The first form of the Creed with 'filioque' dates from the council of Toledo in 589.
When Eastern monks objected, the Western response was to say that it was a 'clarification' and not an addition.
Pope Leo III rejected the 'filioque' in 811 and this stood till 1014 when pope Benedict VIII gave his approval.
The council of Lyons in 1274 obliged Easter Churches wishing to reunite with Rome to acknowledge the 'filioque' clause as a legitimate expression of faith but has never required such Eastern churches to change their form of the Creed.
Both forms of expression are acceptable within the Catholic Church.
Recent popes, when meeting with Orthodox leaders, have been happy to recite the Nicene Creed without the 'filioque' clause.
Sure, so why don't they drop it then?
What purpose does it serve?
@ChastMastr if you don't understand the filioque clause in a 'temporal' sense, the sending of the Spirit to mortals whether at Pentecost or some other occasion/s - then how do you understand it?
@mousethief has identified the problem the Orthodox have with the clause.
It causes confusion.
And yes, it was the Blessed Augustine who came up with the idea of the Holy Spirit as the 'love' between the Father and the Son personified.
Not one of his brighter ideas. 😉
@Lamb Chopped - scriptural support for the 'filioque' other than the Holy Spirit 'proceeding" to mortals in a temporal sense?
Zilch. Nada. Nowt.
There isn't any.
'Here I stand...' 😉
I understand the Filioque to refer to the eternal proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Isn’t that what it’s taken to mean in the Roman Catholic and other churches?
One might also note that many regular Catholic churchgoers of the modern era might hardly be aware of such terms as 'filioque' and 'transubstantiation'.
Don’t they have to learn that as part of catechism/CCD?
(They called it CCD when I was learning stuff before my baptism.)
Mind you, I asked so many questions that the lay person teaching it couldn’t answer (such as “where did the cavemen go when they died?”) that the church (Our Lady of Fatima in Inverness, Florida) set me up with a very nice nun (RIP Sister Constance) who helped me find the books I wanted to read (this was the early 80s in Citrus County, Florida), mainly C.S. Lewis (yes, he was an Anglican and not RC).
(My own catechism book, Christ Among Us, was decommissioned from catechism use a year or so later by … guess who?
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ordered the Archbishop to remove his approval, saying the book was ''not suitable as a catechetical text.'' Neither the full text of the letter nor the reasons for the ban were made public.
So I’m not sure what people are being taught now, but I’d hope that both filioque and transubstantiation are part of what you’d need to learn before Confirmation…
The first form of the Creed with 'filioque' dates from the council of Toledo in 589.
When Eastern monks objected, the Western response was to say that it was a 'clarification' and not an addition.
Pope Leo III rejected the 'filioque' in 811 and this stood till 1014 when pope Benedict VIII gave his approval.
The council of Lyons in 1274 obliged Easter Churches wishing to reunite with Rome to acknowledge the 'filioque' clause as a legitimate expression of faith but has never required such Eastern churches to change their form of the Creed.
Both forms of expression are acceptable within the Catholic Church.
Recent popes, when meeting with Orthodox leaders, have been happy to recite the Nicene Creed without the 'filioque' clause.
Sure, so why don't they drop it then?
What purpose does it serve?
@ChastMastr if you don't understand the filioque clause in a 'temporal' sense, the sending of the Spirit to mortals whether at Pentecost or some other occasion/s - then how do you understand it?
@mousethief has identified the problem the Orthodox have with the clause.
It causes confusion.
And yes, it was the Blessed Augustine who came up with the idea of the Holy Spirit as the 'love' between the Father and the Son personified.
Not one of his brighter ideas. 😉
@Lamb Chopped - scriptural support for the 'filioque' other than the Holy Spirit 'proceeding" to mortals in a temporal sense?
Zilch. Nada. Nowt.
There isn't any.
'Here I stand...' 😉
I understand the Filioque to refer to the eternal proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Isn’t that what it’s taken to mean in the Roman Catholic and other churches?
The RCs and other Catholic churches can speak for themselves.
For the Orthodox both the Son and the Spirit proceed eternally from the Father. It isn't that the Son proceeded first, as it were, and then the Holy Spirit subsequently.
The Orthodox concern, rightly or wrongly is that the filioque clause subordinates the Holy Spir rather than recognises his co-equality and co-eternity as it were.
