Shift in the Western Understanding of Filioque to Eastern View?

[TrueLight]

What has this got to do with the Filioque? Rome has rejected none of the 21 Councils- including those that affirmed the Filioque.

Who is (denying it)? We do use it today- for over a thousand years now, what ancient Romans did or didn’t do cannot just take away from what the West has done for so long, with the blessing and approval of Popes and Ecumenical Councils.

Who is denying it? It was also accepted by other Popes and Councils- Is that not factual?

You have to start making some point with all these questions that imply a denial that no one on this thread is making. Really ByzCath- What is your point?

It is a matter of Tradition- could you provide a common creed for the church of the first three centuries? The creed was formulated because of heresy- if the contention is that the filioque is heretical, then this gesture you’re suggesting will achieve nothing since we are not going to change our dogmas- and if the Orthodox think it’s heresy they won’t unite with us just because our creeds sound similar.

If it’s not (heretical) then why tell a church to change it’s thousand year practice as a gesture to another that doesn’t deem it heretical? Sorry, such politically motivated changes to our practice with the romantic idea that they will make us more other-friendly have proven disastrous to us in the west, we’ve had enough of that- and we know it doesn’t even work.

The East and West and Orient within the Catholic communion have recited the creed differently without the church falling apart, so far-That’s proof enough for me that such a move is unwarranted. And no matter what they try to make us Latins do, the East’s main problem is the papacy- which until solved will always be an obstacle to unity. You don’t like Latinizations, we don’t like it when the Eastern equivalent is done to us either. Interfering with our practice when we are not imposing it on others is unwarranted. There’s no reason to think that demanding such changes on the West will do anything to achieve unity- It might just cause us to alienate more of our own Latin factions even further and create more problems for us in the West- again, fifty years of that is more than enough for us.

I totally agree with your post.

If, and I say if, there is any shift, it is a shift towards giving up more and more for ecumenism’s sake.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

If, and I say if, there is any shift, it is a shift towards giving up more and more for ecumenism’s sake.

TL, my friend - don’t take my comments (which spurred the related post) the wrong way.

If we treat Ecumenism as if it were a reversal of the nuclear arms race, requiring equivalent stages of reduction in arms, we’ll never answer Christ’s prayer of unity. These are matters of faith. Further, on this specific topic, careful study of the Church’s actual position on this issue are quite revealing and worthy of study. I would also recommend listening to some of the plenary sessions of the Orientale Lumen Conferences, which are readily available on the internet - you’d be most surprised with the positions articulated by the Orthodox speakers.

What is worse - professed Catholics publicly calling our blessed Holy Father a heretic (and worse) for having recited the Creed sans Filioque, in Greek, with the Ecumenical Patriarch (which did happen and has been often repeated since, as any internet search would quickly and easily prove)? or, suggesting that we start from square one with what was agreed at Ecumenical Council? Who knows what could happen …

And yes, we continue to operate in a mode where the Catholic Church does bend in appearance (and perhaps in fact as well) way further in the ecumenical dialogue than other parties in many ways. Look at how far he has bent for the SSPX. But shouldn’t that be by design? Did not Christ entrust Peter with the unity of the Twelve, and the unity of the Church? If so, is the posture of His Holiness not eminently faithful to the Petrine mission? I really feel this is utterly discounted or outright ignored by many.

 

[Vico]

I was hoping for a link but I will look into it. Thanks.

THE MEMOIRS OF SYLVESTER SYROPOULOS - Part 4:

syropoulos.co.uk/translation.htm

 

[Vico]

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

What I meant is that the basis of the filioque is not scriptural, rather, based upon the Nicene creed of 325: ὁμοούσιον τῳ πατρί (same-essence with Father).

“Consubstantial” is “one in essence,” in comparison, in the two posted English creed translations.

There is a difference in the understanding, I believe, in the way ὁμοούσιον has been understood at various times and places. The words are:

homoousion (Homo, same, identical + ousion, nature, essence)

and

consubstantial (Com, together, commingle, with + substantia, having the nature of substance).

 

[ProVobis]

homoousion (Homo, same, identical + ousion, nature, essence)

and

consubstantial (Com, together, commingle, with + substantia, having the nature of substance).

