www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ex Cathedra

Dear Professor Michael,

As Mr. Thur has, quite correctly in my view, reiterated, the continued presence of the Filioque in the Creed is the number one source of the ecumenical problem today.

We are all in agreement that it should not be in the Creed (Fr. Prof. Bilaniuk once made reference to an RC theological conference at Rome where everyone there also agreed that the Filioque should not be in the Nicene Creed, but I don't remember which one he was writing about).

I think that you yourself have come up with the broadest and most acceptable conditions for the achievement of East-West agreement on the Filioque, those being that:

1) The Filioque does not belong in the Creed that was designed for the expression of the common faith of the Universal Church of Christ, as per Mr. Thur as well;

2) The Filioque expresses a (legitimate) "theologoumenon" that is specific to the Particular Latin Church alone - it should never be imposed on other Churches nor should the suggestion be ever made that it should be.

My own view is that the main reason for Orthodox opposition to the Filioque in the Creed as uncanoical is directly related, not so much to Trinitarian theology, as it is to Ecclesiology - ie. may a later Pope unilaterally make a change to a Creed or other statement that was issued by and with the authority of an Ecumenical Council?

From the Orthodox Church's point of view - the answer is no.

The discussion on the theology of the Filioque aside, its removal from the Nicene Creed's usage by the Church of Rome will, at least, demonstrate RC respect for the authority of the Ecumenical Council - an ecclesiological consideration that will hopefully ignite discussion of ecclesiological models in history and in contemporary times, with an emphasis on the Petrine Ministry as well.

Alex

I find this coment very scary.

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

I'd like to ask for a little bit of speculation from people who are much more qualified for it than I:

What would happen if the "Concrete Steps" that Benedict XVI has at least twice publicly mentioned included the removal of the filioque from the recitation of the creed? What if he says something like

1. The filioque was never a contradiction of the original creed, and it's not heretical, but

2. We shouldn't have tampered with the original, it wasn't the right move ecclesiologically

3. So nobody is allowed to recite it that way in the Novus Ordo.

What would be the ramifications of this in the RCC and in relations with the East?

Dear David,

There's no need for His Holiness to affirm that the Filioque isn't heretical - as long as its a theological opinion, the Orthodox have no problem with it.

By dropping the Filioque (as the RC Church has done officially in Greece for all its parishes there), the RC Church has no need to do a "mea culpa" but only to say that it is returning to the "earlier version" of the Creed of the first Millennium.

And also to that version that is on the tablets kept at the Vatican in Greek and Latin.

And that the reason the Filioque was first placed there was to fight the local Western heresy of Sabellianism - but how many Sabellians are there around today?

I think that such a move by the RC Church would make the Orthodox blink and get them to consider discussing the remaining major issue of division - the Petrine Ministry.

Let's consider that in 1440 at Florence, had Rome dropped the Filioque, even the greatest of Orthodox hard-liners, such as Mark of Ephesus, would have agreed to union.

Perhaps that move might have even saved Constantinople from the Turks.

Perhaps our ecclesial history would be different today.

Alex

Some don't; others do and very strongly so - wolfier wolf in sheepier clothing ihas been the reaction to this very idea on the Indiana list.

Alex,

You make two good points. First, I recall J. Pelikan writing in Vol. 2 of his dogmatic series how the Filioque was around during the last two Ecumenical Councils and no one cared to address it. But, of course, including it in the liturgical creed was like the state of Ohio taking liberty to alter the U.S. Consitution without the other forty-nine states.

Second, the real issue isn't the Filioque (or the Epiclesis), it is authority - the Petrine office.

Pope Benedict should really shake things up and call for an Ecumenical Council where all Orthodox are invited to participate and vote on that issue. And then the church can write a statement that all the fuss over the Papacy of Rome was just poor articulation of words and that Rome never wished or intended to depart from the First Millenium understanding of the Petrine office.

Whaddya say?

Joe

Dr. Michael Tkacz.

Welcome aboard! I see you have jumped right in. Lord bless you and your wife. The forum will be blessed you have joined us...and hopefully you will gleam from posters here as well.

If in need to post prayers come over to the prayer thread anytime where there are always those ready to pray. Or you may wish to pray for others there sometime yourself.

Again, great to have you with us.

Porter...

As Alex made clear earlier, I am in agreement with him and Joe Thur on the filioque issue: its inclusion in the recitation of the Creed is the problem, but there is no substantial doctrinal problem between the Latin and Eastern Churches here.

Let me add one more thought: My reason for insisting on this is that it puts the filioque issue in perspective. It is a less crucial issue than is orthodoxy.

What is important for orthodox Christians, East or West, is witnessing to the true faith. I also see the various disputes about the precise role of the pope of Rome in this light.

Dr. Michael

Dear Joseph,

( I don't like calling you "Joe" since it suggests that you are the average ____, but you are not!).

