Thought experiment: Filioque in a debate club

[Constantin]

This is my first thread, so please be patient with me in case I am violating any unwritten forum rules.

I guess there have been thousands of threads around the Filioque on dozens of Christian boards.
This is an attempt to approach the matter from a different angle.

Thought experiment:
Imagine you are member of a debate club at your university.
For some strange reason, the instructor defines “Filioque - East vs. West”
as the sujet for your next discussion. Assume that in the beginning, you are completely ignorant of
the issue, indifferent and affiliated with neither eastern nor western christianity, but a rational person.
Of course, you are required to side with either one for the purpose of a discussion.
You are determined to dominate the debate, so you are beginning to read up on stuff.

Thesis: You are going to side with the East.

Reasoning: It is way more convenient from a rhetorical point of view.
If you were to side with the West, i.e. considering the Filioque NOT a heresy, you are bound to
a defensive position from the very beginning. YOU have to prove how the insertion into creed is
NOT inadmissible and a heresy. You can never claim that the East was “wrong” to stay with the original
version - it would be ridiculous and no apologist worth his salt ever did that.
There is hardly a chance you will gain any initiative in such a discussion,
supposing your opponent is on a similar level rhetorically.

On the other hand, if you were to side with the East, there are multiple strategies
(political, historical, dogmatic) how to attack the Western position which should allow you at least
to raise some doubt about its validity in a neutral audience. You are free to choose and hold all the aces.

Stepping back, it would seem that a similar point (debate club situation) could be made for other controversial issues
(papal primacy, immaculate conception, …).
Do not get me wrong, I am not claiming in any way that the East was right after all and we´d better convert!
Remember this is a thought experiment and the context is the debate club.
What do you think?

 

[PluniaZ]

The East are the ones who amended the original creed in the first place - the Nicene Creed of 325 was adopted by 318 bishops from the entire Church (East and West) with the approval (and likely authorship) of the Pope. The Niceno-Constantinopalitan Creed of 381 was adopted by 150 Eastern bishops only. It is not clear when the wider church accepted the revisions made at Constantinople. Catholic Enyclopedia says:

The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council. Its mention in the so-called “Decretum Gelasii”, towards the end of the fifth century, is not original but a later insertion in that text (Hefele). Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances (P.G., LXXVII, 468, 893).

newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

Moreover, the The Niceno-Constantinopalitan Creed was not widely used in liturgy throughout the Church for many centuries:

The recitation of the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed at the Eucharist seems to have begun, according to Theodore the Reader, at Antioch under Peter the Fuller in 471 (though James of Edessa says that it was adopted as soon as it was composed), and to have been adopted at Constantinople by the Patriarch Timotheus in 511. Both intended to protest, as Monophysites, against Chalcedonian “innovations”, but in spite of this heretical origin the practice spread, though Rome did not finally adopt it until the eleventh century.

newadvent.org/cathen/04479a.htm

So, while the Eastern Orthodox like to pretend that the entire Church adopted the Niceno-Constantinopalitan Creed in 381 and everyone agreed on it and used it in their liturgy from that moment forward, the truth is that the Niceno-Constantinopalitan Creed only slowly began to make its way into wider use throughout the Church. Meanwhile, the western church developed its own customs and traditions, including the Athanasian Creed, which unequivocally states: “The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

Another important point is that councils and creeds in the early church generally only came about in response to heresies and doctrinal crises. The Nicene Creed of 325 simply stated, “We believe in the Holy Spirit”. The additions of the Niceno-Constantinopalitan Creed regarding the Holy Spirit were in response to Pneumatomachi heretics who were arguing in the East that the Holy Spirit was not God. The First Council of Constantinople simply quoted John 15:26, “the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father.” No one at the First Council of Constantinople was debating whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

By the time the East became aware that the West was using the Filioque in its liturgy, both sides had become set on their liturgical practices, and relations between East and West over the primacy of Rome vs Constantinople, the power of the Byzantine Empire and the rise of challengers such as the Lombards and Franks and Muslims, plus opposition within the East from Syriacs and Copts … made for a highly charged atmosphere where agreement and reconciliation became less and less palatable.

On top of all this are language barriers, the different meaning of “proceed” in Latin and Greek.

This is the best summary of the controversy that I’ve read:
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

 

[dmar198]

I don’t think Catholics are automatically on the defensive on this issue. It depends on how the question is framed. Consider these two ways of framing the question: “Is the Filioque a legitimate addition to the Creed?” and “Is the Filioque a heresy?” In the first case, Catholics would say Yes and the burden of proof would be on us. In the second case, some of the Orthodox would say Yes, but not all of them, and the burden of proof would be on them. Now, not all the Orthodox think the Filioque is a heresy. Some of them just think the western church didn’t have the authority to add something to the Creed, even something non-heretical, and others are even willing to give us some leeway on the question of authority.

Due to the diversity of legitimate opinions among the Orthodox, I’m not sure it would be fair to make them defend the proposition, “the Filioque is a heresy.” It would make it very hard on them since they would be defending a position that some of their own theologians deny. It would be like asking Catholics to defend a statement saying that it’s heresy to believe Mary remained alive before her Assumption. That’s not a heresy because we are allowed to believe that, and we are not allowed to believe in heresies. Similarly, the Eastern Orthodox are allowed to personally believe in the Filioque (if my understanding is correct), and therefore it would put them in a weak defensive position if you framed the question as one of heresy. They’d be doing double-duty, arguing against us but also arguing against their own camp, and they’d give us a wide-open position because we could just quote from several stridently Orthodox theologians who have said the Filioque is not heretical.