And yes @Lamb Chopped the Holy Spirit is referred to as 'the Spirit of Christ' in the NT, so yes, there is a very close relationship. As indeed there us between the Father and the Spirit, the Son and the Father, the Father and the Son ...
Ok, I recognise that in practice RCs and other 'Western' Christians don't have a deficient understanding or experience of the Trinity - if we want to bring the Wesleyan Quadrilateral into play (Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience). Nor am I saying that all Orthodox Christians are thoroughly on the ball.
But I'm afraid that I don't hold that it is only 'half-catechised' Christians who can be wonky on these things. Heck, I've come across plenty of evangelical charismatics who, of all people one might assume to know better, who come out with dodgy understandings of all this, as if the Holy Spirit is some kind of 'faith-force' or Star Wars style superpower.
I'd imagine this is less prevalent in 'historic' churches like the Lutherans and Anglicans but ...
At the same time, I'm not one those Orthodox who see the addition of the filioque clause as almost as calamitous as The Fall.
The Great Schism of 1054 was more political than theological and there were faults on both sides. There. I've said it. The sky hasn't fallen in. Heck, the Antiochian Orthodox for instance carried on as if no Schism had taken place and if they were blithely unaware of it until the rest of the Orthodox world caused them to toe the party-line as late as the 1740s.
I agree that there ought to be more humility on both sides, were that possible with bishops ...
And it needs to start with me, too. So if anything I've written on this thread is too partisan or strident, please forgive me.
I think most of them find 'shondera hondera' more helpful ... 😉
But yes, I would not be the one to stop them. I used to find glossalalia helpful until I gradually felt that I no longer found it so. That isn't to say that others should do the same as me.
I venerate icons. I wouldn't expect everyone else to do so.
The first form of the Creed with 'filioque' dates from the council of Toledo in 589.
When Eastern monks objected, the Western response was to say that it was a 'clarification' and not an addition.
Pope Leo III rejected the 'filioque' in 811 and this stood till 1014 when pope Benedict VIII gave his approval.
The council of Lyons in 1274 obliged Easter Churches wishing to reunite with Rome to acknowledge the 'filioque' clause as a legitimate expression of faith but has never required such Eastern churches to change their form of the Creed.
Both forms of expression are acceptable within the Catholic Church.
Recent popes, when meeting with Orthodox leaders, have been happy to recite the Nicene Creed without the 'filioque' clause.
Sure, so why don't they drop it then?
What purpose does it serve?
@ChastMastr if you don't understand the filioque clause in a 'temporal' sense, the sending of the Spirit to mortals whether at Pentecost or some other occasion/s - then how do you understand it?
@mousethief has identified the problem the Orthodox have with the clause.
It causes confusion.
And yes, it was the Blessed Augustine who came up with the idea of the Holy Spirit as the 'love' between the Father and the Son personified.
Not one of his brighter ideas. 😉
@Lamb Chopped - scriptural support for the 'filioque' other than the Holy Spirit 'proceeding" to mortals in a temporal sense?
Zilch. Nada. Nowt.
There isn't any.
'Here I stand...' 😉
I understand the Filioque to refer to the eternal proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Isn’t that what it’s taken to mean in the Roman Catholic and other churches?
But in the Orthodox understanding, the Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son. And when the O's ask for proof of the dual procession from Scripture, more often than not the answer is that the Son sends the Spirit into the world as a comforter etc. Which is in time, not in eternity, so it doesn't count.
In geometrical terms, the Orthodox view is a triangle with the Father at the top and the Son and Spirit as the two verticies of the base. The Father is at the top because both the S and the S derive their being from the Father, the first by begetting and the second by procession.
The filioque view is a triangle with two vertices at the top (Father and Son) and on vertex -- the Spirit -- at the bottom, receivng procession from both the Father and Son. Thus it creates a Trinity without equality.
Also the O view is that every Person of the Trinity and every quality, they either all share it (divinity) or it is specific to one only (being the Source (Father), or being begotten (Son), or incarnating (Son), or proceeding from the Father (Spirit). The filioque view results in two of the Persons (Father and Son) being the source of the Spirit, so there is a property that two share but not the third.
The first form of the Creed with 'filioque' dates from the council of Toledo in 589.
When Eastern monks objected, the Western response was to say that it was a 'clarification' and not an addition.
Pope Leo III rejected the 'filioque' in 811 and this stood till 1014 when pope Benedict VIII gave his approval.
