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

Hello Dolly!

The point is that not ALL Eastern Christians regard the Filioque as an innocuous and orthodox Western theological development - to many Eastern Orthodox, it suggests the idea that the Spirit has TWO Sources of Origin - and by Roman Catholic standards as well, this would be a Trinitarian heresy.

From a merely canonical point of view, the original Creed (without the Filioque) was agreed to by the entire Church to express the faith of the entire Church, East, West, North and South.

Whatever our brother, djs, (a Puseyite, it would seem ),will say about this (important and articulate as it is ), the fact remains that the above principle is accepted in principle by both East and West today.

In effect, if the Filioque was in the Athanasian creed, that would be fine. There is not the same canonical outlook on it as there is on the Nicene creed.

The Nicene Creed stands alone as an original statement of the faith of the universal Church, agreed to by the oikumene of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the time.

It is normative for all of us still. No one Church may make a change to it (outside of an Ecumenical Council).

As Meyendorff states, it is hypothetically possible for the Roman Church (in a united Church) to bring forward its doctrines for acceptance by everyone.

He said that this is POSSIBLE if a future Ecumenical Council ratified them.

The Filioque is not necessary to the Nicene Creed and the universal Christian faith it confesses.

Those who say it is somehow necessary betray the old Latin attitude that reduces the Persons of the Trinity to their internal relations (ie. the Father is identified as the Father because He is Unoriginate etc.).

The Son is begotten eternally from the Father in a way that is different from the active Spiration of the Holy Spirit from the Father - on this both sides also agree, even though we cannot know the difference.

The Filioque, as a Latin theological opinion, is fine and should be left alone.

But it should not be left in the Nicene creed.

The removal of the Filoque from the Nicene creed tomorrow will certainly not bring about unity in the Church.

Even if ALL points of difference between East and West were settled, that would not bring about union of the Churches.

That union would only be achieved by a mystical, sacramental act to heal the ages-old schism, determined by the Churches involved.

Alex

From the beginning:
I said that your basic point is reasonable, but that you stretch it too far. The stretch: a unilateral decision to violate a canon.
This stretch is entirely about motivation. And it not only presupposes facts not evident, but it also requires that one ignore facts in evidence.
The is no evidence for a "decision" to violate a canon at Toledo. Just the opposite. And it is even tendentious to suggest that a canon was "violated", as that calls for a specific interpretation of the canon - whichever canon you have in mind.

The validity of your claim is at the same level as this claim:
Those who are celebrating the Pascha over a month after the beginning of spring this year have decided to violate a canon of the 1st ecumenical council.

I object to it because it is not only unsound, but takes the argument to an unnecessarily divisive level; it seeks not to heal but to assign blame and does so tendentiously.

So what? His point is either sound or not.

Alex, you seem to have missed the point of contention entirely. I am making no comment about the reasonable part of Diak's comments only about the stretch.

Well, it would be - except that RC's look to the Pope to tell us whether or not something is a heresy. And since no Pope has proclaimed the Filioque to be a heresy, then ergo, ipso facto, it ain't!

But that could just be my plain-speaking Midwestern heritage speaking. We didn't get too het up about theology back in Sedalia, MO - too busy trying to keep the cows from grazing on the town square.

Has anybody noticed the disturbing trend we are now seeing? I almost feel a little guilty at having started this thread. However, given the ecumenical hopes of the Holy Father perhaps its best we expose the stubborness of both sides: East and West. Catholics fighting Catholics, now isnt this unusual? I'm sure the participants in the 1182 Constantinopolitan riots and the members of the fourth Crusade would feel right at home here. Who will be the first to shout Anathema this time, hmm?

As a Westerner I dont actually see the problem with Creed of the Council of Toledo. I see the problem with trying to force it upon the Universal Church but I dont see the problem with only the Latin Church using it. Some of the arguments for and against this have been completely ridiculous and this bickering defies the very spirit of Christianity.

As I've reminded people numerous times the First Council of Constantinople made all its decrees without the West even knowing about them. It wasnt until the Council of Ephesus that the Western Church even discovered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. Yet, the Latin Church did not complain about its insertion without their representation. In spite of Rome's pre-eminent place as the Church that presides over the others in love, as St Ignatius of Antioch says and the Church with whom all others must agree as a matter of necessity as St Irenaeus taught in Adv.Her.III.3.2. She did not make a proverbial song and dance over it. The Creed was accepted and framed and confirmed and all were willing to go along with it. Was it too much of the Spanish Bishops to ask the same courtesy? I agree that Charlemagne was an interfering menance and that the Creed of the Toledo Council should not be forced upon all. But for crying out loud is it that big an issue??

As I've said numerous times since I logged into this site for me its not. Ditch it, keep it what difference will it really make? The doctrine that underlies it is unanimously agreed upon by all! I mean I find this completely incredulous. Having been an apostate neo-platonist for 5 years prior to re-embracing Christianity and ultimately reverting to the Roman Church I see myself as somewhat of an outsider observer. Maybe thats what allows me to care neither whether or not the filioque is ultimately included in the Creed. However, I cannot remain silent over the stupidity of this argument.

