www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Help needed--is it possible to work in RC seminary without reading filioque in oath ?

I have a question I would like help with. I am
a chrismated EC who may be taking a part-time
teaching job at an RC seminary. On my application form, I learned that all instructors
there (and I presume at all RC seminaries) must
take a 1989 Fidelity to the Magisterium oath as
developed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith. I have no problem with this document,
including its oath to remain true to the dogmatic
and ordinary teachings of the magisterium, BUT
I would prefer not to have to read the filioque
during the part of the oath that corresponds to the Nicene Creed.

I am wondering two things: 1) how might one
best go about finding out if they can avoid
reading the filioque in this statement, and
2) are there any formal documents addressing
this subject? I am confident that there are
ALLUSIONS to my position in documents like
Oriental Lumen, ut Unum Sint, and Orientale
Ecclesiarum, as well as the practice of the
Pope himself (i.e. not reading filioque when
doing Byzantine liturgy), but I haven't found
anything with explicit reference to the filioque, especially in regard for oath-taking in working at RC institutions.

The RC canon lawyer in my diocese has recommended petitioning the RC bishop in the
diocese (in another state from where I now live) for a dispensation to not read the filioque.
Should the dispensation come from my bishop
(Melkite)? I suppose the latter could dispense
me and give me permission to read the filioque,
but I'm not real comfortable to this--to be
honest, it hinders my witness to my Orthodox
friends, and for another, it would be good to
see the RCs keep the EC concerns in mind in this
matter. I don't disagree with the filioque in
principle, understood very carefully under a
Latin framework, etc. (and mainly I don't consider it formally heretical, thus not a grounds for breaking union), but I do think it
is best not read from a Byzantine theological
perspective.

Of course, the other problem of petitioning
the bishop is that it might take forever to
process the request, far longer than I'd have
to sign the oath (probably a month or two from
now), but there's probably not much anyone can
do. Of course, if canonical literature exists
right now exempting me, I could possibly
refer this directly to the seminary and bypass
needing to go to anyone else altogether (though
I doubt it would be that easy! )

Any input is appreciated. Thanks, Melkman

Dear Melkman,

Historically, Christians have taken one of two approaches to this.

First, stand by your principles, even if martyrdom is the result.

Or else, speak the words with your mouth while believing otherwise in your heart!

But, really, you will be pronouncing a specifically Latin oath.

We EC's believe that our theologies on the Holy Trinity are complementary, not exclusive of one another.

I don't see a problem with you reciting the Creed with the Filioque in that context and only that ONE TIME!

Got it? ONLY that one time! Any more, and the salvation of your eternal soul would be on the line, O.K.? ( ).

Alex

Alex's advice is excellent, as usual.

Another basic principle is to go along with the traditions of the body where you are worshipping. Don't make a disturbance by doing something different. However, if their traditions bother you or are incorrect, you may ultimately need to extract yourself from the situation.

Personally, even as an Eastern Orthodox Christian not in communion with Rome, I wouldn't have a problem reciting the Creed the Latin way if I were in a Latin Rite assembly. I would know why they changed it, that their intent was fine, and that they fully recognize the Eastern way of recitation as fully correct and the official "dogmatic statement."

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Melkman,

Given that as an Eastern Catholic, with your own fully developed traditions, you are, in fact, entitled to worship as an Eastern Catholic...Is it possible to explain to the RC Seminary that hey, look, this clause doesn't fit, and you will not be comfortable reciting it, although of course will have no problem teaching.

I refer you to this thread, for some entertaining background reading:

https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001287

I do not suggest anyone do as Andrew suggests in corporate worship though... If your tradition doesn't include the filioque...close your mouth. Understanding why words were added does not make them the right words, whether in the Creed, the Liturgy, or any other place...Which is ulitimately the subject of that thread above. I dearly hope that that this is not offensive to any Western Catholics, such was not my intent...I would imagine that you take the Creed as seriously and solemnly in the West as we do in the East, and that it is a declaration of faith, and to have people happily mouthing words they do not mean "to fit in" won't make you any happier than it does the East to hear someone happily saying they added the words they don't believe "to fit in" because they were in a Roman Catholic Church.

