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

I've attended Sunday Mass at all 3 times offered.
9:00, 10:30 and noon. All of these have recited the AC.
I've recently e-mailed my parish asking why this parish differs. Granted there are lots of children at the Mass, and the priest welcomes them by calling them all up to the front of the altar. The children are then taken to a back hall by the catechists.
I will provide the response I get back from my Parish.

Dear Intrigued:

Then, you should refer to your seasonal (quarterly) "Missalette" on the "Profession of Faith" page, where you may be able to determine the "norm" in Canada.

Each national Episcopal Conference throughout the world, such as those of Canada and the U.S., has adopted with Rome's prior approval its own implementation (interpretation) of the provisions of the "General Instructions on the Roman Missal," or the GIRM.

Hope this helps.

Amado

Ray said, Ray,

It sounds like you are attempting to use some sort of altered form of Saussurian semiotics by applying arbitrariness. In your example, I don't buy it.

If I ask my son if he cleaned his room and he says, "Yes, daddy, I did," and I look in his room and he did not and I then point out to him that his room is still dirty, using your reasoning, he could legitimately respond with, "What I meant when I said 'yes' was 'no' and 'did' was 'didn't', I just changed their meaning internally to signify something else. I wasn't lying; I just changed the signifiers� meanings. Sorry about the misunderstanding."

My first response would be to make sure my child got into a very good school for brilliant children (he's only three), my second would be to put him in �time out� for a while for lying.

I'm not arguing that Rome is being actively deceitful, as in my example, but She is passively allowing a poor translation into English to corrupt the very theology She is trying to communicate. She is doing so to Her own followers, and I cannot understand why they wouldn't correct this linguistic faux pas. To argue that it is merely a linguistic oddity is to ignore the possibility that many of the RC faithful have the incorrect understanding of their faith because of a limitation of translating a phrase from Greek to Latin.

Saying in English, �. . . Who proceeds from the Father and the Son . . .� fails to both denote and connote the meaning intended, that is that He proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Ontologically, yes, words are arbitrary. They are not, however, historically or socially arbitrary. One cannot individually change signifiers and expect to be understood. Linguistic relativists don�t even go that far.

Which is why the filioque as currently translated into English should be abandoned.

This assumes that the filioque is not adopted because the Greek language inadequately expressed the doctrine. As noted above, this is not the case. The filioque in Latin is in its current form because of a linguistic oddity of Latin, not Greek, and this problematic oddity does not exist in English.

Why marry English terms to a linguistic oddity of Latin when it causes the words to become fragmented from their intended meaning?

Huh? As a conservative, direct translation from the Latin, we use "proceed" in English - in which its meaning (owing presumably to word's Latin origin) remains vaguen as to origin. I think all Orthodox use "proceed" also. What word do you suggest?

Here is the response from my parish priest.

Hello to you - in Canada, our Catholic parishes have been granted an indult by the Vatican to use both the Apostles' Creed as well as the Nicene Creed.
Just for your information, the Apostles' Creed is the older of the two.
According to the Canadian Bishops' in their Liturgical Calendar, "The shorter (Apostles) Creed is acclamatory in style, and is easily committed to memory for more spontaneous use". (note 9, paragraph f) The Bishops thus
encourage the frequent use of the Apostles' Creed, but mandate the use of the Nicene Creed at such celebrations as Epiphany, Pentecost, and the
solemnity of the Holy Trinity (and we do follow that mandate at St. Pat's).
I can definitely state that the overwhelming number of Catholic parishes in Canada follow the directions of the Catholic bishops when it comes to a more frequent use of the Apostles' Creed rather than the Nicene Creed.
I hope this answers your enquiry.
Peace, Fr. Michael.

As usual, I agree with both sides.

I agree with Ray's statement that (paraphrased) it is not so much the words that should concern us, but the content of the faith, or the theology behind the words. St. Paul exhorts us not to argue over words, and HH Pope Shenouda has made this one of the bases for his efforts in ecumenical dialog.

I also agree with Cizinec wholeheartedly that the education of the faithful suffers. I would go so far as to say that the Latin Church has not done a very good job of educating her faithful in this matter that is such a sore spot in the cause for unity of the Churches. It is not enough sometimes just to "be nice" or to "love."

