Peter III of Antioch, the Filioque and Rome

Not going to excerpt this one. But it's well worth the read. 

A Conference on the 8th OEcumenical Council

New bishop responds to charge of reciting the Creed with the filioque

Bishop Stephan of Philomelion published an explanatory declaration and clarification as a response to the official comment made by the Orthodox Churh of Albania, according to which he said to have “recited the Symbol of Faith (Credo) with the filioque”.

“Inasmuch as these accusations this time touch upon the integrity of my Orthodox phronema and do not merely concert my personal journey, I feel the need and obligation to respond both explicitly and categorically in order to prevent any potential scandal,” the Bishop said in his declaration.

Then, he expressed his wonder: “Does my oversight in reciting part of the English version of the text of the Hierarchal Confession, caused by my emotional intensity and great personal anxiety at that sacred moment, perhaps constitute proof of my ‘deficient’ Orthodoxy?”

Finally, he concluded: “In order to placate even the most sensitive conscience that might have been influenced by the aforementioned prejudicial comment, I declare to everyone everywhere that I believe absolutely and unwaveringly everything proper that I signed with my own hand in the attached text of my Hierarchal Confession.”

Read the rest here. 

HT: Dr. Tighe

Filioque (again)

FTR, the latest defense of the Filioque coupled with a call for the Orthodox to "come home" can be found here. Please leave any comments there.

ACNA Keeps the Filioque

The decision to keep the filioque clause in “Texts for Common Prayer” represents a victory of common sense over special interests writes George Conger and is a mark of the political and theological maturity of the Anglican Church of North America.

Read the rest here.
HT: T-19

In the grand scheme of things this is neither surprising nor especially significant. Anglican deviations from Orthodoxy are innumerable, irrespective of the Filioque. But there has always been a certain clique within Orthodoxy that believes that at least some Anglicans really are only a bit removed from us and if we could just get them to make that all important symbolic change then we would be on the road to some sort of corporate reunion with a part of the Western Church. I have long suspected former Met. Jonah was among them.

In any event, this should put paid to these delusions, at least until the next Anglican splinter group pops up.

Hip Hip... whatever

According to the ACNA’s Provincial Meeting Journal, the most recent draft liturgies reduce the filioque to a footnote. Joel Wilhelm does an admirable job (as usual) of summarizing:

    ACNA’s Provincial Meeting Journal is out and it shows ACNA talking out of both sides of its mouth on the filioque, a doctrine central to all of Western Christendom. The draft liturgies in this document contain a Nicene Creed that reads:

        We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.

    The footnote to this reads:

        The filioque clause “and the Son” may be added here. It is not included in the text above for ecumenical purposes, in accordance with the 1978 Lambeth Conference, though the ACNA does not disagree with the theology of the filioque.

Read the rest here.
HT: Dr. Tighe

Let's see. They don't doctrinally affirm the first seven Ecumenical Councils. (We can leave #s 8 & 9 aside for now.) They permit and to some degree embrace Calvinism. And they claim to ordain women. But they want us to know that they are thinking about dropping the Filioque.

Sorry guys. You are still Protestants.

White House Orders Orthodox To Include "Filioque" In Creed

Preview of coming attractions.
HT: Basil (the Godson)

More on the Filioque

There is an excellent three (eventually 4) part series on the controversy here. (part 1, part 2, part 3)  Please leave your comments there.

Filioque (part MMXII)

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.

An Anglican Blogger on the ACNA and the OCA talks

And my response here.

The Function of the Unity of the Church and the Fallacious Theological Presuppositions of Papal Primacy

Hat tip: A Sinner

(A talk given by Mr. Dimitrios Tselengidis, Professor at the University of Thessaloniki, at the Metropolis of Piraeus' Conference on the Theme "‘Primacy,' Synodicality and the Unity of the Church" Peace and Friendship Stadium, 28 April 2010)...

