www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Filioque

I presume that Eastern Catholic Churches, although they may not recite it in the Nicene Creed, do believe that the Holy Spirit flows from both the Father and the Son since the Church declares this "de fide." Am I correct?
Also, what happened at the Council of Florence in 1439? I have read that the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Churches almost reunited.
God bless,
Michael

This issue has generally been resolved as neither statement is incompatable with the other. Eastern and Western Chrisitians may slightly recite the creed differently, but we have no unresolvable differences in faith.

K.

>>>This issue has generally been resolved as neither statement is incompatable with the other. Eastern and Western Chrisitians may slightly recite
the creed differently, but we have no unresolvable differences in faith. <<<

The definitive statement was a "Clarification" issued by the Pontifical Commission for the Promotion of Christian Unity, which shows the fundamental harmony between the Orthodox and Catholic expressions of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Same document also states that the uninterpolated Greek text of the Creed of Constantinople is the only ecumenically-binding Symbol of Faith--everything else, including the Latin text, is a translation.

I think you should also be very clear about what you mean when you say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son before you declare what you believe to be "de fide".

I believe what I profess in the liturgy every week and in daily prayer that "the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father." I generally don't worry about the opinions of Roman fundamentalists who tell me what I believe or what I ought to believe. It is enough to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. I have no idea of what you mean by "flows" since it isn't a theological term and can be interpreted in various ways just like the Latin "proceedit".

Dear Michael/LoveGod,

I can well appreciate your question as it is very much a point of contention in the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

The Council of Florence was called basically to see if Rome would send help to save Constantinople from the Turks and, ah, yes . . . and to see if Church union can be achieved.

The basic point of contention was really the unilateral placement of the Filioque into the Creed by the West.

The Orthodox Saint Mark Eugenikos, Archbishop of Ephesus accepted the removal of the Filioque as the minimum requirement for unity.

The Greeks who were called "Latinophrones" or the "Latin-minded" by their countrymen agreed that the phrase the Holy Spirit proceeds from "the Father through the Son" was equal in meaning and significance to the Western phrase "and the Son."

But the West refused to remove the Filioque and, without this as a minimum for the Greek side, the union failed. When Pope Eugenius heard that Mark of Ephesus left home without signing the decree of union he is said to have remarked, "We have achieved nothing."

The Greek Bishops who signed the Florentine Union document came home to angry countrymen and were obliged to recant their signatures.

Others, like Isidore, Metropolitan of Kyiv, left for Rome where they spent the rest of their lives trying to ransom their countrymen from the Turks after the fall of Constantinople.

The Union documents of Florence formed the theological basis of some other Union agreements, notably that of Brest Litovsk which gave birth to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in 1596.

Florence never forced the Orthodox to use the Filioque or Purgatory or other Latin theological terminology or concepts.

This happened by Latinized Byzantine CAtholic Churchmen later . . .

As Stuart states, Rome today affirms that the original Creed without the Filioque is the one that is binding on all Christians East and West.

The Filioque at best can be seen to be a confusing theological term.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe that the Father is the Monarch and Source of the Trinity, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church has always believed that the Spirit spirates from the Son "passively," that is to say, that the Spirit does NOT have His Source in the Son, but in the Father alone (Active Spiration).

You may check this with Dr. Carroll, just to be on the safe side . . .

St Thomas Aquinas acclaimed the truth of the Eastern theology of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. It is in fact a better way of expressing it than the "Filioque" which can lead to the heresy of Sabellianism and otherwise serve to undercut the role of the Spirit (here defined as an "also ran") in the life of the Church.

Also, both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches maintain, with the Fathers, that there already is a qualitative difference in the "way" that the Son is Begotten of the Father before all ages and the way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. So to distinguish the Son from the Spirit, we need not feel compellted to rely on the Filioque, but on this aspect of begetting and proceeding. The "how" is unattainable by human reason, period.

The (original) Creed states unequivocally that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (using our Lord's very words from the Gospel of John). It also states emphatically about the Son of God that "through Him" all things were made or occurred.

This means also the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world.

St John Damascus in his Creed denies that the Spirit proceeds "from the Son," but allows for "through the Son." And he likens this to natural analogies like the Father being the Root, the Son the Stem and the Spirit the Flower or the Father being the Lake, the Son the River and the Spirit the Ocean etc.

