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

I'm sure that this has been asked many times - but it is a priviledge of being new to the tradition that I get to wear my ignorance on my sleave:

Why do we not resite the filioque? Is it because we disagree with the theological reasons behind it or is the reason a procedural one (i.e. you don't go messing with the creed without an ecumenical council)?

Cheers

Here's some info.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

And here's some more:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

I have read the documents you have suggested (they were helpful - although a challenging read). I have drawn the following conclusions:

(1) The question is not so much 'why does the BR not include the fillioque in the creed?' but 'why does the LR include it in the creed?'
(2) The answer is that the LR does not include it in the creed. Indeed in the LR, any greek (the actual language of the Creed) text of the creed is not allowed to include the greek translation of the f.
(3) What the LR does allow is liturgical recitations of the creed to include the filioque.
(4) This is justified for two reasons: (a) The f can and must be interpeted in such a manner that it does not compromise the doctrine of the monarhy of the Father and the equality of the Son and Spirit; (b) there were special historical circumstances that made it necessary in the LR, namely the pastoral need to combat arianism.
(5) The use of the f in litrugical recitations of the creed in no way imply that thhurch as these do not share the unique historical circumstances described in (b) above.

Is this more or less correct?

Cheers
Paul

I'm sorry - (5) should read

The use of the f in litrugical recitations of the creed by LR in no way imply that other rites should or can use it, as these do not share the unique historical circumstances described in (b) above.

Sounds to me like you've got it down pat!

The only detail I can contribute that is left to know is that some people believe the Latins should not say the filioque and have the Latins dropping it from all usage as one of their requirements for reuniting.

Never knew anyone was doing that. It would not surprise me that some might think it though. It did take rather a long time to get taken on in the first place and Rome itself was not one of the first places to put it in the creed.

I understand that there was once an RC theological conference in Rome on this and they agreed that the Filioque should be left out of the Creed in all Latin Catholic liturgical celebrations.

Alex

Much like the theological recommendation that there is no impedement for women as proper matter for ordination. Interesting but hardly binding.

Eli

Dearest Eli,

First of all, today is the feast of the Holy Prophet Elias on the True, er, JU-lian Calendar - happy feast day, prayers and blessings!

Yes, it is not binding, but at least the theologians are agreeable to the Orthodox position.

That could be a positive first step for what may be an eventual uniform, common Nicene Creed for both East and West.

I'm all for it!

In the Prophet Elias and all the Saints of Mt Carmel,

Alex

It is indeed a blessed day. One I look forward to from year to year. A high point in the spiritual cycle of every Carmelite and every namesake of the most illustrious and powerful prophet of God. The patron of all ancient and cranky souls.

I am always thankful for the two calendars. Some feasts bear celebrating twice or three times as with the Pasch, on occasion.

Trying to recite the Creed word for word, from memory, or with book in hand, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, is nigh on to impossible, and that has pretty much nothing to do with the presence or absence of filioque.

Dear Eli,

So what would you recommend to settle the East-West differences on the Filioque?

Alex

Leave it as it is. Beg forgiveness one of the other for allowing it to create an excuse for schism and all of the pain and suffering that has ensued on all accounts, before and since, and get on with our life in the Body.

Agree that the meaning in the west is acceptable. Agree on the meaning that is NOT at all acceptable for any at any time, nor has been acceptable at any time for any.

Purify the memory, forgive as the Christ forgives and move on.

We ask no less for ourselves as individual sinners.

Eli

Dear Eli,

I think both East and West can live with your recommendation on this matter!

Ultimately, the "clincher" would be if the West could just drop the Filioque from its Creed - as obtained in the first millennium of the Church, more or less. I understand the Vatican has a Latin and Greek Nicene Creed on tablets where the Filioque is absent.

It was not in the original Creed agreed to by the universal Church, including the Church of Rome.

If RC's can get over the Novus Ordo, I'm sure the absence of a word in the Creed won't be too much more.

In fact, I'd bring back the Tridentine Liturgy with a Creed sans the Filioque! I'm sure many RC's will forgive that!

As we saw at Florence, the Orthodox party was willing to sign the instrument of union ONLY if the West agreed to drop the word from the Creed. The Orthodox did not even expect any retraction of the theology behind the Filioque or anything further to secure union.

The Orthodox today would not object to a theological opinion on the Filioque by the Latin Church etc. The Creed is, for them, a canonical matter and I don't see any way around that.

But ultimately we can leave it to a union Council in future to decide it.

I'm no bishop, but I sometimes like to wear a paper mitre when I'm behind my computer and on the forum . . .

Do you have one too?

Alex

I think that Archbishop Zogby (eternal memory) pointed this out in his voice from the Byzantine East book. oh, he was a Melchite, by the way.
Much Love,
Jonn