Should the "Filoque" still be a point of contention?

  • Thread starter Thread starter peso73
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

peso73

Guest
Having recently learned of all these things my knowledge is very limited regarding them, but, if the addition of the “and the Son” part to the creed was such a big deal as to be a main factor in the Great Schism, why was it and should it still be, if the Holy Trinity is one God, then why should it matter, and how do we really know the details of who proceeds from who? :hypno:
 
From the Eastern Catholic perspective the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was not to be added to, detracted from, or changed in any way according to the Councils. Regardless of a question of point of contention, it is more of an issue of fidelity to mandates from our own hierarchy as well as Rome to be faithful to our received tradition.

Fr. Paul Babie of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Eparchy of Melbourne has written well about the use of this addition in the UGCC:

catholicukes.org.au/tiki/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=7
FDRLB
 
There is no way that this issue can be ignored. I am aware that the Orthodox see it as a key difference between themselves and Catholicism. The Catholic Church for its part is far from accustomed to altering doctrine, to say the least. I myself greatly regret this difference and wish the Catholics and Orthodox believed the same, since I feel that it would be good if they became united again. And in fact in the late Middle Ages they were briefly united, which of course makes me wonder how this issue was dealt with then (if it was indeed somehow satisfactorily dealt with then).
 
And in fact in the late Middle Ages they were briefly united, which of course makes me wonder how this issue was dealt with then (if it was indeed somehow satisfactorily dealt with then).

It was dealt with by having Filioque rammed down Orthodox throats.
 
Our covenant of communion with the Church of Rome, the Union of Brest, is specific on this in Article 1 as ratified by Pope Clement VIII:
Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
Click to expand...
Also Pope John Paul II of blessed memory publically used the Creed on several occasions without the addition.
FDRLB
 
I know the “filoque” controversy has more to do with Catholic-Orthodox relations than any other, but the thought has always occurred to me that if Protestants who recite the Creed in their services use this addition to the Creed, then are they not indirectly supporting Rome’s authority? Just as they use a Bible that was compiled by the Catholic Church they also use a Creed that was formulated by the Catholic Church, and they specifically use a phrase that was added by the authority of Rome. Now obviously the Orthodox Churches have a certain historical claim to the Scripture cannon and also the Creed (as it was formulated in Council), because the Orthodox share a certain Apostolicity. But what the Orthodox reject (“filoque”), certain Protestants embrace. Does anyone see the irony in this? If Protestants reject Rome’s authority then should they not also reject the “filoque”?
I wonder if this might be an important point to bring up in discussing Rome’s authority with Protestants? The Orthodox seem more willing to accept a certain primacy of Rome, even if it is tempered by a “first among equals” status. But Protestants seem to be adamantly opposed to any such authority to the point of some even rejecting the idea of the episcopate. Yet they accept a phrase added to a Creed by a Roman bishop, and a Creed that was formulated by a Council of Bishops. Do any Protestants here have a thought on this?
Thomas
 