The council of Lyons in 1274 obliged Easter Churches wishing to reunite with Rome to acknowledge the 'filioque' clause as a legitimate expression of faith but has never required such Eastern churches to change their form of the Creed.
Both forms of expression are acceptable within the Catholic Church.
Recent popes, when meeting with Orthodox leaders, have been happy to recite the Nicene Creed without the 'filioque' clause.
Sure, so why don't they drop it then?
What purpose does it serve?
@ChastMastr if you don't understand the filioque clause in a 'temporal' sense, the sending of the Spirit to mortals whether at Pentecost or some other occasion/s - then how do you understand it?
@mousethief has identified the problem the Orthodox have with the clause.
It causes confusion.
And yes, it was the Blessed Augustine who came up with the idea of the Holy Spirit as the 'love' between the Father and the Son personified.
Not one of his brighter ideas. 😉
@Lamb Chopped - scriptural support for the 'filioque' other than the Holy Spirit 'proceeding" to mortals in a temporal sense?
Zilch. Nada. Nowt.
There isn't any.
'Here I stand...' 😉
I understand the Filioque to refer to the eternal proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Isn’t that what it’s taken to mean in the Roman Catholic and other churches?
But in the Orthodox understanding, the Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son. And when the O's ask for proof of the dual procession from Scripture, more often than not the answer is that the Son sends the Spirit into the world as a comforter etc. Which is in time, not in eternity, so it doesn't count.
It doesn’t count from the O perspective. But @ChastMastr asked about how the filioque is understood in those churches that accept it, so not the Os.
Personally, I tend to think God likely views all the arguments about exactly from whom the Spirit proceeds, to say nothing over breaking communion over such arguments, as completely missing the plot.
The first form of the Creed with 'filioque' dates from the council of Toledo in 589.
When Eastern monks objected, the Western response was to say that it was a 'clarification' and not an addition.
Pope Leo III rejected the 'filioque' in 811 and this stood till 1014 when pope Benedict VIII gave his approval.
The council of Lyons in 1274 obliged Easter Churches wishing to reunite with Rome to acknowledge the 'filioque' clause as a legitimate expression of faith but has never required such Eastern churches to change their form of the Creed.
Both forms of expression are acceptable within the Catholic Church.
Recent popes, when meeting with Orthodox leaders, have been happy to recite the Nicene Creed without the 'filioque' clause.
Sure, so why don't they drop it then?
What purpose does it serve?
@ChastMastr if you don't understand the filioque clause in a 'temporal' sense, the sending of the Spirit to mortals whether at Pentecost or some other occasion/s - then how do you understand it?
@mousethief has identified the problem the Orthodox have with the clause.
It causes confusion.
And yes, it was the Blessed Augustine who came up with the idea of the Holy Spirit as the 'love' between the Father and the Son personified.
Not one of his brighter ideas. 😉
@Lamb Chopped - scriptural support for the 'filioque' other than the Holy Spirit 'proceeding" to mortals in a temporal sense?
Zilch. Nada. Nowt.
There isn't any.
'Here I stand...' 😉
I understand the Filioque to refer to the eternal proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Isn’t that what it’s taken to mean in the Roman Catholic and other churches?
But in the Orthodox understanding, the Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son. And when the O's ask for proof of the dual procession from Scripture, more often than not the answer is that the Son sends the Spirit into the world as a comforter etc. Which is in time, not in eternity, so it doesn't count.
It doesn’t count from the O perspective. But @ChastMastr asked about how the filioque is understood in those churches that accept it, so not the Os.
Personally, I tend to think God likely views all the arguments about exactly from whom the Spirit proceeds, to say nothing over breaking communion over such arguments, as completely missing the plot.
So you're saying, "This is about the filioque churches, not the O's, so shut up."
The first form of the Creed with 'filioque' dates from the council of Toledo in 589.
When Eastern monks objected, the Western response was to say that it was a 'clarification' and not an addition.
Pope Leo III rejected the 'filioque' in 811 and this stood till 1014 when pope Benedict VIII gave his approval.
The council of Lyons in 1274 obliged Easter Churches wishing to reunite with Rome to acknowledge the 'filioque' clause as a legitimate expression of faith but has never required such Eastern churches to change their form of the Creed.
Both forms of expression are acceptable within the Catholic Church.
Recent popes, when meeting with Orthodox leaders, have been happy to recite the Nicene Creed without the 'filioque' clause.
Sure, so why don't they drop it then?
