Why not remove the filioque?

[JerryZ]

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.

Precisely my point.

Further the issue at hand is that we Catholics believe that the Holy Ghost proceed from both the Father and The Son and the 3 are One.
This is supported in the Ghospels when Jesus tells the Apostles He will ask the Father to send a Paraclete (Holy Ghost) and Also when Jesus prior to His ascention breathes the Holy Ghost into the Apostles.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,
14:26 But the Comforter, even** the Holy Spirit**, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.
(Fulfilled at the feast of Pentecost)

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit:

So you see the Church is not wrong in what it teaches, but as the Trinity is indeed one of the hardest Dogmas to understand many have gone astray on this.

 

[vluvski]

According to an Orthodox member on another forum regarding the filioque:

it also contradicts the ecumenical councils, which stated that after the after the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was confirmed, the subsequent councils each affirmed the Creed without the filioque, and confirmed that all manner and teaching concerning the Spirit was “full and complete.”

later on, to put a stamp on this when the filioque was being introduced, one of the popes put the Creed up on doors in tha Vatican without it, and Pope John VIII actually signed off on a council excommunicating anyone who added to the Creed.

Can someone provide some historical basis for these statements, and the ecumenical councils to which he might be referring?

 

[vluvski]

And another Orthodox explanation

It has to do with Triadology.

In the Western Church, during the prolonged struggle against Arianism, the common “Divine Essence” was used by orthodox Catholics to stress the Divinity of the Son/Word and Spirit, against the Arians and quasi-Arians like the Visigoths.

Eventually, the common Divine Essence became overstressed, to the point that it was viewed as being the source of the Godhead; that is, that the Persons of the Godhead arose out of, or were primarily united by, the common Divine Essence. That’s where your “shield of the Trinity” picture comes from.

Now, once you have accepted this view that the Divine Essence is the source of the Godhead, it is only logical to assume that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son (filioque). Because if the Son is Divine, then the Holy Spirit would proceed out of the Son’s Divinity, therefore from the Shared Divine Essence of the Father and Son.

The problem is that this understanding of God is entirely incompatible with the Scriptures and the Early Fathers. The Ancient Christian understanding of God was that God was the Father, together with his Word and Spirit, who were Divine with HIS same Divinity. The subsistent Person of the Father, not the Divine Essence, was the source of Divine Personhood and Divinity itself.

Without the Father as archon (source) and autotheos (God of Himself), you no longer have the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You have this weird blob of interchangeable abstractions.

So the filioque itself is like a symptom of a very very odd theological position that the East rejects. The filioque itself could be made to work, that is, if it was understood as an economic procession, rather than an ontological procession. But that’s another discussion.

I think I need to read the reference from the first couple posts. Perhaps it will help explain this.

 

[mardukm]

According to an Orthodox member on another forum regarding the filioque…:later on, to put a stamp on this when the filioque was being introduced, one of the popes put the Creed up on doors in tha Vatican without it, and Pope John VIII actually signed off on a council excommunicating anyone who added to the Creed…

Can someone provide some historical basis for these statements, and the ecumenical councils to which he might be referring?

it also contradicts the ecumenical councils, which stated that after the after the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was confirmed, the subsequent councils each affirmed the Creed without the filioque, and confirmed that all manner and teaching concerning the Spirit was "full and complete.

On these grounds, there is no basis for complaint. Yes, Inherent in the Creed is the idea that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. The filioque teaches exactly that, nothing more, nothing less.

If a non-Latin complains that the terminology of the Creed of Constant(name removed by moderator)ple cannot be changed, then there is really no historical basis for that claim, because the prescription of Constantinople was against changing the Creed of NICEA, not of Constantinople. The fact that the terminology of the Creed of Constantinople was different from that of Nicea, while the Fathers of Constantinople decreed against changing the Creed of Nicea dictates that the Constantinopolitan prescription against “introducing another Faith” than the one held at Nicea cannot be interpreted to mean that the terminology of the Creed cannot be different, but that its doctrinal content cannot be changed. But the teaching that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and Son is not a different doctrine than the doctrine of Nicea or Constantinople.

later on, to put a stamp on this when the filioque was being introduced, one of the popes put the Creed up on doors in tha Vatican without it,

This is true. It was Pope St. Leo III. But the reason he did so was not due to any belief that the terminology of the Creed cannot be changed, but only to combat Charlemangne’s pretensions to power. Charlemagne tried to get the Pope to add filioque to the Creed so Charlemagne could have an excuse to charge the Easterns with heresy (and thereby extend his own power in the East). The Pope saw through the scheme and refused to add it in most adamant fashion. It should be noted that Pope St. Leo III did not condemn the existing Creeds that had filioque in the Western Churches - only that he did not want to add it to the Creed used in Rome as a response to Charlemagne’s pretensions to power. So the Pope’s reasons for not adding filioque to the Creed in Rome was not theological or doctrinal, but rather political.

and Pope John VIII actually signed off on a council excommunicating anyone who added to the Creed.