Gaudior, saying what I believe :rolleyes:

Thanks for your input(s). However, there are
some specific reasons I am hesitant to cite
it: 1) my Orthodox friends are often surprised
to hear that ECs are not required to cite it, and
I feel as though the EC position gains more credibility with some of them at least if they
believe that I don't cite it (and that I would
lose credibility for the EC cause if I did cite
it), and 2) when I became EC, I was not sure
where I stood on the issue, but decided it was
not church dividing because no council had ever
declared it so (full council), and because it
seemed more clear to me that being out of union with Rome was less historically sound than
saying the filioque, in terms at least of the theology it proclaims (with a Latin framework).
However, some of my desire is to simply make
the seminary aware of this issue, in case it
rises again.

Still, to the point--does anyone know if there
is any canonical document explicitly exonerating
one from saying the filioque? Or if dispensations should be properly sought from the
RC and/or EC bishop? (once again, I prefer not
asking the EC bishop to "ok" my use of it).

So, assuming I was not going to say it, does anyone know the answers to these above questions? Thanks again, Melkman

Dear Melkman,

First, congratulations on your new (potential) position at the seminary!

I do not have an answer to your immediate question with regard to the existence of canonical documentation supporting your position, but here's my take on your situation:

I have to wonder if you may not be anticipating an issue where one need not exist at all. In your position, I would just ask the powers-that-be at the seminary before spending too much time looking for canonical justification. Explain your situation to someone in a position of authority at the seminary (perhaps the individual whom you interviewed with?) - you may very well find them to be understanding of your unique situation, to the point that the issue may vanish altogether, and you are allowed to express the oath in a form that is acceptable to you. If they do understand, you're happily on your way to your new job! If they do not understand, then you need to search within yourself for your next move, whether that be seeking out the canonical justification you are looking for or, in the exterme, forfeiture of your job.

The important thing in all of this, however, is to be absolutely certain in your heart of hearts as to why you are seeking this justification. The sincerity of your question is indeed apparent to those of us who read your post here. Please be sure that that same sincerity is apparent to the seminary staff, if, in fact, you should find and need to refer to the appropriate canonical documentation to support your stance. As an outside observer, I could see the potential for your actions being interpreted by the seminary staff as an "in-your-face...see?-I-told-you-so" -type situation... certainly not the sort of adversarial relationship you'd like to establish with your new employer!

Again, my friend, please ask first! I pray that this simple act is enough to resolve your concerns!

Mnohaja lita!

a pilgrim

Dear Melkman,

The only real "document" exonerating us from using the Filioque are the original documents of union signed by our forefathers long ago.

The Council of Florence did indeed affirm that the Greeks did not have to use the Filioque - perhaps you could show the professors at the Latin seminary a copy of this affirmation.

Hopefully, they won't ask you what the "Council of Florence" was . . .

Oh, O.K. I'm being facetious . . .

However, while we do not use the Filioque in our Eastern Catholic Churches (or are not required to), we, as EC's ARE required to hold that the Filioque is not heretical.

And it is to be also hoped that if you raised this matter with the Latin seminary higher-ups that they wouldn't raise their eye-brows at you wondering if you indeed were a Catholic after all! (I've had that happen to me.)

I've had to take that oath myself as a Catholic school teacher. And I took it with the Filioque (there is also mention made of Purgatory et al., is there not?).

I had the choice not to work for an RC board, but I preferred to work with it.

I saw the oath as part of the RC theological perspective that differs from my own, but which I don't believe is heretical. If I did, I wouldn't be EC or in communion with "heretics."

Our RC chaplain, a liturgist in his own rite, attended a BC liturgy with me once. And he, this RCer, recited the Nicene Creed out loud WITHOUT the Filioque.

So, when in Rome, do as the Romans do, or so I say.

