) The Priscillianists’ denial of the Trinity refuted.
   And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, indeed, but not consisting of three persons.
   Reference:CCC 248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

1. 
   So the word “consubstantial” is the only aspect absent in the Creed in Eastern Catholicism today?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There seems to be an underlying assumption that the Greek way is the only way or even the best way …

That is hardly the assertion when it comes to the Filioque. Did Rome reject any of the first seven Ecumenical Councils? The contention starts there.

Notwithstanding, the use of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in its pure form is not without precedent in the Catholic Church, even to this day. How can that be denied?

The Filioque was historically rejected by the Pope, well before it was accepted into general use in the Roman Church at large. Is that not factual?

The Filioque did not originate in Rome, nor from any Ecumenical Council. Is that not also factual?

A Creed is a common profession of True Faith. How is that a matter of tradition?

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is hardly the assertion when it comes to the Filioque. Did Rome reject any of the first seven Ecumenical Councils? The contention starts there.

Notwithstanding, the use of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in its pure form is not without precedent in the Catholic Church, even to this day. How can that be denied?

The Filioque was historically rejected by the Pope, well before it was accepted into general use in the Roman Church at large. Is that not factual?

The Filioque did not originate in Rome, nor from any Ecumenical Council. Is that not also factual?

A Creed is a common profession of True Faith. How is that a matter of tradition?

Added what 3-years after the Council then the East is informed what 700-800?

 

[Cyrillic]

I hope that doesn’t mean we have to drop Credo III.

Can we just hum that part?

Credo III, the only good thing about the filioque

Use the Gregorian calendar.

I personally like the calendar of Julius the Czar better. The Julian paschalion definitely has to stay, especially because that’s the day of the holy fire in Jerusalem.

Good suggestion! I still think it is sad that all Christians do not celebrate Pascha on the same day.

Hey, you could always return to the date of Pascha the first ecumenical council decided on.

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

The purpose of the Creed has everthing to do with theology-nothing to do with poetry.

 

[Cyrillic]

Not so easily conceded. If we all agree that the understanding is not heresy.

But the filioque is only orthodox when, with the word filioque, you mean the energetic procession of the Holy Spirit.

“The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son.” is not very orthodox, I think.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Added what 3-years after the Council then the East is informed what 700-800?

No, even by the time of Photius, Rome still did not use the filioque. Pope Leo III, for example, refused to approve of the decision of the Council of Aachen to add the Filioque to the creed (this was in 809).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Hey, you could always return to the date of Pascha the first ecumenical council decided on.

Or, compromise. Why should the dates be as far as 5 weeks apart, as will be the case this year? From the twenty first century perspective, I think we should be able to be faithful to the intent of the first ecumenical council yet still set a common date with reference to a modern calendar.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The purpose of the Creed has everthing to do with theology-nothing to do with poetry.

or tradition - succinctly stated, RB!