I agree, and only an Ecumenical Council can set things aright in this respect.

Pope Benedict himself recently said something to this effect - something about papal authority not being absolute or ?

Alex

Dear Professor Michael,

It is always such an honour to have so august a person as yourself agree with one!

I went to school with a "John Tkacz" as well.

"Tkatstvo" is the Slavic word for a particular trade, is it not?

With respect,

Alex

Alex:

Yes, it means weaver.

My grandfather, however, was a cobbler back in the old country before he came to Canada.

Dr. Michael

Dear Professor Michael,

Well, you are a true intellectual weaver!

A pleasure to converse with you!

With respect,

Alex

Dear Alex:

I promised you a fuller response to your posting of 27 June on the filioque.

1. Regarding St. Thomas Aquinas' claim that the filioque is necessary, I understand him to mean by this that it is a divine attribute. Because God is the Absolute Being (Ho On), He is the Necessary Being. Thus, whatever is true of Him is necessarily true. God cannot not be in any sense. Note that this means that the Spirit's procession from the Father in the intended meaning of the Creed is also necessary. This is not a contradiction, because the filioque, as I have already said, does not deny the formulation of the Creed.

2. This notion that God is Necessary Being is as much part of Eastern Theology as Western (being affirmed by the Cappadocian Fathers, Alexandrian Fathers, and many others). Moreover, I do not see this as especially "rationalist" except that it is a judgment made by the reason, as are all theological judgments. It is, of course, deeply mystical too, because it concerns Ultimate Reality or, what St. Gregory the Theologian calls, the "most real, but least knowable [to humans] reality." As you know, St. Thomas would be in complete accord with the Fathers on all this.

3. While I have not investigated this specifically, I suspect that Thomas Aquinas would agree with your Orthodox points 1 and 2 that the procession of the Spirit from the Father (in the sense intended by the Creed) is different from the procession of the Son from the Father and expresses the distinction of persons. Some of the history of this distinction is given in the Pontifical Commission's report and more completely in sources you, Joe Thur, and others have cited (Pelikan, Meyendorff, etc.) and this explains the different senses of procession. I do not know of anything in St. Thomas' work that would deny this. Now, of course, neither St. Thomas nor the Nicene Fathers would claim that the formulation of the Creed is all that can be truthfully said about the Holy Trinity.


4. Regarding your Orthodox points 3 and 4: this is often claimed of the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils. It is, however, very misleading, especially in our modern age of fideism. It is most certain true that God is ineffable in His very being and that we, therefore, cannot have complete scientific knowledge of God's ousia. (John of Damascus would say that our knowledge of God can never be dioti with respect to God's physis; Thomas Aquinas echoes this saying that there is no human propter quid scientia of God's natura.) Now, if this is all that is meant by saying that we cannot possibility know the what distinguishes the persons of the Trinity, then I agree. But I suspect that many mean more than this. Perhaps something like: we cannot intellectually grasp what the Council Fathers tell us about the Trinity and therefore it is misguided (sinful?) to try. This second claim is nonsense, for it belies the very purpose of doctrine which is the articulation of truth. If we cannot understand anything about God, then the teachings of the Council Fathers are meaningless. If the formulations of orthodoxy are meaningless, then there is no distinction between heresy and orthodoxy. Thus, this cannot be the case. Both senses of procession are meaningful and knowable to human knowers and need to be investigated carefully and respectfully by theologians.

5. I will add another note about Orthodox point 4: this claim begs the question, for it presumes that the filioque contradicts Sacred Tradition. As you know, I claim that it does not and I further claim that St. Thomas Aquinas and the official position of the Latin Church agree with me on this. In any case, even if the filioque did contradict Tradition, the only way we could know it is to explain it--that is, to say what the filioque teaching is and to show that it is logically incompatible with orthodox teaching.

I know that you do not intend by "Orthodox perspective" some sort of official position of the non-Catholic Orthodox Churches of the East, but simply what someone who rejects the filioque might say. I accept that. Nonetheless, I think that you have identified a set of claims that many raise and they deserved to be addressed. What I have said here in response to them is hardly complete or even especially well stated, but I do think that what I have said is true and in full accord with orthodoxy.

Dr. Michael

I am wondering, does the Pope have to preside at every council or synod that is called? Thank you!

Dear drewmeister,

If such is to be truly an "Ecumenical" Council, both in the sense in which this was held prior to the break-up of East and West and also in the sense that the "later 14 Latin Councils" are held to be ecumenical, - then yes.

There were times when the Pope sent his legates to the Councils in the East.

Some time ago, an acquaintance of mine studying for the priesthood was writing a paper and tried to bring together both papal and conciliar authority.

His view was that, at a future Ecumenical Council between East and West, the position could be accepted that the "pope is infallible when he ratifies the decisions pertaining to faith that have been established by an Ecumenical Council."

Alex