However, brother Cizinec, there is a factor in this issue that perhaps you have not considered. The discussion, when correctly focused on the theology and not the terminology, centers NOT around the Filioque, per se; rather, THE DISCUSSION CENTERS AROUND THE MEANING OF THE WORD "PROCEEDS." As noted, if "proceeds" is understood according to the original Greek "ekporeusai" which connotes origin, then the Filioque - i.e., "and the Son" - becomes heretical. HOWEVER, if "proceeds" is understood according to the Latin "procedit" or the Greek "proienai," which only connotes consubstantiality, then the Filioque becomes orthodox.

The problem is not with the Greek or Latin, it is with the English. In truth, the English "proceeds" is more accomodating to the Latin "procedit" than to the Greek "ekporeusai." So the English Church, which is the daughter of the Latin Church, is actually being quite consistent in saying, "proceeds from the Father and the Son," since she has always understood the English "proceeds" according to the Latin "procedit" (or equivalently, the Greek "proienai").

Now, if the English Church was the daughter of the Greek Church, then we would have to insist that the phrase be changed to "proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son," because "proceeds" would then have a different meaning. But this is not the case. For fairness to win the day (since God abhors weights and balances), if English-speaking Eastern Christians want to complain about the English Creed, then it is Eastern Christians, NOT Western/Latin Christians that need to change their English translation of the Creed to properly reflect the Greek "ekporeusai," because, in truth, the English "proceeds" is more perfectly aligned in meaning to the Latin "procedit" than to the Greek "ekporeusai."

This is cold, hard fact. I do not care in this instance if certain people think I am siding with the Latins. I would deny this, of course; I would simply say I am siding with historic tradition (notice the lowercase "t" since the tradition I am referring to is grammatical and linguistic standard, not doctrine or dogma).

My eastern brothers and sisters, please consider what I am writing with an open mind.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Intrigued:

That does it for Canada!

The "norm" governing the Profession of Faith as involving the recitation principally of the Apostles' Creed rather than the Nicene Creed was adopted by the CCCC with prior approval by Rome before its use in the ENTIRE Dominion, not only by a majority of the parishes/dioceses.

Amado

The Netherlands used the Apostles Creed in the liturgy when I lived there some decades ago, and AFAIk still does.

Mardukum,

I think you misunderstand the point of my post. I�m not arguing whether or not the translation of �procedit� accurately reflects Eastern theology. I don�t think any of you will locate in my post any discussion whatsoever of "ekporeusai� or �procedit�. I�m arguing that the translation � . . . Who proceeds from the Father and the Son . . .� does not connote or denote Latin theology concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Does anyone here think that this phrase is accurate concerning the position of Latin theology?

If it is, then I think any Orthodox person should have a real problem with it.

As for the Orthodox use of the term �proceed� in English, I think this is an issue for another thread, although I have serious doubts about any real issues the translation causes within Orthodoxy. Once again, that is because signifiers are not historically or socially arbitrary � or independent.

I absolutely disagree. I think the first question is, �Does the phrase reflect current Latin theology?� If the answer is �No,� then it must be changed to reflect that theology. Terminology and theology cannot be arbitrarily divorced, as I have seen so many times on this subject. The phrase is the signifier and the theology the signified. If the signifier betrays what is signified, the signifier has lost its purpose. You can try your best, word by word, to determine meaning, but the signifier of the procession of the Holy Spirit is the phrase, not the word �proceeds�. One could still use the term �proceeds� and complete the phrase without making it sound as though one believes in a double procession.

Pick your formula, change the word �proceeds� or the phrase �and the son,� I don�t care. But make the phrase signify what you mean.

May I point out that the thread title is concerning the filioque. You obviously believe that the use of the term "proceeds" is linked to the issue or you wouldn't be discussing it.

I think we should even consider the use of "filioque" in Latin. We always call it this, but it is itself a signifier for a much larger issue.

Dear Brother Cizinec (or anyone else),

Please answer the following questions, so I can better gauge where you are coming from:

1) The only way Orthodox would have a problem with the phrase "proceeds from the Father and the Son" is if we understand "proceeds" to be equivalent to "ekporeusai." Agree or disagree?

2) If "proceeds" is understood to be equivalent to "procedit" or "proienai," Orthodox would NOT have a problem with the phrase "proceeds from the Father and the Son." Agree or disagree?

3) The definition of the English "proceeds" is historically and grammatically more perfectly aligned with the Latin "procedit" than with the Greek "ekporeusai." Agree or disagree?