And “substance” itself could be broken down into sub + stare:

substance (n.)
c.1300, “essential nature,” from O.Fr. substance (12c.), from L. substantia “being, essence, material,” from substans, prp. of substare “stand firm, be under or present,” from sub “up to, under” + stare “to stand,” from PIE root *sta- “to stand” (see stet). A loan-translation of Gk. hypostasis. Meaning “any kind of corporeal matter” is first attested mid-14c. Sense of “the matter of a study, discourse, etc.” first recorded late 14c.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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).

Right, Charlemagne.

 

[GaryTaylor]

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FANSWERS%2FFILIOQUE.HTM&ei=27lmUJCKDajB0AHK64CYAg&usg=AFQjCNHrN7ZBCS8B1kc666iG8EPrXh0_4Q&sig2=Rk1AEb6oGUEdfgEifg6Z6Q

I don’t see the issue. I don’t see where either is saying anything different.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What I meant is that the basis of the filioque is not scriptural, rather, based upon the Nicene creed of 325: ὁμοούσιον τῳ πατρί (same-essence with Father).

“Consubstantial” is “one in essence,” in comparison, in the two posted English creed translations.

There is a difference in the understanding, I believe, in the way ὁμοούσιον has been understood at various times and places. The words are:

homoousion (Homo, same, identical + ousion, nature, essence)

and

consubstantial (Com, together, commingle, with + substantia, having the nature of substance).

Right, I follow you, I believe Fr Saunders article copied by EWTN above gives clarity to your point. Thanks.

 

[GaryTaylor]

To note, I believe in the bull Dominus Iesus Pope Benedict XVI used the original version.

The point if Rome used the phrase or not before Pope Benedict started using it in Rome during the 10th century still doesn’t resolve… that it was added to the creed by the Third Council of Toledo in 589, granted the 5-Patriarchs were not present. Nevertheless heresy was the point of the Council…Arianism. The filioque clause spread through the Latin, West but not through the Greek-speaking East. The Franks adopted it, but its use caused controversy in the 9th century

IMO there’s a need for understanding “either way” the Creed is recited, I don’t view this as a point which can’t be resolved, as it has been resolved before, then picked up but once again as a point of schism.

However, there is no difference in theology here, how could there be? The issue here is how this was handled in regards to the Eastern Church in that period. I understand the Church of Rome added the phrase do to heresy, and rightfully so, nevertheless I disagree with the manner this was handled with the East.

BTW Pope Leo III was being ecumenical in his confrontation with Charlemagne.

As for heresy, one cannot remain in full communion with Rome for over 600 years, and then claim heresy, what did that make everyone for that 600 years… heretics… East and West? The heresy claim is from over zealous individuals in the Church militant. I see no need to even venture into that area.

 

[Penta]

While not desiring to step into any of the arguments in this thread (and thereby step on landmines), I do have one simple, innocent question:

Is there anything theologically stopping the Latin Rite from just saying the Creed…in Greek…in the liturgy? Not as a translation from the Latin, but just say the original Greek and be done with it?

(I grant the practical point of “But how many Catholics know Greek? Or even Latin?” Presume that can be overcome.)

 

[Filii_Dei]

While not desiring to step into any of the arguments in this thread (and thereby step on landmines), I do have one simple, innocent question:

Is there anything theologically stopping the Latin Rite from just saying the Creed…in Greek…in the liturgy? Not as a translation from the Latin, but just say the original Greek and be done with it?

(I grant the practical point of “But how many Catholics know Greek? Or even Latin?” Presume that can be overcome.)

No, but there is nothing theologically stopping the Latin Church from using Klingon to recite the Creed either. However, traditionally, in the Roman Rite, the Creed has been recited in Latin and not Greek for the last many centuries since Latin became the language of choice. For the large part, only the Kyrie was preserved in Greek, but it’s an exception.

The main question now is that of whether it would be appropriate to use Greek in the liturgy. On the face of it, it would appear that since the liturgical use of the vernacular has been approved for dozens of languages around the world, using yet another language (Greek) would be no problem. However, the issue is not the same. The use of vernacular has been justified as a means to increase accessibility to the meaning of the prayers for the faithful, while Latin continues to be used as the basis for translation. However, in your suggestion, the use of Greek is not the same as the use of the vernacular as the intention is not to increase accessibility, plus (if I am interpreting you correctly) the Latin creed would be replaced by the Greek original instead. While the Greek original may be inherently more accurate, using it insinuates that the Latin version is somehow deficient or lacking, and it would also stir up a lot of discontent amongst some Traditionalists. There is also a question of whether it is truly necessary, or whether the Latin Creed just needs to be revised to conform with the Greek original.