...But also every other attempt at unity with the heterodox which skirts the above-mentioned theological presuppositions for the "faith once delivered (Jude 1:3)," is actually impossible. Nevertheless, the delegates of the local Orthodox Churches with their center of co-ordination (the Ecumenical Patriarchate) appear to have another opinion about the unity of the Church. This is why it is particularly typical that in the first paragraph of the submitted draft of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue with the Roman-Catholics in Cyprus, in October of 2009, it is cited that in the agreed upon Joint Statement of Ravenna (2007) Roman-Catholics and Orthodox refer to "the age of the undivided Church," (See Statement of Ravenna 41). It is clear that this phrasing presupposes for the members of the Joint International Commission that today the undivided Church does not exist. Therefore, today the Church is divided, despite the faith of the Church, which we confess verbally in the Symbol of our Faith. However, this means the falling away from the Church of all those who consciously support all that the Statement of Ravenna contains about the identity of the Church, since it indirectly but clearly does not accept a part of the dogmatic teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council.

However, already much earlier the Roman-Catholics had deviated from the dogmatic teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council with the addition of the Filioque. The Filioque was conceived and appeared in the West when the experience of the charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit in the ecclesiastical assembly of the Pope's see withdrew. Essentially, the Filioque was the crystallization of the estrangement from the living experience of the uncreated grace and energy of the Triune God, through which immediate and real communion with man is realized in the chief conveyor of the unity of God and man, that is, in the Church.

Consequently, due to our dogmatic disparity from the Roman-Catholics there cannot be - neither actual nor formal - union with them. Nonetheless, the strange thing (dogmatically and ecclesiologically) is that the Statement of Ravenna, consistent with the previous Joint Statements of Munich, Bari, Valaam and Balamand, refers to a common apostolic faith, the common mysteries (sacraments) and the ecclesiastical character of the heterodox. Thus, the false and blasphemous impression is given that with the joint Statement of Ravenna Christ is deceived, Who assured us that branches cut from the vine cannot bear fruit. The members of the Joint International Commission affirm in their statements, that in spite of the heretical divergences, the Roman-Catholics constitute a Church and that they possess genuine sacraments. It is theologically and logically odd that the representatives of the local Orthodox Churches do not realize the enormous dogmatic error of the Roman-Catholics concerning the created nature of their sacraments, an error which literally invalidates the aforementioned claim of the Roman-Catholics, which Orthodox representatives also endorse. The Roman-Catholics themselves assure us with their dogmatic teaching about created grace, that they are empirically devoid of the experience in the Holy Spirit of the Church and of the theanthropic nature of its unity in the Holy Spirit. Consequently, with the existing presuppositions it is completely theologically unwise and pointless for unity of an ecclesiastical nature to be attempted with them. In addition, such unity is practically and completely impossible, since it goes against the theological presuppositions of the Church and the ontological content of its nature...

Read the rest here.

A gentle reminder, please refrain from posting overheated comments.

Why the Filioque must go

Periodically one hears Roman Catholics explain the filioque using their concept of Doctrinal Development. The current position of the Roman Church they argue is that when they say "from" they really mean "through." To which my response has always been that it is a nice distinction but irrelevant since filioque in Latin means "from" and that is certainly the wording employed in the English translation of the Creed of the Council of Lyons.

Lex Orandi Lex Credendi

The wording affirms a double procession irrespective of current "understanding." Said double procession is heretical. It's a non-negotiable point from an Orthodox perspective. We can not recite a heretical creed or be in communion with those reciting one.

But just as important, perhaps even more so, is the point I have repeatedly attempted to make to Catholics. What well versed theologians in their ivory towers understand is a whole different world from what the layman in the pews understands. He reads "from" and not being in possession of advanced degrees in theology he takes the wording at face value. Ergo "from" means "from."

Clearly large numbers of Catholics have not gotten the memo that the double procession has been developed away. For some evidence I would refer the reader to a recent post over at the Traditional Catholic blog Rorate Caeli. The post expressly defends the filioque and a casual glance at the comments suggests that the double procession remains a point of carved in stone dogma for these Catholic traditionalists.

