Rorate has posted a quote from the infamous Union of Brest on the Filioque sparking some discussion. I will confine myself to a few points.
First, the Roman Church does not seem to have a clear dogmatic understanding of exactly what they mean by it. Many modern Roman theologians argue that they really mean "through" and not "from." Fair enough. But many also cling to the traditional understanding which is the double procession. To the best of my knowledge Rome has not definitively weighed in on the matter but the point is moot, because...
Filioque in both Latin and English clearly means "from." It is thus recited in every single Catholic parish in the English speaking world and all masses offered in Latin. (I presume this is also true of other languages into which the Creed of Lyons has been translated.) And "from" is heresy. What a few highly educated theologians claim to really mean is irrelevant. What they say every Sunday in Mass is what 99.9% of the Catholic faithful clearly believe. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi.
Whether or not the Eastern Catholics recite it or not is immaterial. You are who you are in communion with, and they are in communion with people who recite it every day of the year.
The Holy Martyr Blandina
1 day ago
17 comments:
The official Catechism of the Catholic Church nos. 245-248 addresses the filioque. I don't know if it counts as a "clear dogmatic teaching," but I think you'll find no. 248 takes the line that East and West are describing the same thing in different ways.
I can tell you that the common attitude among Roman Catholics is that they don't understand what the difference is and don't understand why the Eastern Orthodox place so much importance on this difference.
I am a Catholic considering converting to Orthodoxy and I have done some reading, but I quickly realized I'll never be able to sort it out.
Credo, you may want to check out a few of the links on the right of this blog, which speak exactly to your point, i.e. why the EO place so much importance to it.
Of course, if it is NOT so important to Roman Catholics, then why don't they just accept the EO position.
Filioque by itself has no prepositional meaning. It's just "and Son."
As for the official teaching of Rome on the Filioque, the current CCC quotes from Florence and explicitly endorses ab uno principio, i.e., that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son "as from one principle/beginning/source." (Recall that principio is the term used in the first verse of John's Gospel, i.e., In principio erat Verbum.) That's pretty explicitly about eternal origins and not about temporal mission.
There are, of course, RC theologians who would differ, but in doing so, they differ with the CCC.
To quote Metropolitan Kallistos Ware:
"There are still a significant number of Orthodox on Mount Athos and elsewhere who regard the Filioque as the root cause of all the errors of Rome. Yet there are Orthodox, myself included, who see the Trinitarian theologies of the Greek East and Latin West as complementary rather than contradictory... it would be necessary, of course, to safeguard the position of God the Father as the principiuum, the fountainhead, within the Trinity. But Saint Augustine and the Council of Florence were in fact careful to do precisely that."
John should seek understanding rather than division in this discussion. As one can see from the above, John cannot claim to speak for Orthodoxy in this matter, and his description of the problem itself is hopelessly confused: Filioque means "and the Son" not "from". The Latin creed does include the term "ex Patrem Filioque procedit", but the central issue is not the "ex" but the use of the Latin verb procedere, which has a much broader meaning than the Greek ἐκπορευόμενον. Aidan Nichols has a very irenic and informative discussion of the problem in his book "Rome and the Eastern Churches". And certainly few if any Orthodox would argue with the Holy Apostle John's record of Jesus's statement that he would send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles (Jn 16:7), which we can take to mean in the order of salvation.
Lest I be seen merely as a knee-jerk defender of Catholicism, I will say that I have told my bishop to his face that the way the Filioque was introduced into the Latin creed was indefensible.
Gabriel,
I'm surprised to see that quote from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. In his book, The Orthodox Church, he has a lengthy critique of the filioque. It was in reading that book that I first became aware that the Eastern Orthodox really care about that issue in a way that Roman Catholics do not.
I don't have the text with me right now, but he says something to the effect that the filioque led the Western Church to view God as some sort of depersonalized, abstract essence. This, he claims, led to a concomitant over-emphasis on the visible institution of the Church rather than on the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. It was pretty strident criticism, to say the least.
Maybe he has softened his views of late.
Oh what a lot of nonsensical bother.
99% and more have no idea of what the problem is, if it is a problem.
