To jukesk9

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Jukes,

Do you mind going to this link and looking over some of the responses. I would love to get your mind on this.

http://pub135.ezboard.com/fnicholasforum88957frm1.showMessage?topicID=75.topic

 

[isshinwhat]

http://www.geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/filioque.html

It is my understanding, though I could be wrong, that the filioque clause is normative only in the Latin liturgical tradition. The Pope has said that the Creed, sans filioque, is the normative form of the Creed for the Universal Church, and when concelebrating with the East, the filioque is left out. Why do the Orthodox complain about the West forcing their faith on the East when that is just what they are doing here. Both are legitimate expressions of the same divine reality. What made the Church work so magnificently in her first centuries was her variant, but true theologies. The West has never paid as much notice of Theosis, but the East has never been as rational. Both theological styles are needed for the Church to grow. They aren't divergent, but convergent; truly Ecumenical and Universal.

From the Catechism:

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father." [Nicene Creed; cf. DS 150.] By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity". [Council of Toledo VI (638): DS 490.] But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature... Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,... but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son." [Council of Toledo XI (675): DS 527.] The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified." [Nicene Creed; cf. DS 150.] [152, 685]

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration... And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son." [Council of Florence (1439): DS 1300-1301.]

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. [Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.] The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", [Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.] for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", [Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.] is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. [Cf. Council of Lyons II(1274): DS 850.] This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[isshinwhat]

John Paul II

The Church professes this faith with the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: "I believe in one God, Father almighty...."

This is a venerable text which we both recognize as a normative and irrevocable expression of the Church's one faith. No confession of faith which belongs to a specific liturgical tradition can contravene such a fundamental expression of the Trinitarian faith, taught and professed by the Church in all ages.

3. In this regard, it is necessary to clear up a misunderstanding which still casts its shadow on relations between Catholics and Orthodox. To this end a Joint Commission was established. Its task is to explain, in the light of our common faith, the legitimate meaning and importance of different traditional expressions concerning the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, expressions that are part of our mutual doctrinal and liturgical heritages. On the Catholic side, there is a firm desire to clarify the traditional doctrine of the Filioque, present in the liturgical version of the Latin Credo, in order to highlight its full harmony with what the Ecumenical Council confesses in its creed: the Father as the source of the whole Trinity, the one origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP950629.htm

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear isshinwhat,

Your response would seem to have answered Symeons first objection (and that of the other two gentlemen). Whether it satisfactorily answered it or not, I am not certain, but it does seem to be an answer. This question seems to be more a matter of procedure and expedience. Is it procedurally correct to alter a Creed formulated by an Ecumenical Council outside of a subsequent Council? This question would seem to touch on the matter of the extent of Papal perogative. Also, would the benefit of improved relations between East and West outweigh the surrender of the filoque in the Latin Creed? Note that this does not mean an abandonment of the filoque, but the relegation of it from a highly contentious context to a more private one. I believe that most Orthodox would gladly discuss the merits of the filoque doctrine outside of the context of the Ecumenical Creed.

I will bring up your point concerning the differentiation between the Nicene-Constantinoplan Creed and the Latin Creed.

I am curious how you would meet the other two objections of Symeon. I look forward to your response.

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear isshinwhat,

I have added a post concerning the differentiation of the two creeds, please have a look and tell me whether or not you find the wording to be acceptable, or if it should need altering.

 

[jukesk9]

Originally posted by The Squalid Wanderer
would the benefit of improved relations between East and West outweigh the surrender of the filoque in the Latin Creed? Note that this does not mean an abandonment of the filoque, but the relegation of it from a highly contentious context to a more private one.

Yes.  I believe it would.  As issh stated, Eastern Rite churches do not recite the Creed with the filioque.  Personally, if understood in the context that the Holy Father has declared, I don't feel the Orthodox would or should be bothered by Latin Rite adherents saying the Creed with the filioque.  If the Latin Rite adherents were the only ones saying the filioque, I would say that classifies it as a private context.  Keep in mind that the Eastern Rite churches share a lot more with the Orthodox than the Latin Rite does. 

