www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Two lungs but how to breathe?

Dear John I think you hit the nail on the head in most cases. But dont prolong the schism because that hardens it. The atrocities we've committed against each other are abominable and I think the Balamand document's instruction to forget history is a good thing. Because of various non-theological issues what was initially an excommunication against a legate of the Pope and a single patriarch widened into a split within the Church. This is evidenced by the fact that at the Council of Florence in the 15th century nobody was expected to do penance or commit a formal act of reconciliation. The whole Church Universal, both East and West, understood that the divide was between the two lungs of the same body.

Even after the failure of the Council relations between both lungs hinted that they might begin to breathe as one again. Latin missionaries rightly regarded Eastern Bishops as their ordinaries during the great missionary period of the Catholic Reformation and the fruits of this were beautiful. In 1628 a former Abbot of Mt Athos asked Rome to open a school on the Holy Mount for Monks. In 1644 the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Euthymios, asked the Jesuits to open a house at Damascus. In 1690 Metropolitan Damaskinos of Aegina wrote directly to Pope Innocent XI requesting two Jesuits to undertake pastoral work in his diocese. Ironically when the Jesuits encountered resistence in Smyrna it came from the Capuchin Franciscans and indeed the Metropolitan working together with Louis XIII, King of France, settled the issue in their favour. And indeed it would be the Tsar of Russia who saved the Jesuits from being disbanded when the Royal courts of 18th century Western Europe, dominated by Freemasons, turned against them and pressured Rome into surpressing the order.

But as His Lordship, Kallistos Ware, reports in 'Orthodox and Catholics' it was during this period (the so-called 'enlightnenent, or as I like to call--Isnt it funny that Lucifer means 'light bearer') that things began to change. I suppose when pressure is exerted from outside people begin to close in, shut up shop and close ranks. The missionary endevours ended and well...the French Revolution began and this would usher in the Marxism of the next century. Needing to close ranks and sort out its own shop the West began to be more inward looking and this inwardness has prevented such close collaboration between East and West up until today.

I would love to see Western religious priests being used by Eastern ordinaries again. I pray for it. If this is a divorce, although I'd say its more like Jacob and Esau's estrangement (what with Sts Peter and Andrew being brothers) someone is going to have to take the first step. Many people on this board have made the great observation that before we start theological dialogue we, both East and West, should start 'doing things' together. Praying, carrying out acts of charity, visiting one another's Masses. I think between most of you guys you've provided solid answers as to what I can do for Christian Unity in these parts.

I thank you

It seems to me that speaking of "removing" or "deleting" the filioque clause betrays a misunderstanding of the Catholic position. When Catholics say that the filioque is legitimate, this should be understood to mean that by adding the word "filioque", Westerners produced an additional legitimate creed.

The Catholic Church has always had the Creed of Constantinople (always, I mean, since 381 A.D.). So when we are talking about which creed to say, we shouldn't speak as though we need to "remove" something from the one the creed in order to "get" the other. Like I said, we already have both of them.

Let me try to illustrate this better with a comparison: In the Latin-Rite (or Roman-Rite) parish in which I grew up, the missalette contains two creeds. (Neither of them is the Creed of Constantinople, but that's not really the point right now. Although I may come back to it another time.) First there is the usual creed to be said on Sunday (the one with the filioque); then there's the Apostles' Creed, with a note that it may be used for "Children's Masses" (in place of the other creed).

Here's the point: suppose you're at a Children's Mass and the Apostles' Creed is said. When everyone says "the holy, catholic church" you could then say to yourself "Aha! They removed the words 'one' and 'apostolic'" (along with a great many other words).

And you would be right -- in a certain technical sense, I mean. Likewise, if Catholic parishes switched to saying the Creed of Constantinople on Sundays, they would (in the same technical sense) be "removing" the filioque. But isn't it pretty clear, in both these cases, that speaking of "removing" just isn't the right way of looking at it.

(You may notice that I've written quite a bit here about what some may see as an insignificant point, without addressing the question of what should actually be done with regard to the creed. I do intend on saying something about that question in a later post; but I felt it was important to try and clear up this little nuance first.)

By the way, as far as any of you know, has the Catholic Church ever given a name to the creed which they use on Sundays (the one with the filioque)? Perhaps the "Creed of Toledo"? Or the "Creed of Aachen "?

