www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Agreed Statement of Filioque

This was taken from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America Website.

Seems promissing....


Agreed Statement On Filioque Adopted By North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation

October 28, 2003


The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation concluded a four-year study of the Filioque on October 25, when it unanimously adopted an agreed text on this difficult question that has divided the two communions for many centuries. This important development took place at the 65th meeting of the Consultation, held at St. Paul�s College in Washington, DC, under the joint chairmanship of Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh and Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati.

The original version of the Creed most Christian churches accept as the standard expression of their faith dates from the First Council of Constantinople, in 381, and has been used by Orthodox Christians since that time. Towards the end, this Creed states that the Holy Spirit �proceeds from the Father.� The word Filioque (�and the Son�) was later added to the Latin version of this Creed used in the West, so that the phrase as most western Christians know it reads that the Holy Spirit �proceeds from the Father and the Son.� This modification appeared in some areas of Western Europe as early as the 6th century but was accepted in Rome only in the 11th century. This change in the wording of the Creed and the underlying variations in understanding the origin and procession of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity have long been considered a church-dividing issue between Catholics and Orthodox. The Consultation had been studying this question since 1999 in the hope of eventually releasing an agreed statement.

Entitled �The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?�, the ten-thousand word text has three major sections. The first, �The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures,� summarizes references to the Spirit in both the Old and New Testaments. The more lengthy second section, �Historical Considerations,� provides an overview of the origins of the two traditions concerning the eternal procession of the Spirit and the slow process by which the Filioque was added to the Creed in the West. It also shows how this question concerning Trinitarian theology became entwined with disputes regarding papal jurisdiction and primacy, and reviews recent developments in the Catholic Church which point to a greater awareness of the unique and normative character of the original Greek version of the Creed as an expression of the faith that unites the Orthodox East and Catholic West. The third section, �Theological Reflections,� emphasizes our limited ability to speak of the inner life of God, points out that both sides of the debate have often caricatured the positions of the other, and lists areas in which the traditions agree. It then explores the differences that have developed regarding terminology, and identifies both theological and ecclesiological divergences that have arisen over the centuries.

In a final section, the Consultation makes eight recommendations to the members and bishops of the two churches. It recommends that they �enter into a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit.� It also proposes that in the future both Catholics and Orthodox �refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side� on this subject, and that the theologians of both traditions make a clearer distinction between the divinity of the Spirit, and the manner of the Spirit�s origin, �which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.� The text also urges theologians to distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues concerning the origin of the Holy Spirit from ecclesiological issues, and suggests that attention be paid in the future to the status of councils of both our churches that took place after the seven ecumenical councils of the first millennium. And finally, in view of the fact that the Vatican has affirmed the �normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381� in its original Greek version, the Consultation recommends that the Catholic Church use the same text (without the Filioque) �in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use,� and declare that the anathema pronounced by the Second Council of Lyons against those who deny that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is no longer applicable.

At this meeting the members also took time to review major developments in the lives of their churches. Among the items discussed were the seminar on Petrine Ministry that was held in the Vatican in May; the granting of autonomous status to the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America; the Orientale Lumen Conference held in Washington, DC, last June; the recent Patriarchal Assembly of the Maronite Catholic Church; the presence of a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Rome in late June for the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul headed by Archbishop Demetrios of America; the seminar sponsored by Pro Oriente on the union of Transylvanian Orthodox with Rome in Cluj, Romania, last July; the Faith and Order response to Ut Unum Sint; statements by the two churches on same-sex marriages; and the recent meeting of the Joint Committee of Orthodox and Catholic Bishops in Baltimore.

The 66th meeting of the Consultation is scheduled to take place from June 1 to 3, 2004, at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts, and the 67th meeting from October 21 to 23, 2004.

The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation is sponsored jointly by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the Americas (SCOBA), the Bishops* Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the USCCB, and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Since its establishment in 1965, the Consultation has now issued 22 agreed statements on various topics. All these texts are now available on the
website of the US Catholic Conference at: http://www.usccb.org/seia/dialogues.htm

In addition to the two co-chairmen, the Orthodox members of the Consultation include Father Thomas FitzGerald (Secretary), Archbishop Peter of New York, Father Nicholas Apostola, Prof. Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Father James Dutko, Prof. Paul Meyendorff, Father Alexander Golitzin, Father Emmanuel Gratsias, Dr. Robert Haddad, Father Paul Schnierla, Father Robert Stephanopoulos, and Bishop Dimitrios of Xanthos, General Secretary of SCOBA (staff). The additional Catholic members are Father Brian Daley, SJ (secretary), Msgr. Frederick McManus, Prof. Thomas Bird, Father Peter Galadza, Msgr. John D. Faris, Father John Galvin, Sister Jean Goulet, CSC, Father Sidney Griffith, ST, Father John Long, SJ, Father David Petras, Prof. Robin Darling Young, and Father Ronald Roberson, CSP (staff).

If Father David Petras was involved im good to go.

Dear Friends,

This is only promising if some ecclesial action is undertaken and the recommendations are somehow implemented.

Otherwise, it will be another one of those ecumenical "feel good" documents.

Alex

I've been waiting for a statement of this calibre to come out of the Consultation since speaking with the Secretary (Fr. Fitzgerald) this past summer. I'm impressed.