I believe the aforementioned blog post is the best refutation I have read in a long time of the many Catholics (and some Orthodox) who periodically spout off about how the filioque doesn't matter and Rome has "fixed" its interpretation to make it Orthodox. No they haven't. And clearly to the extent that there has been some movement on their part no one in the pews seems to have gotten the word.

The filioque is patently heretical and it must go.

HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDE
-Inscription of Pope Leo III on a pair of silver tablest with the Creed (sans Filioque) placed in St Peter's Basilica in repudiation of the alteration to the Symbol of Faith.

Eastern Rite Catholic's and the Filioque

Perry Robinson has posted on Rome's forbearance (and lack thereof) with respect Eastern Catholics and the Filioque. My comment is here. Apologies in advance to my Catholic readers. Neither Perry nor I are members of the kumbaya club.

While I have great respect for the Roman Church as I have said on multiple occasions, that does not extend to restoring communion absent some fairly major doctrinal shifts on her part. Nor would I expect anything less from Rome than a demand for complete acquiescence to all of her post schism doctrines and dogmas as a precondition to restored communion. Which in a nutshell is why I believe we need to work on the things we can agree on (there are many) and stop trying to put all the water back in the reservoir a thousand years after the dam burst.

Latin Trinitarianism and the Filioque

Some interesting (and characteristically deep) thoughts on an oft discussed topic which continues to divide Rome from Orthodoxy have been posted online. Where? At Energetic Procession of course.

Please leave any comments there.

The Filioque part MMVII

If there is one issue between Orthodoxy and Rome which has been beat to death, buried, then dug up and beaten some more it is the Filioque. If you doubt me just do a brief Google search on the matter. Or better yet go take a look at the archives on Energetic Procession and Sacramentum Vitae, two excellent blogs that generally deal with things over my head. On which note Mike Liccione has just posted his latest installment on the subject. At the end of that installment he quotes a proposal that the wording of the Creed be altered (again) to read...

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of Life, who comes forth (ejkporeuvetai) from the Father as the one in whom the Son is begotten and who proceeds (proei'si) from and through the Son in communion with the Father, and together with the Father and the Son is worship and glorified.

An interesting suggestion. But given the fact that we would require an Ecumenical Council (at least from our side's POV) to alter the Creed, wouldn't it be just easier if Rome removed the offending phrase from its version? Now I am not going to get into the issue of it's being heretical or not. That's being hashed out by people who probably translate the Sunday comics into ancient Aramaic for fun.

What to me is pretty hard to argue is that whether or not the Filioque is truly heretical when properly understood is moot. That's because the overwhelming majority of those in the pews DO NOT grasp the elaborate points Mike is making. And it is not practical to try and instruct the vast sea of ordinary laymen in the intricate points of advanced theology. They read "who proceeds from the father and the son" and foolishly believe what someone raised with a basic command of English would assume. Namely that it means what it says.

Now people like Mike and Benedict XVI and various others can hash out the finer points on the legitimacy of the Filioque, but I have a question. Why? What possible purpose does it serve? It was added illegitimately to the Creed (even Card +Ratzinger has acknowledged as much). I see no compelling reason for retaining it. And the likelihood that it is causing confusion among the Roman Catholic faithful, of whom I would hazard a guess that 99+% do NOT understand the true meaning of the Filioque as posited by Mike and other RC defenders, seems beyond doubt.

Back in the good old days before "heresy" was effectively removed from the Roman Catholic dictionary, the Holy Office (just typing the old name gives me chills) used to routinely suppress or condemn writings for a variety of reasons. One reason cited more frequently than heresy, was that the writings had a "tendency towards heresy." That would seem to be a good way of phrasing the principal objection.

In a nut shell my argument against the Filioque is this. Irrespective of whether or not it is heretical when properly understood, it is heretical as it is almost universally understood by the Roman Catholic faithful. And there is no practical way of correcting that short of removing it. It is an impediment to restored relations with the Orthodox Church. Its addition to the Creed was accomplished by means that have been publicly acknowledged by the current Pope to have been improper. And it serves no purpose which can justify its retention when weighed against the harm it is doing. The Filioque should be removed from the western creed until the issue of its orthodoxy can be resolved by a future council of the church.