It can, of course, be referred to as "the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with 'filioque' inserted", but that's not really a name now is it?

-Peter

Peter, welcome to the forum. I'm sure you know that the Apostles' Creed is the older of the two.
So, in that sence, The words "one" and "Apostolic" would have been Added to the Nicene Creed

Peter, perhaps the "Creed Against the Neo-Arians of Spain and Gaul" since it is not anymore the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which was mandated at the Council of Constantiople to allow no additions or subtractions from the formula of 381, and which was also reiterated at Chalcedon in 451.

The Holy Father has said the Creed numerous times in its canonical form as promulgated by the Council of Constantinople, and there are no longer any compelling theological reasons for the continuation of the Filioque. It continues to be divisive by its existence for no good reason. Let it go, this is one easily removable stumbling block to unity which most RCs in the pew will not likely notice, or have problems with proper historical perspective from the pulpit.

I do not agree that we can simply remove the filioque clause of the Creed. Not because I disagree fundamentally with what you said Diak but because since Vatican II 'top down' decisions on the liturgy have caused internal division in the Latin Church. The Western Church has learnt the hard way that when it comes to the Roman rite organic development is better than uprooting and imposition. It might appear that nobody would notice and no doubt in many parishes that have taken to modernism this would be so. However, not everyone in the West is a modernist and although the Holy Father has managed to win the support of many I'm not so certain that all conservative factions would be ready for this just yet.

I sincerely do want a unified Church but all of us should've learnt something from the union of Breast in 1596: If you dont bring everybody with you, it will lead to schism. The filioque has been in western consciousness for a long time and it will take good and proper catechisis--something that is somewhat lacking in many places in the Latin Church--to prepare the West for its removal.

Lastly though, in order to guard against subordinatist errors I do think the filioque clause should be replaced rather than removed. Ultimately, at some point in the future I would like to see an Oecumenical Council discuss the issue of framing the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit in a definitive manner agreed by both lungs of the Church. Arianism might be gone but Islam is growing in the West and many encountered by their subordination of Jesus to the rank of prophet and eschatological agent are influenced by this model.

Myles, I would think rather the modernists are those who refuse to adhere to the Nicene-Constatinopolitan Creed.

What the RC Church has now is not that Creed, as that Creed was fixed as we have discussed. When something is changed as fundamentally as the addition of the Filoque it is not what it was before.

I think the perceived fears of subordinationism are first of all completely overblown, and secondly are greatly outweighed by the combined opportunities for renunion, the recovery of the authentic Creed, and thus return to fidelity with the Patristic Councils.

The theological justifications for the insertion of the Flilioque are no longer extant. This, as both Catholic and Orthodox ecumenists have posited time and time again, would be the simplist and most profound gesture Rome could make for unity. And I wholeheartedly agree.

LOL! With all due respect, I think most RCs in the pew - especially those of a traditionalist bent - WOULD notice such a radical change. After all, they noticed, and are still arguing about, the change in the English translation of the word "many" to "all" (in the Eucharistic prayer).

And I'm not saying whether that translation change was right or wrong, either - that's another argument entirely. I'm just saying, never assume that "most RCs won't notice" something - trust me, enough of them will notice that it will become a major issue for blogs and chat rooms for generations to come.

TG, I don't necessarily disagree, and true, I shouldn't overgeneralize. I did say the majority either wouldn't notice or with the proper catechetical preparation, wouldn't have problems with it. The latter is probably the operative phrase.

Certainly there will be conservative groups who will have problems with anything, regardless of catechetical efforts of their shepherds.

But by and large I think my earlier observation is accurate, at least in the typical, mutli-thousand family RC parishes in our area, and we have a very conservatve RC archdiocese. In the RC parishes I grew up in during the "changes" it certainly would not make a great stir.

I would think fidelity with the Ecumenical Councils would be a good thing, not a bad, modernist thing.

I do not think the alterations made to the Creed to weather the storm of Visigothic arianism can be seen as infidelity. Granted the filioque might not have been applicable to the doctrinal disputes everywhere in 6-7th century Europe however there was some neccessity in it, and there is no doctrinal error in it since it does not make the Son the cause of the Holy Spirit. St Maximus the Confessor says as much in his letter to Marinus and that moreover the Latins have observed the synodal practice of sending letters. If they sent letters to the East as St Maximus says, how is it then that they broke with the canons?