Are really going to die and go before God saying: "Lord we argued over the way the same belief was FRAMED?" Are we each prepared for the face of God when His perfect Justice turns to perfect wrath over this foolishness? Have we become so full of the yeast of the Pharisees that we will argue endlessly over terminology that expresses the same truth?

Personally, I dont think that is the case. I think the case is what it always is when it comes to Ecumenical talks between East and West. Did Rome have the right to change the Creed? Thats what it always seems to rest on with this nonsense. Underlying these silly arguments is the fear that the Roman primacy is uncontrollable and must be restrained canonincally for fear that the Church will become a Papal Imperium.

Fundamentally, I agree. I think thats partly why Our Lord after giving Peter the prime ministerial powers of the house of David once held by the likes of Shebnah and Eliakim (cf. Isa 22:19-25 and Matt 16:13-20) made a point of later giving the 12 as a group the authority to bind and loose (Matt 18:18-20). To realise the kind of Church God wanted the powers to bind and looses could not lay unchecked in Peter but had to be balanced by the equally infallibly Ecumenical Councils. Peter is supposed to confirm his brothers yes, but not lord it over them. This is something I fundamentally agree with.

But for crying out loud stop skating around that issue and dancing around in circles with this filioque thing. Even the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website makes the main point of contention not the filioque but ecclesiology. The Oecumenical Patriarchate is senisble enough about this to acknowledge that behind all these disputes lays the question of 'just what can Rome do?'

I empathise with the Orthodox concerns. However, I think the filioque is the wrong bone to pick this fight over. The Council of Toledo did not go beyond the canons in its declarations. The faith in its purity was simply expressed according to the way St Cyril of Alexandria expressed it in his work 'On the glories of the Holy Trinity'. We did not add one jot, one tittle or one iota to the faith but heck if that is so much of a sin maybe we should anathema him from beyond the grave too?

My oh my!! Do you want us to change it? To what, hmm? Shall we re-write the entire creed and call it by something else? Will that be good enough? Maybe if we started using the Athanasian creed? Geeze, just remove the silly clause. If it offends you all that much to have it in there by all means just take it out.

Yes, yes, yes seize upon your victory you have avenged yourselves for the Councils of Lyon and Florence. Hurrah, how grand! How Christian we all are for by our love for one another we are known throughout the world as his disciples. A bunch of squabbling brothers who have been fighting for over a thousand years over a nonsensical issue.

What a complete joke! What a complete and utter joke!

And there was me thinking people read the homily given by my Lord Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church about pride being the cause of division? Maybe I was wrong.

Feel good inside yourselves for this argument has served so much purpose. You have beaten us into submission. Its more than likely that the filioque will be removed and after that you can attack some other points of Roman teaching and humiliate us still further. As always, just like after discovering about the First Council of Constantinople we wont make a massive problem about it.

Diak is right. The greater number of believers will follow the Pope if he makes an appeal to them from his heart. There will be murmurings but the Seat of Peter will keep us gelled together as it has consistently done. So indeed do the chartible thing, hold us guilty for sins not committed and then humble the Roman Church and all her children.

The sense of family unity that should arise thus following should be a sight to behold.

This argument is completely stupid. The Roman Church isnt trying to force its creed on anybody but it cant maintain it just because to allow her to do so would be seen as some kind of unspoken recognition of the Roman primacy (when in fact it would not be since synodal letters were sent explaining the situation). But let the Creed change. I dont care any longer. I'm tired of this argument about the way a doctrine should be phrased. I believe the truth behind it whether thats the Cyrilian formula, the Basilian formula or the creedal statement containing neither formula. So what they hey!? In spite of the fact that the union of doctrine would not need to come with the change of the Western creed lets change it anyway. After all if a clock isnt broken the logical thing to do is fix it.

I dont expect a reply to this outburst and if I get one I wont respond. This question just doesnt dignify further debate.

Since others like Meyendorff and Ware are in agreement with the fallout from Toledo, I consider myself in good company.

The Filioque did not exist in the Creed before Toledo. Well enough documented. For the council of Toledo to put it in the Creed, it had to be "decided" to have done so.

The later opposition of Leo III makes it very evident that this council did not have widespread acceptance in the West, as the Ecumenical Councils I and II did universally in the East and West.

The local council certainly decided it had the authority to trump Ecumenical Councils, right or wrong. The end result was a deviation from the Creed of the Ecumenical Council by a local council who had no authority to do so. Whether or not that violation was premeditated, I leave to God's judgement.

The "stretch" seems rather in not seeing what appears to be reason dictated by history. How did that phrase make it there then? Someone had to decide to insert it, in resultant noncompliance with the Creed of the Ecumenical Councils I and II.

The Creed is a summary of our venerable Apostolic Faith. That is usually not disputed by either Orthodox or Catholics.

The summary of the first two Ecumenical Councils was changed. Ergo if the very summary of our Apostolic Faith is changed, I think semantics about "violating the canons" is the least of our worries, as the theological and philosophical fallout from the insertion of that phrase have borne out in the succeding generations.

You had to bring up Pascha... I do think there is a deviation on the celebration of Pascha as well. Perhaps Alex also agrees also on that one. I also will choose to disagree with your judgement of the soundness of Pusey. My opinion, of course.

