www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Filioque - in or out ?

In Latin it's in, in Greek it's out...that's what I say. However, I don't know if it's entirely prudent to add "and the Son" in English or other vernacular languages; I suppose that would rest on how that language understood "origin" as discussed by JoeS and Mardukm above.

Logos Teen

It's entirely up to you to ask your priest why he uses the AC instead of the NC.

The missal says to use the NC at Sunday masses. The Apostles' Creed may be used for masses for children.

I'm not sure on this, but the AC which is used at masses where there are baptisms performed may substitute for the NC.

Maybe someone in the know can clarify that for us.

Christ is our peace.

Paul

Wise words, Logos Teen

Marduk

The Filioque debate at Florence

Dominican John Montenero vs. Mark Eugenicus [of Ephesus]

THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
by Joseph Gill, S.J.

Chapter V: FLORENCE AND THE DOGMATIC DISCUSSIONS [praiseofglory.com]

Short excerpt:

Five sessions out of the eight were, as Eugenicus said, devoted to disputes over two or three texts. There were three questions that arose from them, the authenticity of the dubitative phrases in St Basil's Adversus Eunomitim, the understanding of 'Is' in the text of St Epiphanius and the grammatical case of the word 'Spirit' in the passage from St Basil's Homily on the Holy Spirit. The Metropolitan of Ephesus was wrong on each of these points.
Bessarion wrote at some length on the first of these in his letter to Alexius Lascaris, where he says that there were six codices in all of the Adversus Eunomium in Florence, five of which were against and one for Mark's contention, and that he took the opportunity of his return to Constantinople immediately after the Council to check by manuscripts there. He examined as far as he could all the manuscripts of all the Constantinopolitan monasteries and found that the more ancient codices had the text of the Latins and the more recent ones that upheld by Eugenicus, and what is more significant, that two codices, both ancient, one of them dated some 350 years before, had the Latin 'additions', in the one case badly erased so that they were still visible, in the other inked over (P. G. 161, 324-8). (Bessarion goes on to assert that the phrases are so typically Greek that a Latin could hardly have written them and inserted them so neatly, and to quote earlier witnesses to the text as it was read in previous centuries. Cf. also L. Lohn, 'Doctrina S. Basili M. de processionibus divinarum Personarum', in Greg. x [1929], pp. 329-64, 461-500, especially pp. 461-84, who argues on palaeological, historical and theological lines for the authenticity of the Latin text).
On the other two points Montenero in the sessions themselves conclusively showed that Mark was wrong. There is no question but that 'Is' must be understood in the passage of Epiphanius, though whether it stated 'exists' so strongly as Montenero affirmed may be doubted; but that did not affect his argument. Then the word 'Spirit' of the other passage from St Basil must assuredly be read as subjective: even Mark after a time ceased to defend the opposite, though on that as on the other points he would not admit himself defeated.


Daniel

Logos Teen,

I've seen that sentiment posted before on this forum. I agree. If this is a linguistic problem with Latin, why continue the problem with every other language. It simply doesn't make sense.

Some of the less than charitable Orthodox I've spoken to have argued that, since this clarification has been possible and Rome has decided to keep it as-is, that Rome teaches double eternal procession, regardless of statements by theologians to the contrary.

To an extent I see their point. Why say something that sounds like something you don't believe?

Of course, we can all reach consensus out here in this forum and cyberspace, but that isn't going to change what's said at mass or how Joe Roman Catholic understands the issue.

Less than charitable people will always be able to play with words to attach unintended meanings to them. Less than charitable orthodox also complain about Catholics saying the Creed without the filioque. There is really no point in hoping to satisfy less than charitable people.

Dear Brothers,

For those unfamiliar with the Latin Church's Clarification on the Filioque, it is a must read before any discussion should continue. There are some claims being made on this thread which have been already answered and/or addressed. The issue itself has not been finally settled, but many issues involving semantics and history have already been addressed by Old Rome. Many Orthodox have stated this is a big step in the direction of resolving this issue.

I have a link to it on my web-site:
see Clarification on the Filioque @:

http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/links.html

Awesome, brother Ghazar.

What I like is the fact that this is an OFFICIAL clarification.

Blessings,
Marduk


P.S. And you have a beautiful website!