AquinasT said:
I know the “filoque” controversy has more to do with Catholic-Orthodox relations than any other, but the thought has always occurred to me that if Protestants who recite the Creed in their services use this addition to the Creed, then are they not indirectly supporting Rome’s authority? Just as they use a Bible that was compiled by the Catholic Church they also use a Creed that was formulated by the Catholic Church, and they specifically use a phrase that was added by the authority of Rome. Now obviously the Orthodox Churches have a certain historical claim to the Scripture cannon and also the Creed (as it was formulated in Council), because the Orthodox share a certain Apostolicity. But what the Orthodox reject (“filoque”), certain Protestants embrace. Does anyone see the irony in this? If Protestants reject Rome’s authority then should they not also reject the “filoque”?
I wonder if this might be an important point to bring up in discussing Rome’s authority with Protestants? The Orthodox seem more willing to accept a certain primacy of Rome, even if it is tempered by a “first among equals” status. But Protestants seem to be adamantly opposed to any such authority to the point of some even rejecting the idea of the episcopate. Yet they accept a phrase added to a Creed by a Roman bishop, and a Creed that was formulated by a Council of Bishops. Do any Protestants here have a thought on this?
Thomas
Click to expand...
Well Thomas, although I am not a protestant, I can tell you I have talked with a number of 'em…even know 2 that brought me into this world and raised me 😛 , although they would deny that they are “protestants”…and therein lies your answer I think, at least partially, most protestants I have discussed religion with don’t say the creed during there services, so even though they would profess a similar belief if one was to ask them line by line, once you got past the parts about God there’d be very different understandings of what the meaning of some of those other phrases are, plus, and just as common, they’d acknowledge the church that canonized scripture, and formulated the creed,(although I didn’t know about this “filoque” thing until recently, hmmm…they didn’t mention changing the creed in RCIA :whistle: ) the point being they insist the Roman Catholic church, “(is)…not the same church, Jon…it’s NOT the same church. If you want to know about the catholic church you should come talk to my friend…)” ~my little sister when I was deciding which church/religion I felt might be the right one…
So, they would say, at some point, usually @ 600 and something, there were no more, or very very few “true christians”…until…well, then it also depends on who you’re talking to…and the churches that DO recite the creed, ie Lutheren, Anglican, etc…wouldn’t deny that they got it all from Rome, but that again, only perhaps later that the previous groups, that the RCC got so messed up it had to be LEFT BEHIND :whacky: know what I mean?
I have even been told “Do you know that catholic rituals are really Satanic?” so…there ya go.
 
peso73,
I know some Protestant churches do not recite the Creed during their service. And I also know that Lutherans and Anglicans (both of which do use the Creed) also do acknowledge, to a certain degree, Rome’s importance in formulating doctrine and they recognize the possibility of a certain primacy within the Church centered in Rome (of course, with certain modifications to the Catholic understand this primacy). In fact, I just read a book about the ecumenical dialog between, Catholics and Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Orthodox, which details the great advancements we have made in discussing exactly how Rome’s primacy figures into a united Church.
Having said that…I am also good friends with some Methodists and Presbyterians. These Church’s are much less accepting of Roman authority. (There is currently a thread on this forum discussing Methodist anti-Catholicism from its founder, John Wesley. And Presbyterians reject bishops altogether, so the idea of a Roman bishop having authority must be a foreign concept.) Yet many of these churches do in fact recite the Nicene Creed in their service, just as the Lutherans and Episcopalians do. My friends tell me that they do recite it, and I have read about the Creed on their websites, and their acceptance of “filoque”. These denominations are aware of the change in the “filoque” phrase, and how it came about…at least their theologians are…but they do not explain how they can justify accepting it.
The person in the pew probably does not give it a second thought. My friends do not. I have asked them about it and they do not have an answer as to how they can accept a Creed given to them by Catholic bishops and altered by the Church of Rome. Most people do not think about such things.
But this is what I mean about using this issue in discussions with Protestant friends. It is one more element of the debate that they are commonly not aware of that (when explained properly) just might open their eyes to the Truth. They should be told that by reciting the Creed with the “filoque” included, they are, in effect, swearing allegiance to a doctrine formulated by Rome.
Thomas
 
Diak said:
Our covenant of communion with the Church of Rome, the Union of Brest, is specific on this in Article 1 as ratified by Pope Clement VIII:

Also Pope John Paul II of blessed memory publically used the Creed on several occasions without the addition.
FDRLB
Click to expand...
That’s because both are true.
 
They should be told that by reciting the Creed with the “filoque” included, they are, in effect, swearing allegiance to a doctrine formulated by Rome.
Thomas

Well, yeah, they should be told that, and I think it is a very valid point, but I have found with sola scriptura protestants it is almost impossible to convince them of any truths of the catholic faith, as any scripture can be interpreted differently…it always has ended up in “this means this.”…“No it doesn’t, it means this!”…no you’re wrong, it means such and such"…on and on…we usually if we’re co-workers, agree to disagree and stop talking about religion 😛
 
steve_b said:
That’s because both are true.
Click to expand...
It’s the wording that’s confusing. Both Orthodox and Catholics believe the same exact thing, but express it in different ways. It doesn’t help matters when both scream “heresy” at the other because their way of describing it is different.

