He [the pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son” only in relation to God’s saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not “from both as from one" (ab utroque sicut ab uno).

Catholic teaching elaborates on this to say that there is both a temporal procession from the Father and the Son, and also an eternal procession from the Father and the Son.
Peter.

If this was the dogma of the Church than why would the Pope tell the Eastern Churches to drop the filioque.

A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.

Roman Catholic teaching is indeed that there is an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son, as from a single source.

As an Eastern Catholic, I personally view the filioque as a theologoumenon-possibly true, but not revealed in Scripture, and never proclaimed by a Council of the Church I--as an Eastern Christian--believe to be truly ecumenical. However, it was proclaimed by Second Council of Lyon in 1274, which is considered to be an Ecumenical Council by Roman Catholics--consequently, it is viewed as dogma.

Since my name has been invoked: the basic issue is not directly dogmatic, it is the matter of the unilateral alteration of the Creed. Hence the interpolation should and must be removed, painful though some Latins may find that necessary step. That puts the Filioque where it belongs, in the realm of theologoumena, where the theologians may amuse themselves with it from now until the Parousia - or even longer, as long as they don't disturb the rest of us.

Illud de Symbolo tollatur!

Fr. Serge

That puts the Filioque where it belongs, in the realm of theologoumena, where the theologians may amuse themselves with it from now until the Parousia - or even longer, as long as they don't disturb the rest of us.

Illud de Symbolo tollatur!

Fr. Serge

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity".72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

246 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."75

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 447,76 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.

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.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.

From the linked article “FILIOQUE: A Response to Eastern Orthodox Objections” by Mark J. Bonocore:

So, to someone coming from this Eastern heritage –indeed, for any Greek-speaker who knows what the term "ekporeusis" implies (i.e., procession from a single source, principal, or cause), the addition of the Latin clause "Filioque" ("and the Son") seriously challenges, if not totally destroys, the originally-intended meaning of this Creedal statement. And we Roman Catholics fully agree and admit this. The introduction of the Filioque is clearly a departure from the original intention and design of the A.D. 381 version of the Constantinopolitan Creed. However, it is not a departure from Apostolic orthodoxy.

Mr. Boncore’s whole presentation is at odds with the direction set by the Catholic Church itself. He acknowledges that the additional of the Filioque is “clearly a departure”

The Creed itself as proclaimed by the A.D. 381 Council is our common Symbol of Faith and needs to be proclaimed and understood according to the original text and intent of the A.D. 381 Council Fathers.

Ergo, the Catholic Church does not deny the Constantinopolitan Creed as originally written. This is why our Byzantine Catholic Churches recite the Creed without the Filioque, and why even we Romans are able to recite the Creed without the Filioque when participating in Byzantine Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Liturgies. This is also why we reject the clause "…kai tou Uiou …" ("…and the Son") being added to the Creedal expression "ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" in Greek, even when used by Latin Rite Catholics in Greek-speaking communities. If the Greek word "ekporeusis" is to be used or intended, then it is incorrect and heretical to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son." Neither East nor West believes that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" as a common source or principal (aitia). Rather, that one Source and Principal (Aition) is the Father, and the Father alone.

There is absolutely nothing wrong about asking the West to return to the original Creed.

Being aware of this, the Catholic Church has refused the addition of kai tou Uiou to the formula ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek. The liturgical use of this original text remains always legitimate in the Catholic Church.

The Greek ekporeusis signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.[3] In confessing the Holy Spirit "ex Patre procedentem," the Latins, therefore, could only suppose an implicit Filioque which would later be made explicit in their liturgical version of the Symbol.

In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or Athanasianum,' DS 75) Symbol,

There is absolutely nothing wrong about asking the West to return to the original Creed.

Please . . . I have seen so many attempts to sugar-coat the Filioque that my teeth are rotting from it all. Sometimes one must do what is right, even if it doesn't taste as sweet as one might wish.

What really frightens me is the prospect that the Latins will delay and delay and delay until when they finally get around to biting the bullet the rest of us will be so thoroughly out of patience that it will not have the effect that an act of generosity and humility should have.

Fr. Serge

lm posted a link to an external article that I am responding to. I may be beating a dead horse as Father Serge is correct in that the article can be dismissed right from its beginning.