This is hotly contested by Catholic apologists. I have not done my own research into this, but from what I’ve read on the Catholic side, what happened was that Pope John VIII had, in hopes of healing the tensions with the East, agreed to a council at Constant(name removed by moderator)ole. He sent legates, along with a document for Photius to sign. According to Catholic apologists, Photius doctored the document (among other things, to add a condemnation of filioque), and signed the document that he changed, not the original document (so Eastern records of that Council have a condemnation of the addition of filioque). When John VIII found out that the original document was tampered with, he disavowed the Council and excommunicated Photius, IIRC, Pope John VIII’s successor (Pope Marinus) also upheld John VIII’s decisions.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[vluvski]

I’m confused on the two different creeds in question, though I suspected that the issue was exactly that, that were are discussing two or more different creeds.

To what ‘historical’ creed would the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed correspond?

Perhaps you misspoke, but you are saying that the Council Constantinople deemed the Nicene Creed unalterable without the filioque. Did you mean the changes WERE MADE to the Creed of Nicea?

 

[mardukm]

I’m confused on the two different creeds in question, though I suspected that the issue was exactly that, that were are discussing two or more different creeds.

To what ‘historical’ creed would the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed correspond?

Perhaps you misspoke, but you are saying that the Council Constantinople deemed the Nicene Creed unalterable without the filioque. Did you mean the changes WERE MADE to the Creed of Nicea?

Yes, the Council of Constantinople deemd the Creed of Nicea unalterable (i.e., when the Council of Constantinople asserted the Creed could not be changed, they were referring to the Creed of Nicea), but the Council of Constantinople itself ALTERED THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE CREED OF NICEA. Thus, it cannot be the case that the Creed of Nicea is unalterable with respect to terminology, but that the doctrinal Faith of it cannot be altered.

Just as the terminological additions and changes to the Nicene Creed by the Fathers of Constantinople did not alter the doctrinal Faith contained in the Creed of Nicea, neither did the addition of filioque in the Latin Creed (according to the proper understanding of the Latins) alter the doctrinal Faith contained in the Creed of Nicea.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[patrick457]

I think that the Mozarabic Creed should be brought up in these discussions for a good discussion launchpad.

Crédimus in unum Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, factórem caeli et terrae, visibílium ómnium et invisibílium Conditórem.

Et in unum Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum, Fílium Dei Unigénitum, et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula; Deum ex Deo, Lumen ex Lúmine. Deum verum ex Deo vero; natum non factum, Omoúsion Patri, hoc est, ejúsdem cum Patre substántiae; per quem ómnia facta sunt, quae in caelo, et quae in terra.
Qui propter nos hómines, et propter nostram salútem, descendit de caelis, et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est. Passus sub Póntio Piláto, sepúltus, tértia die resurréxit, ascéndit ad caelos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis. Inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos, cujus regni non erit finis.

Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum vivificatórem, et ex Patre et Fílio procedéntem. Cum Patre et Fílio adorándum et conglorificándum; qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, Cathólicam et Apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confitémur unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum.
Expectámus resurrectiónem mortuórum, et vitam ventúri saeculi.
Amen.

===

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, creator of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. God from God; Light from Light; true God from true God; born, not made, omousion to the Father; that is, of the same substance with the Father; through whom all things were made, which are in heaven and which are on earth. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and became man. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, also proceeding from the Father and the Son (et Filio). With the Father and the Son to be adored and conglorified; who spoke through the prophets.
And one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

 

[vluvski]

And one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.[/INDENT]

Isn’t it correct to write one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, with catholic meaning universal, not the Catholic Church per se?

 

[vluvski]

very helpful, Markduk. Thank you.

I’m working on the very lengthy article MarcoPolo linked. Great reading there. I wish I had more time to devote.

 

[Pilgrim2012]

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.
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.

When someone wants to desobey, he will find every excuse. If it is not the filioque, it will be others.

 

[vluvski]

When someone wants to desobey, he will find every excuse. If it is not the filioque, it will be others.

To me, disobey is the wrong word, but I do think you have a valid point. The conflict between the Orthodox and the Catholics has been going on so long that the disagreement itself has almost become part of the theology.

 

[Ignatius]

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.”

