The Filioque in Eastern Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Entwhistler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Entwhistler

Guest
So I have been to one Melkite liturgy and during the creed the Filioque is not said. I’m wondering, is this a theme in the Eastern Catholic churches? And why is that? Do they disagree with the filioque and if they do, what is Rome’s reason for allowing them to disagree? Does Rome allow it because they are not necessarily denying it? They just don’t say it in the creed.
 
Other than the Melkites, the only other Eastern Catholic liturgy I’ve been to is Maronite, and they didn’t say it there either so far as I can remember.
 
As long as we maintain the same doctrine as the Roman Church, we as Catholics are free to use any Creed that has received approval by the Church. The Apostles Creed and the original Nicene Creed have been approved. So has the revised edition of the Nicene Creed from the Second Ecumenical Council (which still didn’t use the Filioque, though it did add other stuff about the Holy Spirit that wasn’t in the original Nicene Creed) and the further revision from the Councils of Toledo (which did add the Filioque – or was it another council? I forget). The Church has approved all these Creeds, as well as a few others, and you may use any one you like so long as you recognize that they are all summaries and you must still agree with all the teachings of the Roman Church – including that the Filioque is true, even if it is not mentioned particularly in every Creed.
 
Last edited:
If one looks at the official Greek version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in the Vatican itself, the filioque is not included. It is a Latin addition to the text formulated to combat a specific heresy that was arising in the West (Albigensianism I believe). It’s never really made any sense for the East to have it in the Creed.

We Maronites do include it in our Liturgy. Whether the formulation makes sense in Syriac or in a Syriac mindset, I do not know.

From what I understand, it is mostly the Byzantine East that has had an issue with it.
 
From what I heard, it sounds rather different in the Greek… the meaning gets changed depending on the Greek word that’s used for the procession. In Latin, there is no such controversy. The Church never asked for it to be in the Greek version. As Eastern Catholics we just shouldn’t say that it’s heretical in the Latin.
 
Some Eastern Catholics may use the Filioque why others do not.

From the Catholic point of view, historically, the Filioque is only valid within the Latin context since the word “proceeds” in the Latin creed allows for the Filioque “procedit”.

The original Greek translation of the creed uses a much more specific word for “proceeds” that should only apply to the Spirit’s procession from the Father alone “ekpoureus”. That is why the Catholic Church forbids the Filioque being read in Greek because it would be downright heretical. Historically this hasn’t always been the case in the medieval ages where it was enforced, but it’s something Catholic theologians recognize today (Filioque in Greek is heretical). So if it’s in actual Greek, the Filioque should NOT be read. For other rites/languages, I’m not sure.

A good number of Eastern Catholics are from the byzantine rite, so again, their creed should omit the Filioque if read in Greek.

If the Eastern Catholic church creed is read in English, then there are two options. English has only used one word “proceeds” as a translation for either procedit or ekpoureus. So if a Latin Church reads the creed and says “proceeds” it can be implied it’s a translation of procedit so the Filioque is okay.

If an Eastern Catholic says proceeds, then most likely this implies a translation of the Greek ekpoureus so they should not say the Filioque. However, they could say the Filioque as long as they realize they mean"procedit" and not “ekpoureus” when reading “proceeds.”

So this is why (Byzantine) Eastern Catholics may or may not use the Filioque. From their Greek/Byzantine heritage, they should not say the Filioque due to translating proceeds from “ekpoureus.” But since translations in English in general have always had a Latin backdrop with “proceeds” usually meaning procedit for English speaking Catholics, some Eastern Catholics may say the English translation of the creed to refer to the “procedit” Latin translation.

But regardless of the language issues, eastern Catholics are required to at least believe the Filioque (in Latin context) regardless if they say the Filioque or not.

This is the Catholic pov (I’m Orthodox , so not necessarily what I believe).
 
Yes, all of those answers make perfect sense. I only wish that there was at least one eastern rite church in my state. Alas, we do not.
 
Entwhistler said:
So I have been to one Melkite liturgy and during the creed the Filioque is not said. I’m wondering, is this a theme in the Eastern Catholic churches? And why is that? Do they disagree with the filioque and if they do, what is Rome’s reason for allowing them to disagree? Does Rome allow it because they are not necessarily denying it? They just don’t say it in the creed.
Click to expand...
Byzantine Catholic Church (USA) does not include “and the Son” in their Symbol of Faith in the Divine Liturgy.
 
I wrote this post and drew this illustration for Facebook a few days ago but I think it’s germane to this OP:

An illustration I made showing the spiration of the Spirit from the Father and through the Son.

Showing how the Filioque is a 100% Orthodox Catholic doctrine, and that Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Christians who take issue with it are making a mistake.

“[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged”

-St. Gregory the Thaumaturge (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).

“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources”

-St. Hilary of Poitiers (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

"The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
 
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.77 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”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 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.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

-Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraphs 246, 247, & 248

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
The Byzantine Catholic church I attended before becoming Orthodox did not recite the Filioque. It was in the service books but was scratched out in all of the copies in the pews.
 
Both versions are fine, provided they are each interpreted properly. At the Council of Florence, East and West agreed to this as follows:

Council of Florence
All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
 
Last edited:
RdrJohn said:
The Byzantine Catholic church I attended before becoming Orthodox did not recite the Filioque. It was in the service books but was scratched out in all of the copies in the pews.
Click to expand...
“And the Son” is not in The Divine Liturgies of our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great promulgated January 6, 2007 and to be used exclusively in churches of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Juris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A. since June 29, 2007.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top