Toledo made a change to deal with a heresy letters were sent East. Having been recieved the East sent St Maximus to Rome to recieve greater clarification on the issue. St Maximus listened to the evidence in the name of the East was satisfied and wrote to Marinus saying as such. What then is the problem? Its not as if the change was made without reason or without anybody in the East knowing.

If the change is to be made it will take time. I myself am not satisfied with the difference between the Latin text of the latest Missal and the ICEL translation, and believe me I'm not the only one. Perhaps in the parishes where you used to go people didnt notice. But I assure you not every parish in the Roman Catholic Church is like that parish from the sounds of it. The situation in the American Catholic Church does not reflect the Catholic Church the world over. In England, where we have a natural conservatism, it would be unmissable for 'many' if not 'all'. Excuse the wordplay will you.

I dont mind the proposal of removing the filioque clause but please dont simply assume its a small issue after all the post-Vatican II liturgical wars the Roman Church has already endured. In our current times the smallest changes to the liturgy are noticed everywhere. Give things time to settle down, dont try and push us to rock the boat while the waters are still choppy beneath it.

Myles, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I would not have problems with St. Basil's formula, which is also what Maximus was refering to (and most definitely not the Filioque). That is "through the Son" and not a double procession.

In the long run it also does not seem with the rise of masonry, etc. in those same areas of Spain and Gaul that the insertion was of any real effect anyway. It rather morphed into other heretical strains.

It seems perhaps that fidelity to the Apostolic Councils in the long run is the better course. I say that as someone in communion with Rome. Rome cannot reasonably expect Orthodoxy to come running for communion if she is not willing to take serious steps herself in restoring at least the outward appearance of fidelity to the Ecumenical Councils.

Granted, to do so will require mutual movement outside of "comfort zones".

I still posit the end movement towards unity by the elimination of that addition to the venerable Nicene-Constantopolitan Creed far outways concerns by certain Latin tradtionalists, since the intention and the end result is nothing more than our living out of the wishes of our Lord, that we may be one.

I dont really see a major point of disagreement. So I will agree to agree according to where I'm sitting. I personally prefer the 'through the son' formula and I think having 'through the son' in the creed would be better encapsulate the views of both the Latins and Greeks. Moreover, it is attested to by numerous Fathers all the way back to Origen upto and (of course including) St John of Damascus. This terminology fully expresses what the Latin Church means when she says 'filioque' and is more universal that St Cyril of Alexandria's statements in 'On the glories of the Holy Trinity'. Still, in spite of this I dont think its a big deal to use the Creed as it was in 381AD and not include the Basilian formulae.

My argument is not with your proposal but with the speed at which you want it done (and I also thought it was slightly unfair to say Rome had been unfaithful to the Councils given St Maximus' visitation and the thorough report and warm welcome that great genius recieved). I agree that for all intense purposes, in the interest of unity, if the removal of the filioque will hasten East and West along the road to full communion that indeed it should be done. But however I think the West needs to be prepared for the creedal reversion over a period of time first, at the grassroots Catechesis and up to and including a change in emphasis in Latin seminaries etc.

I agree with Christine regarding the many & all tempest, I'm visiting different Mass times up here in the northern L.A. Diocese boundry and find quite a number of differences, though I feel extremely out of place, especially in the present liturgical texts and the revision proposals.

Also there were a few no no's regarding Redemptionis Sacramentum that I will not discuss here.

Yes it hurts, but I need a Church nearby to bring my grandkids to, it will have to do until a Eastern Catholic Church sprouts up or there are some Orthodox options also.

james

I may be mistaken (in fact, probably am!), but to talk about the Creed being "fixed" at a certain point of time begs the question (for me) of - why? It's not Scripture. It's a man-made declaration of belief.

That's not to take away from its character as THE primary statement of Christian belief, and certainly it should not be changed lightly. But it wasn't brought down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets, if you get my drift.

One of my Latin Rite friends believes the ICEL translations to be inaccurate. He takes his Latin missal to Mass and reads the Latin parts to himself, while the congregation recites the ICEL translations. I keep telling him about the "old time religion" in the East, but I haven't convinced him to come on over yet.