I was reading from an Eastern Catholic Q & A page that if a Latin Rite Catholic wishes to become a Byzantine Rite Catholic, he or she must submit in writing his or her desire to become part of that rite to the local Latin Rite bishop.  After approval is granted, the person has to attend services for one year before being allowed to become a member of the Eastern Rite parish.  Once the change is made, it's permanent; no switching back.  So my point is the former Latin Rite Catholic is now reciting the Creed minus the filioque for the rest of his or her life. 

So, in response to Symeon's objection #1, I think the objection falls flat because in essence you have those of the Eastern Rite saying the same Creed the Orthodox do and Rome does not object.  The Eastern Catholics understand the teaching of the Trinity and see the Holy Spirit central in Catholic Theology. I don't think the Vatican would object to the Orthodox reciting the Creed the way they do today if the Orthodox accepted papal supremacy.

Objection #2 is easily answered, IMHO.  The Catholic Church DOES indeed teach that the Holy Spirit is God and therefore not a junior member or "deputy" as was put.  If that wasn't the case, I don't think you would have seen the Eastern Rite Catholics staying loyal to the Pope. I think the misunderstanding was that the Vatican saw the Eastern Churches believing that the Father is superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit when in essence they are all the same:  3 in 1.  Now, I know the Orthodox don't believe what the Vatican thought. But I think that is what the misunderstanding was. Obviously we both believe that "with the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified."  So if it takes an effort on the part of the Vatican to show the Eastern Churches that the Holy Spirit is central in Catholic theology, so be it.  I think that would be very easy on our part.

Objection #3.  Why drop it?  Why not allow the Orthodox to continue as the Eastern Rite Catholics do?  As long as Rome impresses upon Constantinople that we don't believe it detracts from the Father and believe that the Holy Spirit is indeed God, leave it be.  If the Vatican wouldn't require a member of the East to recite the filioque when visting a Latin parish, great.  Personally, I don't want to drop it because that's all I've known just like the East doesn't want to add it because of the same reason.  But if we understand why we say it or don't say it, then we've achieved unity. 

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear jukesk9,

I am in tentative agreement with you and am awaiting a response to my proposed solution to the problem which I posted to the thread I linked to earlier

Also, let me know what you think of my proposal.

 

[isshinwhat]

Is it procedurally correct to alter a Creed formulated by an Ecumenical Council outside of a subsequent Council?

The statement "and with the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorifed," was not in the Nicene Creed in the beginning either, but it was recited as an acceptable expostition of the Nicene Creed before Constantinople in 381 in local churches. I believe the objection of the Orthodox was originally twofold: 1) The Pope was impressing the filioque on the entire Church and 2) the filioque was heresy.

I believe the second objection has been all but cleared up, though some Orthodox refuse to accept that the West has an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity. The next objection was whether the Pope had the authority to bind the filioque on the entire Church, but that point is, to me, moot because that was never the intent.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)? It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

Given that we both believe that the Holy Spirit has its source in the Father alone as the principle of the whole Trinity, and the Pope wasn't attempting to bind the clause on the whole Church, I fail to see that any of the objections had validity. What it all boils down to now, to me, is a variance in liturgy, and should not the Pope, as Patriarch of the West, be able to make changes to the Latin Liturgy so long as they only clarify and do not contradict the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith?

God Bless,

Neal

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear isshinwhat,

Please see my last response to Jukes and my offer for you to examine my proposal in the linked thread of the other forum.

 

[isshinwhat]

Sorry It is my fiancee's birthday and I'm very rushed. I read it and agreed with it, I believe, but I did read it quickly. I'll respond, probably tommorrow. Until then, have a blessed day, and may our Lord continue to bless you.

Neal

 

[isshinwhat]

I would think that your proposal has already pretty much happened. Any time there is an ecumenical celebration, the Pope will refrain from saying the filioque. I wouldn't call the Latin form a different creed altogether, but an exposition on the ecumenical creed. I think that is what you were saying, as well, though we termed it differently. I look forward to continuing our discussion. And, jukes, Go Vols!

God Bless,

Neal

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear isshinwhat,

Thank you for even that cursory inspection and conditional approval. And please have a wonderful time with your fiancee.