Dear Intrigued Latin,
What kind of a Latin Catholic parish are you in?
Or do you need to have your ears open?
The Nicene Creed is recited every Sunday excluding the Sundays of Lent.
It is the Apostles Creed that is rarely if ever recited in the parishes, only to be used with Liturgy for Children. And it is the Apostles Creed that is recited during the recitation of the Rosary.
Stephanos I

Dear JoeS� what follows is not necessary directed as a reply to you - it is more of less my public thoughts on the subject. As such.. It addresses the problem that some Eastern church members have with Latin based theology. As such - my reply is addressed to anyone and everyone... and not personal to you.

This might interest you - it traces the problem to a natural shift in meaning of a few Greek words used.

https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001109

Semantics - the meaning of words. The letters of the law... the stuff of ears. Our faith must be deeper than the ears... written in our hearts the place where... before words spring up... we understand.

I often liken it to an invisible man. We do not sense him at all yet he is there. If he were to submerge himself in muddy water - we would then see him... but what we would see is the earth that clings to him - its form - as evidence he is there - we still do not see - him. He is not the earth mud that shows us his form.

Words are secondary to meaning. They have no meaning in themselves - because meaning is a thing of the spirit (mind) and not the senses. And so a man may hear a word and have one meaning - and another man hear the same word and have another meaning. The meaning - is not in the word.

If we wish to understand Eastern theology - we go to the Eastern churches. If we wish to understand Western theology we go to the Latin churches. It makes no sense to go to the Eastern church and ask it "Please explain to me Latin theology." Nor would it make sense to go to the Latin church and ask "Please explain to me Eastern theology."

Let us let the Eastern church explain Eastern theology - and let the Latin church explain Latin theology. Each must be understood in thier own context. If each is understood in thier proper context (Eastern Greek theology and Latin theology) then they are not contradictory but rather compliment each other.

Shall one member of the body (the hands) say "We do not needs the legs - every member must be like I am, the hands."? It is clear, what St. Paul says "Who are you to judge another man's servant?" (I am quoting and not addressing you my dear JoeS). Since the Patriacates of the East are Christ's servants - and the Patriarchies of the West are Christ's servants - then how is it that one servant judges another? Does not the master judge both? and the opinions of each on the other become null and void in that light.

I understand the views of some in some of the Eastern churches when they consider the filoque as error. I understand that they do not understand it as it is meant to be understood. They give it their own meaning and ignore the meaning that is intended. They - cease at the shell - the words - they argue - words.

It is one thing to preserve the words and meaning of the past of the church - and another to condemn any further expression of the church as it does its job of teaching the gospel to modern man. The church must �go out� to meet men - it must put the gospel into the language of the person it is speaking to. It must extend the invitation - in words that the invited can understand. If the word continued to speak Greek - the Greek based Eastern theology of the church would still be - all that was needed� but the world evolved and the church continues to �go out� and teach the gospel to them.

Thank you JoeS - for allowing me to take-off - from your post.

-ray

Dear Stephanos,
I am 100% sure that my parish recites the Apostles Creed(AC)after the Homily at Sunday Mass. I'm 33 years old and I do know the difference between the two creeds. I've recited the AC so much that I would need a Missal to remember the Nicene Creed.
Is there any other Latin Catholics on this board that recite the AC at Mass ? or is my parish the only one ?

D�minus vob�scum

Intriqued Latin,

I've never been to a parish, whether it be Tridentine or Novus Ordo, that sung the Apostle's Creed. It has always been the Nicene Creed, and that is what is in the rubric.

Daniel

dear james,

That's easy to answer, The Pole is the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ. I call him by his profesional name, Pope John Paul II.

Paul

Paul,

You must be very busy like me with the "Honey Due" list!

james

Dear Intrigued:

As a cradle RC, I am equally intrigued by your question.

You must have been attending a Mass for children or for young adults, where the AC, and not the longer NC, is said!

Amado

P.S. Seriously now, in the U.S. the "norm" is for the Profession of Faith as contained in the Nicene Creed (with the filioque) is said (recited or sung) (1) on Sundays and (2) on all solemnities. In celebrations of Masses with children, the Apostles' Creed may be said (recited or sung).