What purpose does it serve?
@ChastMastr if you don't understand the filioque clause in a 'temporal' sense, the sending of the Spirit to mortals whether at Pentecost or some other occasion/s - then how do you understand it?
@mousethief has identified the problem the Orthodox have with the clause.
It causes confusion.
And yes, it was the Blessed Augustine who came up with the idea of the Holy Spirit as the 'love' between the Father and the Son personified.
Not one of his brighter ideas. 😉
@Lamb Chopped - scriptural support for the 'filioque' other than the Holy Spirit 'proceeding" to mortals in a temporal sense?
Zilch. Nada. Nowt.
There isn't any.
'Here I stand...' 😉
I understand the Filioque to refer to the eternal proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Isn’t that what it’s taken to mean in the Roman Catholic and other churches?
But in the Orthodox understanding, the Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son. And when the O's ask for proof of the dual procession from Scripture, more often than not the answer is that the Son sends the Spirit into the world as a comforter etc. Which is in time, not in eternity, so it doesn't count.
It doesn’t count from the O perspective. But @ChastMastr asked about how the filioque is understood in those churches that accept it, so not the Os.
Personally, I tend to think God likely views all the arguments about exactly from whom the Spirit proceeds, to say nothing over breaking communion over such arguments, as completely missing the plot.
So you're saying, "This is about the filioque churches, not the O's, so shut up."
@ChastMastr if you don't understand the filioque clause in a 'temporal' sense, the sending of the Spirit to mortals whether at Pentecost or some other occasion/s - then how do you understand it?
So that’s the question I was responding to, myself. I haven’t suggested anyone shut up, myself…
The first form of the Creed with 'filioque' dates from the council of Toledo in 589.
When Eastern monks objected, the Western response was to say that it was a 'clarification' and not an addition.
Pope Leo III rejected the 'filioque' in 811 and this stood till 1014 when pope Benedict VIII gave his approval.
The council of Lyons in 1274 obliged Easter Churches wishing to reunite with Rome to acknowledge the 'filioque' clause as a legitimate expression of faith but has never required such Eastern churches to change their form of the Creed.
Both forms of expression are acceptable within the Catholic Church.
Recent popes, when meeting with Orthodox leaders, have been happy to recite the Nicene Creed without the 'filioque' clause.
Sure, so why don't they drop it then?
What purpose does it serve?
@ChastMastr if you don't understand the filioque clause in a 'temporal' sense, the sending of the Spirit to mortals whether at Pentecost or some other occasion/s - then how do you understand it?
@mousethief has identified the problem the Orthodox have with the clause.
It causes confusion.
And yes, it was the Blessed Augustine who came up with the idea of the Holy Spirit as the 'love' between the Father and the Son personified.
Not one of his brighter ideas. 😉
@Lamb Chopped - scriptural support for the 'filioque' other than the Holy Spirit 'proceeding" to mortals in a temporal sense?
Zilch. Nada. Nowt.
There isn't any.
'Here I stand...' 😉
I understand the Filioque to refer to the eternal proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Isn’t that what it’s taken to mean in the Roman Catholic and other churches?
But in the Orthodox understanding, the Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son. And when the O's ask for proof of the dual procession from Scripture, more often than not the answer is that the Son sends the Spirit into the world as a comforter etc. Which is in time, not in eternity, so it doesn't count.
It doesn’t count from the O perspective. But @ChastMastr asked about how the filioque is understood in those churches that accept it, so not the Os.
Personally, I tend to think God likely views all the arguments about exactly from whom the Spirit proceeds, to say nothing over breaking communion over such arguments, as completely missing the plot.
So you're saying, "This is about the filioque churches, not the O's, so shut up."
No, that’s not what I’m saying.
You didn't say whatever it is you are saying very well, then.
It has never been a part of any teaching I have received or RC thinking that I have come across to even imply that the Spirit is subordinate to the Father and Son.
Just as the Son shares his whole being from the 100% self-giving of the Father's being , so the Spirit shares his/her/it's whole being from the 100% self-giving of both.
But in the Orthodox understanding, the Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son. And when the O's ask for proof of the dual procession from Scripture, more often than not the answer is that the Son sends the Spirit into the world as a comforter etc. Which is in time, not in eternity, so it doesn't count.
Of course the Western response to that would be that the manifestation of the Trinity in time is the best way we have to understand the Trinity in eternity. We can't go behind the back of the Trinity as revealed in time.
