Why not remove the filioque?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vluvski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vluvski

Guest
I’m learning more about Eastern Orthodoxy in another thread, and our discussion led me to wonder why, in the recent changes to the Mass and the creed, we did not exclude the filioque.

If the Eastern Catholics’ English version of the creed deliberately excludes the filioque, and if the pope found it appropriate to exclude the filioque when he recited the creed in Greek, why is it necessary to keep it in the Nicene creed that was already being changed?

It seems like this had the potential to be a gesture of good will toward our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

When I posed the question in the other thread, a Coptic Orthodox Christian said he has asked the same question, and was told it has to do with fighting Arianism, specifically in Spain. Except I’m not talking about changing it for the entire church, just that it could have been included in the changes for the English version, which was already being revised. Changes to the English version are not really relevant to the Arian situation in Spain. I will come back with his exact quote in another post, in case I misunderstood.
 
dzheremi said:
…this is something I have also asked (when I was Roman Catholic; now such questions don’t concern me), but was very disappointed by the answers. Generally, people will say that the interpolation was necessary to fight Arianism in Spain, and as such is still necessary in so far as there are still essentially Arian groups out there, such as Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. One might then wonder why there is not an explosion of SDA and JW congregations in the traditional Christian lands of the East, but I guess that could be a whole different discussion.
Click to expand...
 
It’s hard to answer the “why” because that would tend to be directed toward the authorities that be. It could be because the filioque arose in the Western tradition and it is a valid truth whose removal would indicate that it is “false” when such is not the case. I can’t really give you a precise answer, and for all I know, maybe the Western Church will embrace the Eastern Rite’s text some day. At any rate, I feel compelled to share the best article I’ve ever read through on the Filioque by apologist Mark Bonocore. Lot of history and info in that article that may shed light on your question.
:o
 
I will read the article later, thanks. This is my feebly informed personal opinion on the matter, to elaborate on what I said in the previous thread.

We openly admit that the nature of God and the Trinity transcend human understanding during our life on this earth. The filioque relates to the nature of God and the Trinity, and a full understanding of that is not really necessary for salvation. It is far more important to avoid an incorrect understanding of the nature of God than to have a more complete and correct understanding of the nature of God.

Therefore, if a complete understanding of the nature of the Trinity is not necessary for salvation,
if the phrase in question is already excluded from English translations among rites that remain in communion with Rome,
if the pope himself excludes the phrase when reciting the creed in Greek…

then why not extend the olive branch, so to speak, as a tangible act of good will toward reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox.
 
The use of filioque spread gradually according to the decrees of local Synods. We should expect that it will be removed in a similar manner, not by some unilateral action. Even the movement among the non-Latin Catholic Churches depends on the decision of the local Synods, and not all Eastern or Oriental jurisdictions have removed the filioque from their Creeds.

If local Latin episcopal conferences decide not to remove it, that should be no barrier to unity. What is needed is proper education in all the Churches regarding the orthodox theology of filioque, which I don’t think is happening a lot (very unfortunately).

Even regardless of the tension between the East and West on the matter, is there proper instruction on filioque in the catechism classes of the Latin Catholic Church? Do the Latin Catholics generally understand that the phrase in the Creed, according to the Latin Tradition, refers to the ousia of the Spirit, and not His Hypostasis? Is the Official Clarification on filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory being made a subject of study (even in summary form) in Latin Catholic RCIA classes? I should hope so. For that matter, I think it should be made a subject of study in Eastern and Oriental Catholic Catechetical classes, as well.

Blessings,
Marduk
vluvski said:
I’m learning more about Eastern Orthodoxy in another thread, and our discussion led me to wonder why, in the recent changes to the Mass and the creed, we did not exclude the filioque.

If the Eastern Catholics’ English version of the creed deliberately excludes the filioque, and if the pope found it appropriate to exclude the filioque when he recited the creed in Greek, why is it necessary to keep it in the Nicene creed that was already being changed?

It seems like this had the potential to be a gesture of good will toward our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

When I posed the question in the other thread, a Coptic Orthodox Christian said he has asked the same question, and was told it has to do with fighting Arianism, specifically in Spain. Except I’m not talking about changing it for the entire church, just that it could have been included in the changes for the English version, which was already being revised. Changes to the English version are not really relevant to the Arian situation in Spain. I will come back with his exact quote in another post, in case I misunderstood.
Click to expand...
 
vluvski said:
I will read the article later, thanks. This is my feebly informed personal opinion on the matter, to elaborate on what I said in the previous thread.

We openly admit that the nature of God and the Trinity transcend human understanding during our life on this earth. The filioque relates to the nature of God and the Trinity, and a full understanding of that is not really necessary for salvation. It is far more important to avoid an incorrect understanding of the nature of God than to have a more complete and correct understanding of the nature of God.

Therefore, if a complete understanding of the nature of the Trinity is not necessary for salvation,
if the phrase in question is already excluded from English translations among rites that remain in communion with Rome,
if the pope himself excludes the phrase when reciting the creed in Greek…

then why not extend the olive branch, so to speak, as a tangible act of good will toward reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox.
Click to expand...
If arianism is still present in Spain and 48% of american Catholics voted for abortion is it any wonder the Pope is reluctant to remove it? (I am mentioning the vote as a warning of weakness) and by the way Europe is not much better. Relativism is rampant.
If the flock was properly formed and there was no possibility of furthering heretical views maybe he would consider to do so.

Let’s pray that we are all properly cathequized with the Holy Spirit to better understand our faith.