4) If the English Church is the daughter of the Latin Church, we should expect the definition of the English "proceeds" in the English Creed to be identical to the Latin "procedit." Agree or disagree?

4) Therefore, if Eastern Christians want a change, we should change "proceeds" in our English translation of the Creed to "originates," instead of trying to impose the connotations of the Greek "ekporeusai" onto the English "proceeds." Agree or disagree?

QUESTION: Do you know what the Latin Church intends to say when she confesses, "proceeds from the Father and the Son." If you do, please state it as you understand it.

Blessings,
Marduk

1) Disagree, for a multitude of reasons.

2) Disagree, for a multitude of reasons.

3) Agree, although somewhat misleading. It is more aligned, but not perfectly.

4) Agree and disagree. Historically, it could be poorly translated, that is, literally and not according to its meaning, and this could well be expected. We should, however, expect it to reflect the theology it is signifying.

5) Concerning the term "proceeds," this is a possibility, but does not address the issue I was discussing. That is, does the phrase concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit reflect current Latin theology?

QUESTION: Do you know what the Latin Church intends to say when she confesses, "proceeds from the Father and the Son." If you do, please state it as you understand it.

I can only say I know what she claims to say, which is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and various clarifications made by Rome. That is, the Holy Spirit "spirates" from the Father through the generation of the Son.

I wouldn't say that's a perfect definition, but then I am neither a Latin nor a theologian.

I think we see eye to eye on 3, 4, and 5.

As regards #1, can you please explain your objections?

As regards #2, can you explain your objections? Offhand, I would disagree with you. St. Cyril of Alexandria used the phrasing of "proceeds from the Father and the Son," except that instead of "ekporeusai," he used "proienai." To St. Cyril and the Catholics, "proienai" and "procedit" is used to define consubstantiality, NOT origin. Thus, it is indeed orthodox.

As regards my question on your interpretation of the Latin use of "proceeds from the Father and the Son," you did not answer my question. You do understand, I hope, that "spirates" is not equivalent to "proceeds"/"procedit"/"proienai." The Catechism is trying to meet the East on our own grounds by using the word "spirates," since that has a more genitive connotation than "proceeds." So I must repeat my question once again, what do you understand the Latin Church to be saying when she professes that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son?" Indeed, brother Cizinec, it is quite different from when she says that the Holy Spirit "spirates from the Father through the Son."

Let me explain my understanding (which is open to correction) of the official explanation of Filioque. The explanation SPECIFICALLY STATES that the purpose of the Filioque was to defend the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son. Thus, when the Latins say "proceeds from the Father and the Son" they mean to say ONLY that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. This is based on translating the English "proceeds" from the Latin "procedit." In distinction, when Greeks use the word "proceeds," we translate it from the Greek "ekporeusai" which has definite connotations of ORIGIN. Thus if EASTERNS use the phrase "proceeds from the Father and the Son," it would be heretical because it would mean that the Holy Spirit ORIGINATES from the Father and the Son. Brother Cizinec, do you see the difference between the Eastern understanding and the Western understanding of "proceeds," the difference between the Greek "ekporeusai" and the Latin "procedit?"

Can you see that if "proceeds" is translated FROM "procedit," "proceeds from the Father and the Son" is orthodox because it ONLY means that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son? The LATIN use of the phrase "proceeds from the Father and the Son" never intends to define the origin of the Holy Spirit (unlike the Greek usage), but only intends to comment on the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Godhead.

As a recap:

***If we translate the word "proceeds" FROM the Greek "ekporeusai," the ONLY orthodox statement would be "PROCEEDS from the Father THROUGH the Son." This is equivalent to saying that the Holy Spirit "ORIGINATES from the Father THROUGH the Son;" this is also equivalent to the Catechism stating that the Holy Spirit "SPIRATES from the Father THROUGH the Son."

***If we translate the word "proceeds" FROM the Latin "procedit" or the Greek "proienai," then
it is just as orthodox to say "PROCEEDS from the Father AND the Son," because in THIS SENSE, the phrase would mean simply that the Holy Spirit "is consubstantial with the Father AND the Son."

Blessings,
Marduk

I wouldn't necessarily say that these are my objections. The question was phrased as "the Orthodox," so my reply is only my understanding of Orthodox objections.

The Orthodox, I believe, would have a problem with numbers one and two because they involve the insertion of a phrase into the common statement of faith without the approval of a council. I believe they would say that it is an invalid usurpation of authority for a single bishop to claim the authority to do so. I realize that some here feel that this objection is trivial or silly. I do not believe Orthodoxy shares this opinion and that they would object on those grounds to the words' insertion.