And since the Pope himself has elected to remove that phrase while saying the Creed as the universal Pontiff, it seems he has no problem with its removal either. Which was the real point of this thread.

As I previously stated, I am in agreement with Ware's assessment. As such, it really isn't worthwhile to quibble over semantic arguments about Toledo. I don't disagree with Myles in that issue.

I can only thank God that phrase is not used in our liturgy anymore, the Pope himself has not used it on occasion publicly, and hope for its eventual removal and conformance with the Creed of the Ecumenical Councils.

Myles, if you think this is bad, you haven't been around here very long. This is a friendly discussion.

You will find on this forum that we are all brethren, Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and even Protestant in the end who pray for each other and like to have lively discussions. No need for an "outburst".

No kidding. But you made a huge swap here. Now it's "decided to insert" (objective), before it was "decided to violate..." (subjective). Very naughty.


Precisely the point. Now ... why is it so difficult? What are your objective reasons to presuppose a lack of innocence.
A cogent criticism of his comment?

I have no problem with this at all. I just think it wise to work for this result in a conciliatory way, not in a divisive one that conjures up a lack of innocence in others. A win-win outcome will get good results, a contrived win-lose situation will not.

And as to liturgical practice in the Latin church, I take a pass. I don't want them micromanaging our texts and therefore will defer to their judgment for theirs. They know the facts and the stakes.

Myles, no one has mentioned Roman primacy, Lyon, Florence, etc. etc. I didn't even bring up 1204...

The issue is dispensing with Ecumenical Councils. Do you really think it prudent to do so? I am asking quite honestly. You will have a difficult time convincing much of Christendom.

As Alex has stated, and has been stated by numerous Orthodox luminaries such as Meyendorff and Schmemann, and even Catholics such as Fr. Taft, it simply is an obstacle by its presence regardless of the theologumena which now surrounds it.

If the greater good is served by its removal, by moving towards the words of our Lord, that all may be one, accomplishes much more in the end. The words of our Lord, in charity and love for the union of Christians, should be our bottom line.

Some objective reasons, already stated: a local council not possessing the authority to obviate or derogate Ecumenical Councils, with bishops sworn to defend said Ecumenical Councils; hundreds of years of lex orandi professing faith in the lex credendi of the Nicene Creed and still the need to change the lex orandi. There are more, but in the sake of brevity I will stop there.

This is not appropriate to discuss in one thread, in all fairness to both him and myself. I will say there are significant shortcomings in that work. That statement truly is digressing the discussion, very naught yourself.

By the way, I stand by my opinions, wrong-headed though they may or may not be; but if my style has offended anyone, my sincere apologies.

I enjoy a good theological "discussion" as well as the next person. But as I'm sure we all know from sad experience, it's easy to let things get out of hand.

"No intense offended!"

The only issue I have is your conclusion on motivation. The objective facts do not make the motivation clear - no matter how often they are repeated. And you overlook the very statements from Toledo as well that counter your suspicions. I don't see why you feel it important to assert bad faith on their part.

The quote from Pusey - really extensively quoting Cyril - was simply handy. It was not a digression but very much on the point that you raised regarding the Creed as a statement of the faith. From the Councils we understand that it is, but not a unique, complete, or self-sufficient one. That, and only that, is why I quoted it.

Scientists often debate the conclusions and interpretations of observations, no?
And I don't really feel it important, only when pressed by you continually to answer I felt it appropriate.

Ahhh...
Then of course I shall refrain from pressing.

Dear djs,

I'm poking some fun at you - that's what YOU have missed!

My point is that we should go with what contemporary RC and Orthodox theologians are saying about this matter and not try to reinvent the controversy all over again.

And what they are saying is that the Filioque does not belong in the Nicene Creed.

Alex

Dear Dolly,

All I'm saying here is that the Filioque COULD be interpreted in an heretical way by BOTH the RC and Orthodox Churches (if it is taken to mean that the Spirit has two Origins).

The Pope himself has allowed the RC Church of Greece to omit the Filioque and he himself NEVER uses it when he says Mass in Greek or else recites the Creed with Orthodox Patriarchs.

Alex

Dear Myles,

My own position on this, which is also the position of others here, is that the Nicene Creed was codified as the "common property" of the entire Church, East and West.

As such, the Latin Church CANNOT and should not change it by inserting the Filioque or anything else.

That is the canonical issue in a nutshell.

The Latin Church may of course "use it" in other contexts, as Orthodox theologians also agree, as a theologoumenon of the West.

It is like using the standard formula of Baptism in the Name of the Trinity - something all Churches do.

One cannot justify a change to the formula, as found in the Scriptures, on the basis of a local Church tradition.

In any event, we are making a mountain out of a mole-hill here since RC theologians, as we've said several times, agree with the Orthodox here.

As for the issue of RC's being crest-fallen at the prospect of losing yet another part of their identity, namely, the Filioque, this can be used in other contexts.

And the issue is then really the contemporary RC attitude to its historic liturgy and devotional practices.

Why is it about jettisoning them? In whose interest is this being done?

Alex