I disagree. One has to understand the practices of The Church with the mind of The Church. Just like when Protestants say that Catholics and Orthodox worship Holy Icons. If you want to understand the practice, you must understand it with the mind of those who practice it. There is no need to force the Latins to change this.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, the Council of Constantinople deemd the Creed of Nicea unalterable (i.e., when the Council of Constantinople asserted the Creed could not be changed, they were referring to the Creed of Nicea), but the Council of Constantinople itself ALTERED THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE CREED OF NICEA. Thus, it cannot be the case that the Creed of Nicea is unalterable with respect to terminology, but that the doctrinal Faith of it cannot be altered.

Just as the terminological additions and changes to the Nicene Creed by the Fathers of Constantinople did not alter the doctrinal Faith contained in the Creed of Nicea, neither did the addition of filioque in the Latin Creed (according to the proper understanding of the Latins) alter the doctrinal Faith contained in the Creed of Nicea.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

The Council deemed the Creed cannot be altered without a Council. This is to ensure that the profession of faith is othrodox as approved by all Bishops. The issue with the Filioque has a lot to do with the West adding the Filioque on their own, and then later on using it to tell the East they are heretics for not having the Filioque. Some Eastern theologians do not have theological problems with the Filioque, though most still do. But there is a common rejection to the Filioque because it was added outside the approval and acceptance by bishops outside the West.

 

[mardukm]

To me, disobey is the wrong word, but I do think you have a valid point.

I agree completely.

The conflict between the Orthodox and the Catholics has been going on so long that the disagreement itself has almost become part of the theology.

Very unfortunately, yes. It is very unfortunate because I believe much of the disagreement is based on one side trying to impose their own theology on the other side, instead of trying to understand the other side according to the other side’s own theology. This latter approach has borne much fruit in the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian dialogue, where we have come to realize that despite our different theologies (i.e., the HUMAN expression about the Truths of God), we really believe the same Truth regarding the Nature(s) of Christ - namely, that the Natures are united without alteration, without confusion, without commingling, etc.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The Council deemed the Creed cannot be altered without a Council. This is to ensure that the profession of faith is othrodox as approved by all Bishops. The issue with the Filioque has a lot to do with the West adding the Filioque on their own,

But the individual Churches of the West did not add filioque to the universal Creed, only to their local expression of it. So what’s the problem? The use of filioque in local Latin Creeds was instituted by local Councils of the West progressively.

and then later on using it to tell the East they are heretics for not having the Filioque.

If you want to point fingers at who accused the other of heresy, you should look to the East first. Please be honest about the historical reality of this issue.

Some Eastern theologians do not have theological problems with the Filioque, though most still do. But there is a common rejection to the Filioque because it was added outside the approval and acceptance by bishops outside the West.

Let the Westerns keep it, if they so choose. Let the Westerns remove it, if they so choose. It’s the doctrine behind it that matters.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[patrick457]

The Council deemed the Creed cannot be altered without a Council. This is to ensure that the profession of faith is othrodox as approved by all Bishops. The issue with the Filioque has a lot to do with the West adding the Filioque on their own, and then later on using it to tell the East they are heretics for not having the Filioque. Some Eastern theologians do not have theological problems with the Filioque, though most still do. But there is a common rejection to the Filioque because it was added outside the approval and acceptance by bishops outside the West.

The Visigoths in Spain were in hot water then? Quoting again the Credimus:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, creator of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. God from God; Light from Light; true God from true God; born, not made, omousion to the Father; that is, of the same substance with the Father; through whom all things were made, which are in heaven and which are on earth. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and became man. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, also proceeding from the Father and the Son (et Filio - not Filioque). With the Father and the Son to be adored and conglorified; who spoke through the prophets.
And in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

Oh, and the Armenians.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

 

[patrick457]

Isn’t it correct to write one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, with catholic meaning universal, not the Catholic Church per se?

One could interpret it that way. I just followed the convention of the Latin text provided there, which capitalizes catholicam and apostolicam.

 

[vluvski]

I believe much of the disagreement is based on one side trying to impose their own theology on the other side, instead of trying to understand the other side according to the other side’s own theology.

I opened up a dialog at an Eastern Orthodox forum, and while most of the responses are respectful, there is an awful lot of “Catholics believe such and such, and that doesn’t make sense, so Catholics are wrong.” when it really isn’t what we believe at all. For some reason they keep repeating that Catholics believe the Trinity to be some kind of “amorphous blob” of “Divinity.”

 

[JerryZ]

If they really care about reunion of all of the Apostolic Churches, they’ll remove it.

So can you clarify for me, The Holy Ghost from whom it proceeds?

 

[vluvski]

Is this image theologically sound according to Catholic understanding of the Trinity and the filioque? Why or why not?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)