Therefore there are ways to frame the question so that the burden of proof is on the Orthodox, which makes it easier to put them on the defensive because they have extra work to do in that case.

On a related note, I think you mistook the rules of formal debate in the following sentence: “If you were to side with the West, i.e. considering the Filioque NOT a heresy, you are bound to a defensive position from the very beginning. YOU have to prove how the insertion into creed is NOT inadmissible and a heresy.” That’s not quite true. If the question is put as “Is the Filioque a heresy,” then the Orthodox have the harder work to do because they have the burden of proof. The one who affirms the question, in the rules of formal debating, is the one who has to provide proof. The Catholic side wouldn’t have to prove anything because the burden of proof is on the one affirming, not on the one denying. The one affirming has to supply proof and the one denying has to rebut the proof. It is easier to tear down walls than it is to make them, so it is easier to be on the “deny” side than it is to be on the “affirm” side.

The debate might go something like this:

Orthodox: The Filioque is a heresy because the Bible teaches against it in passage X, the Fathers teach against it in passage Y, and it was added without authority according to historical document Z.

Catholic: Passage X doesn’t even mention the Filioque, let alone deny it. Passage Y criticizes only one extremist version of the Filioque, it says nothing about the moderate position adopted at Florence. And historical document Z was written 200 years after the event and cannot be relied upon as a historical record.

Sidenote: at this point, the Catholic side has the more favorable position. The Orthodox guys have used all three types of ammo they can throw at us: Scripture, Fathers, and Councils (well, actually the historical record, but on this issue the historical record is usually invoked to report the decisions of councils). They don’t believe in any other type of infallible religious authority than those ones. However, the Catholic side has not even Begun yet to prove their case. They are not even required to.

Still a sidenote: The Catholic side merely has to poke holes in the Orthodox argument, because if there is no evidence that the Filioque is heretical, it immediately follows that it is not heretical. Heresies have to have evidence that they are a heresy because you can’t declare an opinion a heresy for no reason. Now, it is important to point out that, in a formal debate, the Denying side doesn’t Have to prove their position since the affirming side automatically loses the debate if they can’t prove their case. But the denying side May do double-duty if they want, and provide evidence that their side is Not a heresy. So the Catholic guy continues:

Catholic: Moreover, Scripture teaches the Filioque in passage A, the Fathers teach it in passage B, it was added With authority according to historical document C, and YOUR OWN THEOLOGIANS (at least some of them) say it isn’t heretical. Are you saying you know more than your own sources???

Now the Eastern Orthodox guy is OBVIOUSLY on the defensive. He not only has to rebuild his position after the Catholic guy has pointed out its weaknesses, he Also has to defend against the reasons provided for the Catholic position because they are incompatible with his view. Neither Scripture nor the Fathers nor the Councils can teach something heretical, and although eminent Orthodox theologians can Theoretically teach something heretical, he definitely wants to avoid claiming that his own sources are biased. So these Catholic points have to be rebutted for the Orthodox guy to succeed. So he’s got seven things on his plate now (defending his own 3 points and defending against 4 Catholic points) whereas he started out with 3. To me, it is obvious that the Catholic position on this issue is the easier one.

I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[Constantin]

@PluniaZ: Thanks for putting together all this apologetic material, much appreciated! But, as I said, the intention was not to start yet another thread discussing the same theological positions like always. I really wanted (name removed by moderator)ut on the rhetorical aspects.

@dmar198: Plain awesome. This is what I was looking for.
In practice, this may not work that ideal, but I get the idea. It’s all about setting the starting point of the debate. If you’re at a disadvantage there, you have basically lost.

Due to personal circumstances, I find myself quite frequently in discussions about theology with people from our orthodox second lung. Not necessarily the filioque, but never mind. I often feel like not exactly winning the argument - as a matter of fact I am mostly happy with a draw.

 

[edward_george]

Do not get me wrong, I am not claiming in any way that the East was right after all and we´d better convert!
Remember this is a thought experiment and the context is the debate club.
What do you think?

The Catholic Church claims at least on some level that the East is right, or else it would not allow Eastern Churches in union with Rome to recite the Creed sans Filioque in their liturgies. There is an understanding on the part of most in the East and the West that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and in this way the use of the Filioque or non-use of it is actually not nearly so contradictory as some imagine. From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

**247 **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, 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.

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.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Constantin]

The Catholic Church claims at least on some level that the East is right, or else it would not allow Eastern Churches in union with Rome to recite the Creed sans Filioque in their liturgies. There is an understanding on the part of most in the East and the West that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and in this way the use of the Filioque or non-use of it is actually not nearly so contradictory as some imagine. From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

-Fr ACEGC

Thank you. Indeed, the filioque is nowadays mostly not seen as the or at least a key divisive factor separating east and west - though orthodoxy is far from being a monolithic block in this regard. Papal primacy and ex cathedra infallibility is.
My idea was to use the filioque disagreement - to which extent it may exist - as an example for rhetorical positioning which then could be transferred to other scenarios such as immaculate conception, original sin, the bishop of Rome etc.

 

[Ubenedictus]

The Catholic Church claims at least on some level that the East is right, or else it would not allow Eastern Churches in union with Rome to recite the Creed sans Filioque in their liturgies. There is an understanding on the part of most in the East and the West that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and in this way the use of the Filioque or non-use of it is actually not nearly so contradictory as some imagine. From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

-Fr ACEGC

The east says the filioque is heresy, I won’t be in a hurry to claim the west thinks they are right.

The west allows the greek catholics to say the creed without the filioque because the word for proceed in greek is pretty different in meaning from the latin procedit. This doesn’t mean the west thinks it is ok to reject that the spirit proceed also from the father.