I understand the history and original purpose of the filioque. I also understand that my explanation was as Eastern as possible. I did so to be as charitable as possible. This definition is, however, a Roman Catholic one. If its purpose was to satisfy the East, does that mean Rome crosses Her fingers when saying it, or is this truly the ultimate understanding of the West? I also realise that the explanation given in the official catechism sounds a bit more heretical to Orthodox ears.

The education concerning what is meant by the filioque (that it does not represent an origination or 'original procession') remains underdeveloped. I suspect, from my own discussions with rank and file RCs, that the heresy of the belief in a "double origination," if you will, is quite common. Last I checked, Arianism wasn't running wild in Spain.

The filioque has been a thorn in the side of reconciliation for a millennium and its use in other languages provides less than accurate portrayals of what should be professed.

I understand where it came from. I understand why Rome refuses to give it up, and I understand why that will continue to prevent full union with the East.

Huh? Sorry, I am not up on what that means.

You have jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that the meaning of words are arbitrary. I would be wrong if I said that - but I did not say that. I do not blame you for not buying that stance - I do not buy it either.

What I did say is that words have no meaning in themselves. The meaning is not - in the word. The word is a sign, a pointed, an indicator, to a meaning which exists in the mind.

If I wrote upon a piece of paper, several words� and then placed them in an envelope and gave it to you and asked �Without opening it - what do the words in there mean?� you would have to reply �I do not know because I have not seen them.� For you to give me their meaning you - the human - would have to read them. And they would signify and indicate within you - some experience that you have had. The meaning - the experience - exists inside - you.

Now let us assume that you were born and raised in a wonderful family - and I was not. And someone said to both of us �mother�. While the foundation of the meaning (the experience of having a mother) would be similar - you (who had the nice mother) and I (who experienced the drunken slut of a mother) would not have the exact same meaning of the word �mother�.

If you said to your three years old son �Clean your room� and then you son did some work and resented that his room was now clean - yet you found it not to standards - you should not think that your son lied - you should first consider if your son - being only three - does not yet have the experience that you have (a adult of many years) by which to judge the room as being clean in your mind and to your standards. Do you see?

While the essential foundation of the word is shared between you (the adult) and your child (of three) the meaning of that words is expanded in details to you - while life has not yet carried the meaning of clean much beyond the basis - for your son.

And so the meaning is not arbitrary/ Yet at the same time the details and full application of the word is different in you and your son. You job *as the father) is to patiently teach your child the fullness of how you mean the word - and that means that you and your son must come to an agreement - as to the mental meaning of the word. That agreement assumes that bother your son and you - have either the same (or very similar) experience of something that is �clean�.

It is impossible - for a man to know the essential meaning of something that he has no cognitive experience of.

Again = meaning is a spiritual quality (of the mind) and does not exist in the senses nor the material appropriate to the senses. For example - what is the meaning of the flag of pyramid with the eye above it - on the back of a dollar bill? Go ahead - pull one out and touch it - see it - crinkle it to your ears - and taste it? You can not know the meaning of it - by way of the senses - because there is no meaning - in it. It is a sign - and indicator - and has no meaning in and of nor by itself.

The symbol of the eye atop the pyramid - is interpreted in meaning by many people. You can read or hear many evangelicals say that its meaning is the organization of the Illuminati. Or others will claim that its meaning is Masonic. It would be true - that to many people - the meaning of the eye and pyramid will have varied meanings - each - existing in the mind of the interpreter. The intended meaning of the eye and the pyramid (intended by the artist and those who originally approved it for the bill) is to represent the all seeing nature of God who governs all events. In other words - the Providence of God.
So one must decide in life - shall I seek the intended meaning of the author - or shall I judge what another man says - entirely by my own standards and experiences?

Now let us make it personal.

Should you - be judged - according to what you intend to mean by words? Or shall we judge you by what your words mean to us? And if we are to judge your words not by your intended meaning but rather by own personal interpretation - than why hold discussion? Why seek to have yourself understood - if our misunderstanding our your intentions and mean are inconsequential to what meaning we claim they have?

May I ask you - what is the meaning of the word �procession� as used?

Once you answer me that - I will then explain how the fathers intended the word �procession� to be understood. Or you can look it up. But the word �procession� as the father used it has a meaning which - the non-theological use of the word today does not have.