:gopray2: :gopray2: :gopray2: :gopray2:
 
mardukm said:
Even regardless of the tension between the East and West on the matter, is there proper instruction on filioque in the catechism classes of the Latin Catholic Church? Do the Latin Catholics generally understand that the phrase in the Creed, according to the Latin Tradition, refers to the ousia of the Spirit, and not His Hypostasis? Is the Official Clarification on filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory being made a subject of study (even in summary form) in Latin Catholic RCIA classes? I should hope so. For that matter, I think it should be made a subject of study in Eastern and Oriental Catholic Catechetical classes, as well.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Mardukm, I would sincerly like to learn more.

Can you give a reference that I might read or point me to the Official Clarification which you mention?

-Tim-
 
mardukm said:
The use of filioque spread gradually according to the decrees of local Synods. We should expect that it will be removed in a similar manner, not by some unilateral action.
Click to expand...
Removing it from the English version of the creed would not be a unilateral action. It would have been taking advantage of an opportunity.
mardukm said:
Even regardless of the tension between the East and West on the matter, is there proper instruction on filioque in the catechism classes of the Latin Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
40.png
JerryZ:
If arianism is still present in Spain and 48% of american Catholics voted for abortion is it any wonder the Pope is reluctant to remove it?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, catechesis is still very weak, and you both make the same very good point here. Until the RCC improves its catechesis, that is a very good argument for avoiding any changes that have the potential to lead its members to confusion about what we really believe and the validity of other faiths. Thanks.
 
vluvski said:
I’m learning more about Eastern Orthodoxy in another thread, and our discussion led me to wonder why, in the recent changes to the Mass and the creed, we did not exclude the filioque.
.
Click to expand...
Please understand what the recent changes were to the Mass. It was a more correct translation of the original Latin. The OF of the mass is in Latin and the English is a translation of that, not of the Greek Creed. So it could not be removed without removing it from the Latin form of the Mass and there was NO CHANGE TO THE LATIN of the OF. The original is intact, all we have now is a better translation.
 
JerryZ said:
If arianism is still present in Spain and 48% of american Catholics voted for abortion is it any wonder the Pope is reluctant to remove it? (I am mentioning the vote as a warning of weakness) and by the way Europe is not much better. Relativism is rampant.
If the flock was properly formed and there was no possibility of furthering heretical views maybe he would consider to do so.

Let’s pray that we are all properly cathequized with the Holy Spirit to better understand our faith.

:gopray2: :gopray2: :gopray2: :gopray2:
Click to expand...
How does removing the Filioque change the minds of these people? Do you think Catholics en masse will defect from the faith because of the removal of the Filioque? Most Catholics don’t even know what the Filioque is.
 
Evan said:
Please understand what the recent changes were to the Mass. It was a more correct translation of the original Latin. The OF of the mass is in Latin and the English is a translation of that, not of the Greek Creed. So it could not be removed without removing it from the Latin form of the Mass and there was NO CHANGE TO THE LATIN of the OF. The original is intact, all we have now is a better translation.
Click to expand...
The original of the Creed is in Greek though, which does not have the Filioque.
 
This is an excellent question. As one reared in a Catholic home who (much later and after several intervening phases) returned to Catholic Christianity, I am especially keen to see the (re)union of all. But realistically, the Eastern Orthodox communion is composed of several autocephalous national churches which cannot be seen as a monolithic entity. If the Russian Orthodox were to reconcile with the See of Peter, this would still leave the Greeks, the Bulgarians, the Albanians and a dozen or so other jurisdictions out of the loop. So, yes, by all means, let’s forego the filioque at Mass, and remove whatever other stumbling blocks we can, but at the end of the day we must understand that apart from a miracle (for which we should pray), it is extremely unlikely that all of these national hierarchies will simultaneously surrender their autonomy to the Vicar of Christ.
 
vluvski said:
I’m learning more about Eastern Orthodoxy in another thread, and our discussion led me to wonder why, in the recent changes to the Mass and the creed, we did not exclude the filioque.
Click to expand...
The Eastern Churches aren’t required to add the filioque, why should Western Churches be required to remove it?
 
Ignatius said:
The Eastern Churches aren’t required to add the filioque, why should Western Churches be required to remove it?
Click to expand...
If they really care about reunion of all of the Apostolic Churches, they’ll remove it.
 
RyanBlack said:
If they really care about reunion of all of the Apostolic Churches, they’ll remove it.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they need to. The filioque, properly understood, is really not a problem. The issue of the Primacy of the See of Peter is really the central issue.
 
Ignatius said:
I don’t think they need to. The filioque, properly understood, is really not a problem.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean any disrespect to you, but what Catholics really mean, in my experience, when they say this something like what you wrote is, “If those stubborn Orthodox just would understand what we really mean by the filioque, they wouldn’t have a problem with it.”

Is it really the case that the Orthodox are so intellectually dull that they misunderstand what Catholics mean by the filioque, or is it that they simply don’t accept the theology behind the filioque? From my study of the issue, including having taken a course on trinitarian theology with a Protestant theologian who has been involved with ecumenical conversations with Catholics and the Orthodox, and who is personally acquainted with both Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew, I’m inclined to believe that the Orthodox actually reject the theology behind the filioque, not that they reject it on the basis of a misunderstanding.
 
vluvski said:
Right, we translated to Latin bc that was vernacular at the time. Same reason we now use English in the US.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Vulgar Latin, from which the Romance languages morphed, was the vernacular at the time. There is no evidence that Church Latin was spoken in the streets, though it was probably more recognizeable than it is today.

That said, probably 99% or so wouldn’t know that Filioque is Filio (“Son,” ablative case) and -que (“and” conjunction).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top