Has anyone ever witnessed the actual procession? No. Will anyone ever see it? No.
The history of the filioque clause is deeply convoluted and complex. It had its valid reasons for being expressed. It now no longer has those reasons.
Orthodox can only pat themselves on the back because they simply, simply, never had to face the theological/ religious situation the west did. That's all. They had and have no more grasp of the actual truth than the west does.
John, real heresy has to do with lack of charity, compassion, love...not abstract dogmatic statements.
If you can prove that, somehow, a dogmatic abstract theological statement leads people to be more charitable, kind and loving, as Matthew 25 et al illustrates in its awesome parable, I'll change my mind, but from what I see right now, from what I've seen and read, I think you're talking through your hat.
It's actually a very important issue, and has a lot to do with how we view God and especially how we view and relate to the Holy Spirit, and therefore is directly connected with the issue of love, compassion, and kindness.
It seems abstruse and abstract and nit-picking, but only at the theoretical level. At the practical level, how we worship, how we relate to God and to one another, it makes a surprising lot of difference.
Anon-an answer to question might be found in the canons of the Councils, such as here for example.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html
Notice how the early Christian church leaders talked about love, and faith, and kindness and charity. I would think that the onus is on us to conform to their understanding, rather than create my own - don't you agree??
Fr. Andrew,
Filioque, with 'filius' in the ablative within the clause [qui ex patre... procedit] does not mean 'and the son'. It means 'who procedes from the father and the son. Don't be disingenuous.
As several comments have pointed out my original post was ill-worded. The term refers to the procession and exact word of course is not the verb. That aside the point remains.
Anonymous 7:47
If the 99% do not grasp what the problem is it is likely because most of them don't know there is one. The rest of your comment reinforces my point.
Gabriel
I make no claim to speaking for Orthodoxy. When I name the filioque as heresy I am merely quoting the opinions of every Orthodox saint over the last five centuries who has opined on the subject. They do speak for the Church.
Credo-
Metropolitan Kallistos remains highly critical of the placement of the Filioque within the Creed (a judgement which I, of course, share). As to the development of his thought in this matter I cannot speak, but Wikipedia has something.
John-
Too often have we anathematized caricatures of each other. And too often the polemical language of the past has been used to prevent any attempt to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
Three other sources here bear mentioning:
1) John Zizioulas, *Lectures in Christian Dogmatics* has a brief and irenic treatment of the topic. He concludes that "understood in the right way, we may indeed accept the Filioque" provided that we are "clear about the difference between 'proceeding from' and 'sent by' and so maintain the distinction between the eternal and the economic Trinity" (79).
2) Boris Bobrinskoy, *The Mystery of the Trinity: Trinitarian Experience and Vision in the Biblical and Patristic Tradition* offers a very succinct treatment that is, I think, fair to both Eastern and Western positions.
3) A.E. Siecienski, an Orthodox historian and author of the recent and highly acclaimed *The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy*. I interview the author here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2011/06/authorial-interview-e-siecienski-on.html
I should also add that the 1995 statement of Rome "The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit" is important in this regard. I have been told that the late Pope John Paul II was ready on that occasion to begin withdrawing the filioque from worldwide liturgical usage in the Latin Church but held back. It should be noted that whenever an Orthodox hierarch visited Rome, the pope and hierarch would recite the creed together in Greek. Note, too, that Roman Catholics in Greece do not use the filioque liturgically.
Samn!,
Come, now! :) My point was that filioque's meaning in the Creed has to do with its placement in context, not the inherent meaning of that word by itself, which is why I included "by itself."
Anyway, John essentially has added that point himself here in the comments.
But, by it being in the ablative, it always has the "from" meaning.
http://www.stpeterslist.com/3587/the-pope-and-beer-9-photos-to-brighten-your-day/38600_843539887358_21706405_45824793_33715_n/
"It seems abstruse and abstract and nit-picking, but only at the theoretical level. At the practical level, how we worship, how we relate to God and to one another, it makes a surprising lot of difference."
I suppose it does which is why the history of both sides is replete with failures of charity and love.
Post a Comment