St Maximos the Confessor also affirmed this.

In short, there is today no theological reason, based on ecumenical imperatives as well, to keep the Filioque.

The theology of the Filioque is better expressed in the "Through the Son" Trinitarian (Triadological) paradigm.

And Rome is giving its nod of agreement as well.

I don't believe the "Filioque" is heretical. No one who seriously studies it can say that it is. However, it is not the best term to express the underlying truth that initially shaped the controversy that has divided our Churches for 1,000 years.

God bless,

Alex

[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 04-30-2001).]

Dear Michael and all the Brethren!
Just an intersting side note. Iwas reading the other day the document "Dominus Iesu" and was pleasantly surprised that the text of the Creed did not include the "Filioque".
Stephanos
Unworthy Monk and Arch sinner.

>>>Just an intersting side note. Iwas reading the other day the document "Dominus Iesu" and was pleasantly surprised that the text of the Creed did
not include the "Filioque".<<<

Apparently it was in the origial draft, and removed by the Pope himself. One of the copy editors, reviewing the document, noted the "omission" and put it back, so that the Pope had to remove it once more. Proving that even in the Vatican, there are some who try to be more Catholic than the Pope.

Dear Michael:

I'd just like to suggest that while something might be "de fide" coming from Rome, that doesn't mean it is "de fide" for the rest of us (although Rome might say so!) You should notice that about us--we're just so rebellious! In fact, we might point out that it is "de fide" NOT for us to believe the filioque since the "real" 8th ecumenical council of 879/80 nullified it! But oops, the Franks and then Gregorian Reformers of the 11th century nixed that council... (and yes, folks, Dustin Anastasios will now recite his favorite article once again [maybe I should get permission and post it on the net!]): Read

Dvornik, Francis. "Which Councils are Ecumenical?" in _The Journal of Ecumenical Studies_ vol 3. You'll learn how the wily Latins have "unecumenicallified" ecumenical councils and "ecumenicalified" unecumenical ones! (of course the Orthodox tried this twice too!!)

You are probably throroughly confused, but if you read that article, you no longer will be! You can get it at most university libraries!

Now, as far as the filioque proper, there are two camps: the "it's a linguistic nonissue" crowd such as Kurt and Stuart (they are in agreement?!), and the traditional, "it is a heresy that distorts everything" crowd. This group is best represented by Vladimir Lossky in his awesome, great, wonderful work, "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church." Read this too, along with the Clarification by the Vatican, and you will come out with a balanced view!

anastasios

Stuart,

//Apparently it was in the origial draft, and removed by the Pope himself. One of the copy editors, reviewing the document, noted the "omission" and put it back, so that the Pope had to remove it once more. Proving that even in the Vatican, there are some who try to be more Catholic than the Pope.//

Obviously, those Carolingian theologians haven't left Rome yet. Can't take NO for an answer.

Joe

Dustin,

I am afraid that you are mistaken. We are not at all being rebellious. We are obediently following the "de fide" directives of Vatican II and Pope John Paul II to restore the fullness of our Eastern tradition and theology.

However, some Roman Catholic fundamentalists may wrongly ACCUSE us of being rebellious, but that is not accurate.

Anthony

Anthony,

I was joking. I don't really believe we are rebellious. We are simply restoring what is ours. Roman fundies like Dr. C might see it different, though.

anastasios

Concerning the filioque, it was my understanding that Ruthenian churches were not to use the filioque. I thought that was a decision from the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. I have seen many Ukrainian and Ruthenian churches which still recite the filioque, much to my annoyance. Was that a misunderstanding?

Dear Cizinec,

The now official Ukrainian liturgical texts place the Filioque in brackets in the Creed and leave it up to the individual parish (priest) to decide whether to use it or not.

The Ukrainian Church is divided into "High" (Byzantine-emphasis) parishes and "Low" (Latin-emphasis) parishes, like a revised Anglican model.

I know of no Ukrainian bishop who would venture to dis any parish by unilaterally demanding one usage to be practiced by all.

I find that the Ruthenians are, in general, more Eastern than we and so things like episcopal guidelines for not using the Filioque, or inclusion of St Photios into the local calendar would not raise eyebrows. I take it that there are Ruthenian parishes who would, nevertheless, choose to ignore a bishop's initiatives in this regard.

Alex