To save time - I will say that most people reading the statement - would automatically and subconsciously apply to the word �proceeds from� to have a contemporary and practical experience meaning that would be reflected by saying �I drove up to the stop light - but the policeman waved me to proceed on through it.� A meaning of �going forth in a direction.� And so we would have the image of a father standing there, and a son, sending the holy spirit forth in some direction. And if that is the image we have then we have missed what the fathers intended to say - because neither the father nor the holy spirit have bodies that occupy space and time - and so neither can �go forth� in any direction at all. And so to imagine that the Holy Spirit �goes forth� from one location to another - is nonsense.

Since that what is spirit - is entirely an experience of the mind and has no material body by which we could experience (whatever it is) through our senses - then this spiritual �it� does not have any location time or space.

So either the fathers are contradicting themselves - or the meaning which we would give the words �proceeds from� is not the same as the father intended us to understand by the words.

Shall we stop there? And judge the fathers to be wrong? Or shall we seek to understand what it is they intended us to understand?

To save more time - you are an intelligent man - and so I would guess that you would guess - that the meaning of �proceeds from� is to be found with the use of the words within Greek philosophy that was contemporary at the time in which this portion of the Creed was written. We must look up the meaning of �Procession� with early Greek philosophy. The act of God which they called �Procession�. The procession of creation. The act of God - creating the things and events of the natural world.

If one rightly understands the mystery of the Trinity in Eastern theology - one understands that the three - are one. If one were to stop at the words alone - it makes no sense (three separate things are one thing). So one has to be aware of the meaning and the context. The context is the Trinity� one God nature in three persons. It is not a wonder why people who are not familiar with the theology and the meaning of �three in one� - dismiss the concept of a God who is a Trinity - when all they have as an understanding is their own experience and not the meaning of �Trinity� as used in theology.

To conclude - if one was to understand the �act of God - creating� as explained by the Greek concept of it being a �Procession� of creation - creation in procession (from the God head - to the spiritual levels - to the material level) and one would understand how it is that the person of the Holy Spirit (that which we can experience as humans) proceeds (performs the act of creation) according to the governing of the Father (the Godhead nature) and the Son (the Logos - another Greek philosophical term).

If we consider �proceeds from the father through the son� then we would be talking about the - origin - of the holy spirit - and that origin would be the Father (identified as the God nature) and it would then not be right to say �proceeds from the father and the son� (using the term �proceeds� as to go forth from an origin (location). Yet we must use words which have a physical meaning (proceeds) to express what is not physical. As we often do - in theology. Shall we claim that the Orthodox church is in heresy because the word �proceeds� implies a physical location to the Holy Spirit which has no physical body to be located?? I think not� for the Orthodox church does not use the word to imply a physical location.

In the context of Latin theology (which adopted the Greek concept of the �procession of creation�) it is true to say that the act of creation (accomplished by the Holy Spirit) is governed total by both the Father�s will and the will of Christ as the Word - the Logos.

On must not consider Jesus as will-less. A mindless robot� through whom the will of God comes - and Jesus has no choice or free will in the matter. Jesus actively wills what the father wills (and visa-verse) - and the Holy Spirit carried that will out into creation. The Holy spirit is the agent - and not the origin. The origin is the joint willing and governing of the father and the son. This - the Eastern church agrees with - however it says it in with different words.

The Roman Catholic church is very correct to accept both forms (�proceeds from the father and the son� - �proceeds from the father through the son�) as correct when understood as in the context intended for each.

As you can see - the words have no inherent meaning in themselves - the meaning immaterial and mental. were to write �wind� an I saying a breeze - or to wind your watch? - you must ascertain MY meaning - as the original author if you are to judge - me. Otherwise - you assume YOUR meaning and by that you think you judge me but you really judge yourself (for you judge your meaning of the word and not my meaning as its author).

And so it is that when a Catholic - who knows the real intended meaning of Catholic theology is - hears someone explain how it is that the Catholic theology is wrong or heretical - we lose interest in listening because what is being explained is wrong (perhaps even heretical) and it is also not Catholic theology.

I lost count - of how many times someone has explained to me that Thomas Aquinas was wrong - and that original sin is not passed through sperm! And I agree! But it is also not what Thomas Aquinas was saying!

This is long - I have not discussed things here for weeks. I am sorry. I love a good discussion! Thank you for offering me one.

-ray