Alex

Dear Melkman
I am sure that if you explain to the authorities of the seminary that you are an eastern catholic they will make accomodation if not point out to them the recent papal documents where it is absent and if that doesnt work appeal to the Bishiop.
Stephanos I

Dear Stephanos,

One problem Melkman may encounter is that if he should tell them that he's an EC and doesn't use the Filioque - they could turn around and tell him, "Well, we've been to lots of Eastern Catholic parishes that DO use the Filioque, so what are you talking about . . ."

And they would be right.

Alex

Alex...

Could he then point to St. Peter's Basilica and the carved-in-stone version of the Creed MINUS the filioque as a "canonical document?"

Gaudior, thinking of stone tablets...

Melkman...I do not mean to jest about this extremely important issue. I cannot tell you how much I admire you for standing up for your beliefs and for not mouthing words for gain.

May our Lord be with you, and may the Holy Spirit guide you along the path of wisdom and humility in this oath.

Gaudior, in all seriousness now, in prayer for you.

Dear Gaudior,

But the point is that Eastern Catholics don't regard the Filioque as being heretical.

Rome has those tablets and still uses the Filioque.

And many, many EC parishes use the Filioque.

This is really a straw point - for EC's.

And where do you draw the line with respect to that oath?

What about its references to the papal doctrines et al.?

Reciting it without the Filioque does not turn that oath into one acceptable to Eastern Christian spirituality!

Alex

Dear Alex...

ANY OATH is not acceptable to Christian Spirituality, IMHO...

And ~I~ didn't use the word heretic. I know that as Eastern Christians, the filioque must be...negotiable. But Melkman feels that what HE believes is at issue, and for the reasons he outlined. MY statement to Andrew above referred to Andrew as an Orthodox Christian, not an Eastern Catholic...There, the teachings of the two churches are divided. And in the case of the Orthodox St. Photios, who most certainly DID use the word heretic, clear cut about the "thou shalt nots" of the case. But that is Orthodox/Catholic, and was not a focus of the discussion, nor should it be. Orthodox Christians know not to recite the filioque "to blend" was the point of that, no more than a Catholic would deny the Trinty in a Unitarian Church "to blend". My comments refer to Melkman's conscience, not to heresy. I would not be uncivil enough to address any member of the this forum in such a manner! :rolleyes:

Thank you, my friend, for pointing out the dilemma, that some Eastern Catholic Churches DO use the filioque, and others do not. I was unaware of the fact that there was a lack of consistency there that would most certainly contribute to that problem Melkman describes, which is being unable to ask to read oath without filioque, on grounds of being Eastern.

Gaudior, retiring to pray for the unity of our churches

Dear Gaudior,

I did not say that you used the term "heretic" at all - never.

I did say that SINCE EC's don't consider the Filioque to be heretical, to say the Creed according to the Latin tradition, with the Filioque, is not a "giving in" on matters of faith.

I can practice traditions of other Churches without compromising my own, especially when they differ from my own.

Melkman would not be "blending."

He is not going to work for an EC seminary, but for a Latin seminary.

And so, when in Rome . . .

And Anthony Dragani also tries not to upset his Latin friends at EWTN by telling them exactly how many Ecumenical Councils we Easterners really do acknowledge and the like.

From an EC standpoint, this is really a non-issue.

And if we really are so against using the Filioque, perhaps we shouldn't be considering working for a Latin seminary to begin with.

Oaths and vows may or may not be acceptable to the Gospel. But that hasn't prevented millions of Christians throughout history from taking them.

Alex

Alex,

A wise quote. I give what is due to the West, and also to the East.

It causes me great anguish and pain at times, but I offer it to the Lord, guess its my calling currently .


james

Hi,

Given the fact that recent doctrinal documents from the Vatican use the non-Filioque Creed, and that the Creed with Filioque is intended for liturgical more than theological matters, I am surprised that the oath you have to sign uses the Filioque at all.

Bring the matter to the rector of the seminary, and let us know what happens.

Should I ever be in your position, even I, as a Latin Catholic, would request to have the Filioque removed from the document I'd sign.

Shalom,
Memo.