This is from Father Thomas Hopko's paper "Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time" (Woodstock Forum, September 25, 2005) -- which I realize has been discussed here before (e.g. here) but I'd like to make some additional comments.

My initial reaction to the passage I just quoted was pretty much 100% skepticism: Fr. Hopko doesn't seem to understand that asking Catholics to abandon one of our dogmas is more ambitious (not less) than asking us to drop the filioque from the creed.

But more recently it has occurred to me that there may be a good point contained in that quote, even if you need to sift through a bit of silliness in order to get to it.

Specifically, Fr. Hopko calls our attention to the fact that the creed recited in Latin churches just says "who proceeds from the Father and the Son" (in Latin "qui ex Patre filioque procedit"). 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. The creedal text, however, just says "who proceeds from the Father and the Son" without elaboration. (It does not specifically say "who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son", nor is there any need for it to say that.)

I would like to make a suggestion that's a little different from Fr. Hopko's: that Latin Catholics continue to say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", for the time being, and Eastern Catholics modify their texts to say "who proceeds eternally from the Father".

Let me hear your thoughts on this, please.
Thank you and God bless (and, of course, happy Pascha to Eastern Catholics living in the east),
Peter.

Just bite the bullet and remove the filioque! "Of course there needs to be catechetical instruction on the reason to the faithful.
Stephanos I

Dear Peter,

Is this a misprint? Are you saying that it is Catholic Teaching that the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son? I had been told otherwise: that the Holy Spirit, according to Catholic Teaching, proceeds eternally from the Father alone, while He temporally proceeds from the Father and the Son. Perhaps I was misinformed, and the division between Orthodox and Catholics is more grave than I had thought.

Fr David Straut

Dear Fr. David:

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.

Ryan

Yes, like Athanasius The L said, Catholic teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, even though we don't say that in the creed.

I would recommend reading "The Greek and Latin Traditions About the Procession of the Holy Spirit" (available e.g. here) to get a proper understanding of the Catholic position.

Blessings,
Peter.

If this was the dogma of the Church than why would the Pope tell the Eastern Churches to drop the filioque. I am a bit hazy as to why the Latins added it. People always say this and that is dogma but sometimes it is not. Where is Fr Maximos when I need him. I am sure Fr Serge can explain this.

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

Because the creed does not need to contain every detail of what we believe -- e.g. it doesn't mention the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary, but that doesn't mean we don't believe in those dogmas.

In a way, that's the point of this thread: there was no theological need to add the filioque to the creed in the first place; and now that it is there, there's no need to specify (within the creed) that the procession from the Father and the Son is eternal. Rather we just say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son" and then move on to the next article ("who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified").

Hope that helps.
Blessings,
Peter.

- from "The Filioque : A Church-Dividing Issue?" (available here)

Actually, the Latin teaching is that only the Father is the source. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from a single principle, not as from a single source; it's a significant difference.

A lake proceeds from a spring and a river as from one principle, the flowing of the water from the spring through the river, but only from one source, the spring.

Peace and God bless!

Ryan,

You have brought up an excellent point here, namely that many of us ECs have at least some degree of ambivalence toward the dogmatic declarations made by Rome after 1054. A number of posters on this forum have insisted that we can't do that--we must either accept all the definitions of the post-schism councils considered ecumenical by the RCC (plus the IC and Assumption), or else get off the fence and become Orthodox. I don't think real life is as simple as that, nor do I think God intended for it to be.

I am also inclined to regard the Filioque as a theologoumenon, especially since it is completely incompatible with St. Gregory Nazianzen and the whole Eastern tradition of Trinitarian Theology.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

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

I believe, as an Eastern Catholic, that the Father alone as person (hypostasis) is the principle, source, and cause, of the person (hypostasis) of the Holy Spirit by procession (ekporeusis); just as He alone as person (hypostasis) is the principle, source, and cause, of the person (hypostasis) of the Son by generation (gennatos).

As far as the Spirit’s eternal manifestation from the Father through the Son is concerned, I am in complete agreement with St. Gregory Palamas who explained that the Holy Spirit ". . . as energy is of the Son, and from Him, being breathed, sent and manifested; as existence and hypostasis, however, He is 'of the Son' and not 'from the Son,' but from the Father who has begotten the Son." [St. Gregory Palamas, First Apodictic Treatise, I, 37, 12-15]

Dear Todd,

Do you believe that the official Latin teaching on the 'filioque' is contradictory to the above? (not the unofficial "Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and Son" 'error of soundbyte simplicity' that keeps being repeated, even by good theologians)

I don't think the declaration of the filioque officially said anything different that what you've stated. (am I wrong?)