www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Sans filioque

I'm curious... Which eparchies have, as a policy, done away with the filioque? I know of the following:

• Philadelphia
• Parma (Byzantine)
• Parma (Ukrainian)

Anyone else?

Oύτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντίδα | Nemo nos diliget non curamus

Van Nuys (Byzantine/Ruthenian).

Shalom,
Memo

Dear Andrij,

In the case of our Metropolitan - I'm just wondering if all the parishes will obey and delete the Filioque.

If all his parishes do obey him, that really would be a mir . . . I mean, significant.

We have one genius in my parish who has taken it upon himself to cross out, not the Filioque, but the words "Orthodox Christians" from the Liturgy booklets . . .

Perhaps the next thing the Metropolitan could work on is to keep the liturgical commemoration of the Pope to one time rather than four?

Alex

I don't know about the Eparchy's position, but I know that at the Ruthenian Mission I sometimes attend that they omit the filioque, and that it is not included in the liturgical guide that they use. They are part of the Ruthenian/Byzantine Eparchy of Passaic.

There is no official position of St. Nicholas Eparchy in Chicago so far as I know, but I can tell you that a certain large parish two blocks south from the Cathederal did away with the "fill" years ago!

Yours,

hal

Certainly what is the case at V&O (i.e. sans filioque) as Hal described is unfortunately not common at all within the Eparchy of Chicago.

Every parish I have been to within that Eparchy with the exception of V&O takes it, most of them quite adamant about it.

As Alex stated, and with which I completely agree, it would be quite, er, "significant" if even a simple majority of UGCC parishes would drop it in North America. I just don't see that happening, regardless of what this or that bishop says.

It will take an act similar to what happened in one non-UGCC eparchy in the USA, i.e. not only an edict for the filoque to be removed but also another edict for the priests to take the books and physically strike it. And while there certainly was some grumbling at the time, it has vanished now and the use is consistent within that eparchy after 12-15 years since it happened.

The Eparchy of Passaic did away with the filioque a couple of years ago. Also, the Archeparchy of Philadelphia.

Dear Friends,

If the removal of the Filioque is a tangible "sign" or measure of a parish's commitment to Eastern traditions, then I would suggest there are others that should likewise be implemented:

1) Banning of kneeling on Sundays

2) Ritual gestures that indicate respect for the totality of the Eucharistic Canon that includes the Epiclesis as its ultimate completion.

3) Changing the words "Catholic Christians" for "Orthodox Christians" in the final prayers of Matins.

4) Bringing back of all Antiphons and Ektenias.

There are others as well . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

You can't get many ORTHODOX jurisdictions to not kneel on Sunday...even when they KNOW they are not supposed to. "Pious custom"...

Mind, if you did away with PEWS, it would go away, methinks...

Gaudior, running for cover

But liturgical customs and usage have always been developing, never static.

We some times, both Orthodox in and out of communion with Rome, seem to think we're celebrating the liturgy exactly the same way as was done in the days of St.John Chrysostom, but of course this is not the case.

Where do we draw the line between innovation and organic liturgical development?

Christian

Dear Christian,

I would say that neither is to be encouraged if it is in violation of canon law....

While many people still DO kneel, despite being repeatedly informed to the contrary, it IS a pious custom, and therefore, generally let alone, with sighs on the part of long-suffering clergy...

BUT...I have observed that it doesn't happen nearly as often in parishes without PEWS....so if by organic you meant the organic compound of wood in the PEWS...I will agree

In all seriousness, though, when something IS spelled out in the Canons, it ought to be addressed by Council before being overturned. I have heard it argued that that canon refers to "penitential kneeling" by those in the Roman Church who wish to continue the practice. At the risk of offending anyone, I will have to say that this argument sounds as lacking in foundation as the one the Protestants use to say that the wine Jesus refers to is "non-alcoholic" to justify grape juice in the Eucharist and teetotal life style.

The verdict on not kneeling was at an RC hierarchical level, as well, IIRC, and is met with predictable resistance, as people truly see this as a pious gesture, and YEARS of conditioning are behind it...making a switch to standing is understandably not easy. My only issue is the "invented" arguments used to support kneeling.

Gaudior, begging forgiveness, but not on bended knee, of any this may have offended, as this is still before Pentecost.

The problem of the "pious tradition" of kneeling on Sundays and even during Paschaltide - and never mind about the Holy Canons - is quite serious; the Old Ritualists, who are normally most firmly committed to the Holy Canons, nevertheless kneel even on Holy Pascha. In consideration of "special circumstances" with which most of us are familiar, it would not be well to attempt to interfere with the Old Ritualists on ANY point of ritual in use among them. But it would also not be well to extrapolate and decree that since it is out of the question to quarrel with the Old Ritualists on such a point, it would therefore be correct to encourage everyone else to follow their example and start kneeling on Holy Pascha. Mutatis mutandis, the same can apply with others. Peace and toleration are often more conducive to healing and reconciliation than is the issuing of ukazes.
Many people may not be aware of it, but a group of Roman Catholic parishioners somewhere in the Maritime Provinces took the local RC bishop to court, because he was encouraging his priests to stop people from kneeling for Holy Communion. The court sided with the parishioners and issued an injunction requiring the bishop and clergy to refrain from interfering with this devotional practice. The court was objectively wrong, but the decision was highly embarrassing and indicates the importance of resolving such things before somebody calls in the secular arm.

Incognitus

Whats the point of leaving the Filioque out of your creed when your still mandated as Catholics to believe in it?


In Christ
nektarios

Nektarios,

Adopting a theological understanding is different from acknowledging that a given theological understanding is orthodox. The Latins do not belive that "and the Son" means that the Son is the source of origin of the Holy Spirit. I refer you to the Vatican document "The Father as the Source of the WHole Trinity"
http://www.geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/filioque.html

Likewise the Catholic Church acknowledges that the Assyrian use of "Mother of Christ our God" is orthodox but does not adopt it for its own use.

Fr. Deacon Lance

33 Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church [archeparchy.ca]

1. Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son."

Rome agreed to this whole document. That's good enough for me. If some people choose to insert/believe in filioque, contradicting the spirit and letter of the Union, that is their own *personal* choice.

Oύτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντίδα | Nemo nos diliget non curamus