Personally, I would be quite surprised if Rome were to increase the usage of Greek as a liturgical language, but I would accept it if it were to be found necessary. My main concern is ensuring that Holy Tradition is upheld, and I will submit to the superior judgement of the Magisterium in such a matter.

 

[Ghosty]

Those who were in heresy were declared as such and deposed.

Again, usually the decision of a council is affirmed in the next one. You can see this with each of the seven Ecumenical ones. Even with Arius he was deposed, exonerated, and then deposed again.

How are they deposed by an Ecumenical Council that isn’t an Ecumenical Council yet? This is an illogical and unworkable proposition.

Incidentally, the Coptic delegation to Chalcedon was not deposed at that Council. They were given leave to appoint a new Patriarch because they said they could not vote on the decisions of the Council without one. They later voted against the Canons of the Council and were excommunicated for it. This demonstrates that your position is contrary to history; the Council had Ecumenical force without the assent of the still-seated Coptic Bishops. Likewise the Armenian Bishops rejected the Council, and had no representation at the Council itself, but were excommunicated none the less.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn’t do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope’s acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn’t change a thing about that.

But I’m going to catch some sleep now. I’ll answer any replies in the morning.

I realize he can’t respond, but I want to highlight an error here. In 451 the Pope rejected Canon 28, and the Council said it would have no force without his assent. Later Popes did accept this rearrangement of the order of Sees, yet Cyrillic does not call this the “hypocrisy of doctrinal development” that “Orthodoxy doesn’t do”.

If the Patriarchate of Rome can change its position on a Canon, why can’t the Patriarch of Moscow? And if a Canon that is rejected now can be approved later, then there is no place to say that the rejection of “Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction” now by the Orthodox constitutes an Ecumenical condemnation of the teaching that brands it as heresy.

Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox position on Councils presented here is unworkable, and contradicts the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Peace and God bless!

 

[yawsep1569]

Incidentally, the Coptic delegation to Chalcedon was not deposed at that Council. They were given leave to appoint a new Patriarch because they said they could not vote on the decisions of the Council without one.

I am fairly certain that this is not true. Pope Dioscoros I was the Patriarch of Alexandria for a number of years prior to 451. In fact, he headed the Synod of Ephesus in 449 (known as the “Robber Synod”). He was personally present at Chalcedon, so the Copts definitely had a Patriach there. I’m not sure if it affects your larger point, but it might be good to double check the details

 

[Ghosty]

I am fairly certain that this is not true. Pope Dioscoros I was the Patriarch of Alexandria for a number of years prior to 451. In fact, he headed the Synod of Ephesus in 449 (known as the “Robber Synod”). He was personally present at Chalcedon, so the Copts definitely had a Patriach there. I’m not sure if it affects your larger point, but it might be good to double check the details

He was deposed at Chalcedon, hence no vote from the Copts. When they did vote it was against Chalcedon, and much of the Church went with them. Chalcedon was as far from a concensus you could get.

Peace and God bless!

 

[yawsep1569]

Ok, right. Though the Copts themselves as a church did not accept the deposition, I remember now there were some bishops who did turn against Dioscoros. I guess I was speaking from the perspective of the Copts, while a “Chalcedonian” perspecitive would be as you have said. My apologies. Peace!

 

[Aramis]

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.

Rome does (pointedly) ignore certain canons… like the call for not kneeling on Sundays nor during the Easter to Pentecost season. Doesn’t deny them…simply uses the “not our tradition” argument.

It’s the one clear “rejection” I’m aware of, and it’s one canon, not a whole council. And it was a discipline canon, which is always translated as if weakly worded…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Rome does (pointedly) ignore certain canons… like the call for not kneeling on Sundays nor during the Easter to Pentecost season. Doesn’t deny them…simply uses the “not our tradition” argument.

Not sure, I believe it use’s the “It is our Tradition” arguement.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjloughnan.tripod.com%2Fcommhand.htm&ei=_UdoUIPgKai90AHr3IGACw&usg=AFQjCNGJfyfARvo9pSho5ozAXXe99zAYJQ&sig2=48YE8n2cv5YfJpWJkt88Gw

Nevertheless, that said, today, I see where in many congregations there’s a choice similiar to the Mass you see on EWTN.