I think it would be more difficult to maintain that it is an exposition than a different creed.  Perhaps a combination of the two would be a good compromise.  It is a different creed than the Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed, but is intended to shed light upon the N-C Creed.  Would this be acceptable?

 

[jukesk9]

An interesting sidenote....today at Mass we did NOT say the Creed. Our priest went on a retreat and we had two visiting priests celebrate Mass. Both gave loooooooooong homilies and at the end of the second one, the priest said, "Since the homilies were long, we're going right through the Creed to the general intercessions." I thought that odd to skip the Creed...

 

[isshinwhat]

I don't think that was a good thing, jukes. Isn't the Creed supposed to be said at all Sunday Masses?

I think it would be more difficult to maintain that it is an exposition than a different creed. Perhaps a combination of the two would be a good compromise. It is a different creed than the Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed, but is intended to shed light upon the N-C Creed. Would this be acceptable?

Here is where I have to defer to the Magesterium and admit that my knowledge and foresight are very limited, and thus I cannot offer much of an opinion. My personal opinion would be that the Nicene Creed and the Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed are the same creed, in essence if not in form, the latter being but an expostition of the former. That would be the way I would view the Latin version of the Nicene Creed, with the exception that the Latin version isn't binding on the entire Church. There is no difference in theologies in either Creed, so I couldn't call them really different. In form, slightly, but in essence they are the same. Again, though, that is for the Magesterium to work out, and I cannot offer too much of an opinion on the matter.

God Bless, and thank you for your well wishings. We had a great time celebrating her birthday.

Neal

 

[isshinwhat]

please overlook my spelling.

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear isshinwhat,

I realize that this may be going beyond where you are willing to speak of this issue, but I did want to speak to your latest response. Feel free to not respond if you feel so led.

The difficulty I see with making the comparison between the Nicene and Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed and the Latin Creed is that an Ecumenical Council was involved in adopting the change. No such mechanism was involved with the filoque alteration. Thus going the route you suggested throws us into the even sticker problem of the extent of papal perogative. That is a much more difficult row to hoe and to my mind it would be simpler to understand it as a different creed designed to shed light upon the N-C Creed.

I understand that this is not something that we can decide so perhaps this is where our discussion should end.

I would like to invite you,  however, to look in again on the link I had provided at the beginning of this thread to see how the discussion is developing in the other forum and perhaps comment on it if you like.

Also do you mind if I quote you in that discussion?

 

[isshinwhat]

Also do you mind if I quote you in that discussion?

Feel free, my friend.

The difficulty I see with making the comparison between the Nicene and Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed and the Latin Creed is that an Ecumenical Council was involved in adopting the change.

My question, though, is was the phrase "and with the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified" not used prior to 381 by local churches, and did this cause division? I'm not sure, so I'll have to do a little research. Thank for the good discussion, and God bless you on this day of our Lord.

Neal

 

[isshinwhat]

I understand that this is not something that we can decide so perhaps this is where our discussion should end.

But we can dream! Reunification is something that I honestly feel can be attained.

I am reading your other discussion right now, and will comment later. Have a good night.

Neal

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

My question, though, is was the phrase "and with the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified" not used prior to 381 by local churches, and did this cause division? I'm not sure, so I'll have to do a little research. Thank for the good discussion, and God bless you on this day of our Lord.

The difficulty would be if someone prior to 381 had been asked to repeat the Nicene Creed and then quoted what would later become the N-C Creed. Would this have been correct? My feeling is that it would not. When a creed is approved for ecumenical use, it should only be altered through ecumenical council. This was done with the N-C Creed, but prior to that approval, I do not think it would have been appropriate to do so.

This isn't a question of correct doctrine or not. I readily admit that the dogma of the N-C Creed was correct prior to ecumenical approval, but that dogma wasn't the Nicene Creed, but an expansion of the Nicene Creed found in a local creed. Thus it was two different creeds, the Nicene of ecumenical approval, and a local creed which would eventually receive that ecumenical approval and be incorporated into the catholic life of the Church.

So, even conceding the validity of the filoque, there is still the question of getting it ecumenical approval before I could agree to it being considered the same creed as the N-C.