In my view, the statement emphasizes that the Creed (without Filioque) is the normative and dogmatic one, while insisting that addition of the Filioque in local usage does not create a universally unacceptable or even heretical version of the Creed.

Convincing everybody else on both sides (the rank and file) of the validity of this position will of course be a monumental task that may be achieved only over time and through a dialogue based upon this statement's clear logic and manifestation of Christian love.

In Christ,
Andrew

Why should the Latin Church be asked to drop the Filioque for future "catechetical and liturgical" publications? It's part of the Latin Church's authentic tradition, it's been recognized by the Orthodox as valid in two ecumenical councils, etc.

The Eastern Catholics are all gung ho about authentic Eastern tradition. That's all well and good, but what about Latin tradition? Taking it out of future publications is sending the message to Latin Catholics that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in the validity of the Filioque anymore. The validity of the Filioque is not up for debate for Catholics, kind of like the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Anyway, I don't believe an ecumenical consultation group can render void something proclaimed in a Council (the anathema).

I am not saying the Filioque is "better" than the Eastern version of the Creed. But it's just as valid, especially for the West. I'd never encourage to East to adopt it.

Logos Teen

Logos Teen,

Good.

I was trying to make a similar point about Magisterial authority, namely:

How can something with lesser authority (some "commission") overturn the decision of a greater authority (the Ecumenical Councils of Lyons and Florence)?

Sing that Credo III, man! It doesn't work without the Filioque!

LatinTrad

LT,

1. Lyons and Florence are not ecumenical councils. They belong to the category of �General Councils in the West� according to Pope Paul VI�s definition. The Catholic Church often treats the last 14 councils as "ecumenical" but has not dogmatically defined it as so. The teachings of Paul VI and Pope John Paul II seem to indicate otherwise.

2. The Orthodox that recognized these teachings did so under force and not with total free will. It is incorrect to suggest that the Orthodox recognize the filioque as valid and you should know better than to suggest this.

3. The West should drop the filioque because it was not part of the original Creed. Since about 1985 Pope John Paul II has prayed the Creed in its original form each year on Pentecost (without the filioque) as a gesture to the East. It is perfect acceptable in its original form.

It was sung a long time without it.

As previously stated on other threads, this counsiltation and dialogue is completely within the magesterial position of the church as can be seen in Ut Unum Sint, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Orientale Lumen, Slavorum Apostoli, etc. and the personal liturgical actions of the Holy Father. Much more so than keeping an artificial insertion into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

It seems the Latins up to the Holy Father have also realized they can live without the Filioque and return to the traditional Creed of the first two Ecumenical Councils.

The historical reasons for its insertion have simply not been extant for hundreds of years, and its continued use (which was intended as temporary until the neo-Arianism it attempted to elimanate was eliminated) is addmittedly divisive even by the Holy Father.

The majority of Latin Catholics would undoubtedly not flinch at the removal of the Filioque especially when the history and catechesis behind its traditional omission are adequately described. And, once again, if the Creed as written on the walls inside St. Peter's are normative, neither contains the Creed, not in Greek nor Latin.

I was wondering how you would interpret these verses from John 20 in relation to the procession of the Holy Spirit:

[19] On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
[20] When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
[21] Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

The point is though that everything comes from the Father

...Through the Son

But they define themselves as ecumenical. "This holy and ecumenical Council" or something of the like is found within each of them.

I can understand this point. But, sometimes, I wonder if it really matters whether or not they agreed "under pressure." Does it matter, since, at the end of it all, they still agreed? Do we know for certain that it was under pressure? Historical happenstance would allow for such a theory, given the East's fight against the Muslims and the hopes of securing Western aid, but are there any first-hand sources that posit this?

But my point is that the Catholic Church sees the Filioque as valid and acceptable for the usage of Latin Catholics.

That said, Diak does make a good point about the reason for its inclusion in the first place (the Neo-Arian heresy). I can buy the fact that perhaps the usefulness of the Filioque has diminished over the past few centuries.

Logos Teen

But not taking away from the "Monarchy" of the Father- the Father is the first Principle from where the Holy Spirit Proceeds

Brad,

"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

Why rest a case upon mere inference when we have Jesus' defining words recorded in John 15:26? For me this settles the question. The filioque was a temporary addition to accommodate a need in the West. The original is the most accurate.


"When the (1) Helper comes, (2) whom I will send to you from the Father, that is (3) the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father (4) He will testify about Me,

Hi all,

I just wanted to see how you would comment on that verse. I actually accept both "through the Son" and "and the Son"; both seem correct to me without being exclusionary of each other.

I also notice that John 15:26 says "I will send..." as Jesus speaking.

Though it would be a stronger case for "...and the Son" if it read "I will send to you from the Father and Myself, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father and Myself, He will testify about Me."

But it does NOT say that.

Now, how do you interpret Romans 8:9?

"You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."

Is both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ the Holy Spirit? Or is the Spirit of Christ allegorical? Or does it mean "you are one with Christ and His teachings, "you have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior"?

Also if anyone wants to comment on what Alex has said in the past, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ACTIVELY and from (or through) the Son PASSIVELY.

Thank you,

BradM