www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "East vs. West" is Inaccurate

I was thinking about that a little more, and it occurred to me that one possible factor is that the Second Council of Lyons has since been added to the RC (quasi-official) list of "Ecumenical Councils"; thus, the NAOCC might have felt that there was a more urgent need to deal with that particular condemnation. (This is pure speculation, of course.)

I couldn't agree more. I should have quoted the recommendation to "use the original Greek text alone", since it ties in closely with the other recommendations I quoted -- after all, it doesn't make much sense to insert a belief which "still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution" into the creed. (Although I'm really not sure it makes much sense to insert any extra belief into the creed.)

Indeed, I think all the recommendations in that document were excellent.

I basically agree with everything you're saying, but I also feel that this transition could be a disaster for the Latin Church if they were to try to do it all at once or there was too little pastoral care.

Thus I think it is very important for us to appreciate the steps that have been taken, even if they have been extremely small steps. For example: the document Dominus Iesus (2000) which included the original text of the N-C Creed; the 1995 Clarification; the use of the N-C Creed by JPII (and, I would imagine, B16 as well, though I haven't heard anything definite) on certain occasions; and even the Revised Lectionary for Mass of 1981 (USA edition: 1998/2002), which has John 15:26 included in the gospel for Monday of the 6th Week of Easter and also in an optional gospel for Pentecost Year B. (The Lectionary for Mass of 1969 had the former but not the latter. Incidentally, we're in Year B now.)

So progress is, gradually, happening. Is it needlessly slow? Well, it does often seem that way, but I think it's hard to say for sure. Perhaps the "filioque" is so deeply ingrained into western minds that they can only handle small steps like the ones I've mentioned.

Cheerio,
Peter.

Dear Dr. Eric,

In a way I agree with you, but in another way I don't. I think that Latins switching to using "through the Son" in the creed would be definite improvement from the Orthodox point of view (since they regard that as an orthodox formula), but not necessarily from the Catholic point of view.

Here's what I'm thinking:
(1) For those who accept 21 ecumenical councils, the formula "and [from] the Son" is just as much a part of the official teachings of the church as the formula "through the Son". (And one can even argue that those who deny it are anathematized, cf. Lyon II., notwithstanding the NAOCC recommendation discussed above.)
(2) Neither "and [from] the Son" nor "through the Son" is the formula used in the [original] Creed of 381.

In light of these two things, I certainly grant that Latins switching to "through the Son" would please the Orthodox, but I don't think that by itself is sufficient to justify such a change.

On the other hand, switching to the original version of the N-C Creed -- while admittedly more difficult (pastorally) -- has a great deal of merit from both Orthodox Catholic points of view. (As Alice said, "All people need to be taken into consideration, not just us [or you] Orthodox.")

But I do think that we are likely to see some kind of (interim?) compromise by the Latin Church. Two possibilities that come to mind are: using the original version of the creed but including the statement that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" somewhere else in the liturgy; or using the original version on certain occasions (baptisms perhaps?) but inserting the filioque on other occasions but -- as JPII himself did.

Blessings,
Peter.