Mr. Boncore’s whole presentation is at odds with the direction set by the Catholic Church itself. He acknowledges that the additional of the Filioque is “clearly a departure” yet Pope John Paul the Great says that the way forward is to show that: “On the Catholic side, there is a firm desire to clarify the traditional doctrine of the Filioque, present in the liturgical version of the Latin Credo, in order to highlight its full harmony with what the Ecumenical Council confesses in its creed: the Father as the source of the whole Trinity, the one origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.” (see PJII’s Homily for the Feast of Saints Peter & Paul from 1995). Mr. Bonocore admits that the Filioque destroys the original intent of the A.D. 381 Council Fathers. Pope John Paul II states the opposite, that it is in harmony with that theology, and even (elsewhere) somewhat separates this discussion with the discussion of whether the Filioque belongs in the Creed.

It seems to me that if one looks at what Pope John Paul the Great has taught, together with the various statements (official and unofficial) of the Catholic Church in recent years, one can legitimately conclude that the Catholic Church is preparing the ground to return to the original Creed. What they seem to be looking for from the East in return is an acknowledgment that the customary Latin theology on this issue is legitimate, though perhaps not what was in the mind of the A.D. 381 Council Fathers. This approach is a legitimate one. [It could be treated as a building on the theology espoused by this great Council but also as something far beyond the essentials they meant to state.] Further, one should include into the understanding the gesture of Pope John Paul the Great in professing our common faith using the original creed (without the Filioque) at the Vatican on Pentecost 1980 (and on many occasion since, especially when representatives of the Orthodox Church are present).

The rest of Mr. Bonocore’s article is interesting, though it continues to occasionally be very problematic. He starts with his conclusion and then attempts to tailor the quotes to support his argument. In doing so he comes across as very dismissive of the A.D. 381 Council Fathers because he seems to think he can produce a more accurate Symbol of Faith by appealing to more apostolic sources. But then some of the apostolic sources he appeals to are the Latin translations of the Greek original texts. It is legitimate to appeal to these Latin texts to understand their influence upon Latin theology. It is not legitimate to appeal to Latin texts as a more authentic source of apostolic orthodoxy then the Greek originals they are translated from. In the end I think the article itself must be rejected as it does not appear to be overly accurate presentation of the Latin view on this topic. (Look to JPII for something better.)

The Catholic Catechism speaks of a legitimate complementarity, one that avoids rigidity. I don’t have a problem with that, though from the Catholic side we can see that many Catholics do have a problem with the Eastern theology (the same is true from the Orthodox side). But here again, there are two issues here: 1) a translation of the text of the Creed according to the original text, in light of the intent of the A.D. 381 Council Fathers and 2) various legitimate expressions (schools, if you will) of theology regarding the origin and procession of the Holy Spirit. The Creed itself as proclaimed by the A.D. 381 Council is our common Symbol of Faith and needs to be proclaimed and understood according to the original text and intent of the A.D. 381 Council Fathers. There is absolutely nothing wrong about asking the West to return to the original Creed.

As an Eastern Catholic, I personally view the filioque as a theologoumenon-possibly true, but not revealed in Scripture, and never proclaimed by a Council of the Church I--as an Eastern Christian--believe to be truly ecumenical. However, it was proclaimed by Second Council of Lyon in 1274, which is considered to be an Ecumenical Council by Roman Catholics--consequently, it is viewed as dogma.

Ryan

Please . . . I have seen so many attempts to sugar-coat the Filioque that my teeth are rotting from it all.

Ryan, you cannot pick and choose which Ecumenical Councils you consider to be "truly ecumenical," and remain a Catholic. The teaching of the Church is what matters, not your personal opinion.

As a Catholic, you are bound under pain of anathema to believe the Filioque DOGMA:

http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM14.HTM#01

Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons:

1. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith{5}

1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.

These following words are exactly why I do not believe the Secon Council of Lyon to be authoritative, because they show clearly to be in error an a matter of historical fact.

"This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike."

It is most certainly not the case that "this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike." As to your warnings about my being anathema, if they were indeed motivated by concern for my salvation, then I do appreciate the warning, but my belief remains unchanged, and my conscience is untroubled. I join many other Greek Catholics who are unconvinced on the matter of the filioque and who do not believe themselves to be bound by those so-called Ecumenical Councils that have taken place without the presence of the Orthodox.
Ryan

Perhaps you are unaware that many Eastern, and Oriental Orthodox did attend the Council of Florence, and accepted a reunion with Rome and the Filioque. However, most of the Eastern Orthodox bishops later cowardly repudiated their acceptance of the Union.

That group (the SSPX) will find any reason not be in communion with him. In America women wearing pants could be the reason.

I join many other Greek Catholics who are unconvinced on the matter of the filioque and who do not believe themselves to be bound by those so-called Ecumenical Councils that have taken place without the presence of the Orthodox.