I’m hoping Catholics and Orthodox can come to an agreement soon. I pray for reunion everyday and I am overjoyed at the fact with the Assyrian Church of the East (or part of it?) striving to enter into the Catholic Church. Unity is happening, slowly but surely. It still requires prayers on our part!

Pace e Bene
Andrew
 
Harpazo said:
It’s the wording that’s confusing. Both Orthodox and Catholics believe the same exact thing, but express it in different ways. It doesn’t help matters when both scream “heresy” at the other because their way of describing it is different.

I’m hoping Catholics and Orthodox can come to an agreement soon. I pray for reunion everyday and I am overjoyed at the fact with the Assyrian Church of the East (or part of it?) striving to enter into the Catholic Church. Unity is happening, slowly but surely. It still requires prayers on our part!

Pace e Bene
Andrew
Click to expand...
I wish that it could or may be so one day, but I doubt we’ll see it in our lifetimes…take a look at the thread on “annulments vs. orthodox divorces”…pretty grim.
:nope:
I think for it to happen, the orthodox would pretty much have to recognize the pope as first amongst equals, and the papacy would have to kind of let them keep their autocephalous status or however you spell it 😊
and then of course the whole divorce thing would have to be resolved…(see aforementioned thread)
 
peso73 said:
I wish that it could or may be so one day, but I doubt we’ll see it in our lifetimes…take a look at the thread on “annulments vs. orthodox divorces”…pretty grim.
:nope:
I think for it to happen, the orthodox would pretty much have to recognize the pope as first amongst equals, and the papacy would have to kind of let them keep their autocephalous status or however you spell it 😊
and then of course the whole divorce thing would have to be resolved…(see aforementioned thread)
Click to expand...
No, I do not expect a reunion of the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics in my lifetime. I have learned that the differences are serious and many in the minds of the Orthodox.

The Orthodox are already willing to confess the Pope of Rome as first among equals. But the Pope demands that the orthodox confess him as the infallible head of the church with limitless jurisdiction. This will never happen. Even if there was such a “deal” another pillar of Orthodoxy like Mark of Ephesus would rise up and oppose it.(The Orthodox canonize their archbishop Lefebvres).

If you are intersted in the Orthodox side of the story, there is no better reading than the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848. It describes, in detail, all of the greviances the Orthodox Church has with the pope of Rome including a 15 point condemnation of the Filioque

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

God Bless
 
From the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs 1848

The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).

i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.

iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nice and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.

v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.

vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.

vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.

viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.

ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.

x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.

xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.
 
xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism, denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.

xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.

xv. It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: “If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic” (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council.
 
My point in posting the above isn’t to bait catholics into a fight. I just wanted to demonstrate that there are many Orthodox who have a big problem with Filioque. This condemnation by all four eastern patriarchs was only 160 years ago.
 
VARC said:
No, I do not expect a reunion of the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics in my lifetime. I have learned that the differences are serious and many in the minds of the Orthodox.

The Orthodox are already willing to confess the Pope of Rome as first among equals.
Click to expand...
It’s a term that doesn’t make much sense. If one is first then the others aren’t equal. If all are equal, one isn’t first.
40.png
Varc:
But the Pope demands that the orthodox confess him as the infallible head of the church with limitless jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
The problem always stems from misinformation and distortions.
40.png
Varc:
If you are intersted in the Orthodox side of the story, there is no better reading than the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848. It describes, in detail, all of the greviances the Orthodox Church has with the pope of Rome including a 15 point condemnation of the Filioque

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

God Bless
Click to expand...
Here is the Catholic side. It’s scholarly, balanced and charitable.
usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
 
These posts show that it will not go away as a point of contention. Still, if there was reunion, could each keep its own creed? There are already several different creeds that the church formulated in ancient times that are still used today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top