In geometrical terms, the Orthodox view is a triangle with the Father at the top and the Son and Spirit as the two verticies of the base. The Father is at the top because both the S and the S derive their being from the Father, the first by begetting and the second by procession.
The filioque view is a triangle with two vertices at the top (Father and Son) and on vertex -- the Spirit -- at the bottom, receivng procession from both the Father and Son. Thus it creates a Trinity without equality.
I think that might be stronger if you said it was a triangle with one vertical side - so that the Father is at the top, the Spirit at the bottom, and the Son is half way up.
Even so, I think it looks to me like an ad hoc charge. If the Father is at the top then that's a Trinity without equality anyway. It assumes that the relations of begetting and proceeding are best understood as relations on a vertical scale rather than a horizontal scale, and Western theologians on the whole tend not to see the Trinity that way. I don't see the prior motivation behind the objection other than the search for a reason to object.
Also the O view is that every Person of the Trinity and every quality, they either all share it (divinity) or it is specific to one only (being the Source (Father), or being begotten (Son), or incarnating (Son), or proceeding from the Father (Spirit). The filioque view results in two of the Persons (Father and Son) being the source of the Spirit, so there is a property that two share but not the third.
I am not sure that the difference between being begotten and proceeding is sufficiently clear, beyond 'there is a difference, definitely, that we cannot understand' for that to be clearly the cogent. (In any case, it's equally arguable that negative properties are the mirror image of positive properties; thus in the Orthodox the Spirit and Son share the property of having a Source outside themselves.)
One could equally argue that in the Orthodox Trinity the Son and Spirit have no inherent relationship to each other, and thus it's not really a Trinity. But that would be no doubt just as ad hoc.
OK to return to @Lamb Chopped 's question, if the Spirit does not proceed from the Son in what sense is he "the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (e.g. Acts 16:7, Phillipians 1:19)? Does the phrase therefore mean "the Spirit who proceeds from the Father to Jesus Christ"? He is the Spirit who is sent from the Father to Jesus and through Jesus to us?
Would the filioque be acceptable to Orthodoxen if re-phrased:
The first form of the Creed with 'filioque' dates from the council of Toledo in 589.
When Eastern monks objected, the Western response was to say that it was a 'clarification' and not an addition.
Pope Leo III rejected the 'filioque' in 811 and this stood till 1014 when pope Benedict VIII gave his approval.
The council of Lyons in 1274 obliged Easter Churches wishing to reunite with Rome to acknowledge the 'filioque' clause as a legitimate expression of faith but has never required such Eastern churches to change their form of the Creed.
Both forms of expression are acceptable within the Catholic Church.
Recent popes, when meeting with Orthodox leaders, have been happy to recite the Nicene Creed without the 'filioque' clause.
Sure, so why don't they drop it then?
What purpose does it serve?
@ChastMastr if you don't understand the filioque clause in a 'temporal' sense, the sending of the Spirit to mortals whether at Pentecost or some other occasion/s - then how do you understand it?
@mousethief has identified the problem the Orthodox have with the clause.
It causes confusion.
And yes, it was the Blessed Augustine who came up with the idea of the Holy Spirit as the 'love' between the Father and the Son personified.
Not one of his brighter ideas. 😉
@Lamb Chopped - scriptural support for the 'filioque' other than the Holy Spirit 'proceeding" to mortals in a temporal sense?
Zilch. Nada. Nowt.
There isn't any.
'Here I stand...' 😉
I understand the Filioque to refer to the eternal proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Isn’t that what it’s taken to mean in the Roman Catholic and other churches?
But in the Orthodox understanding, the Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son. And when the O's ask for proof of the dual procession from Scripture, more often than not the answer is that the Son sends the Spirit into the world as a comforter etc. Which is in time, not in eternity, so it doesn't count.
It doesn’t count from the O perspective. But @ChastMastr asked about how the filioque is understood in those churches that accept it, so not the Os.
Personally, I tend to think God likely views all the arguments about exactly from whom the Spirit proceeds, to say nothing over breaking communion over such arguments, as completely missing the plot.
So you're saying, "This is about the filioque churches, not the O's, so shut up."
No, that’s not what I’m saying.
You didn't say whatever it is you are saying very well, then.
I would like to think you know me better than to think I’d tell the Os to shut up, particularly in a thread about the filioque. My point was that your post, while certainly relevant to the thread, wasn’t really responsive to the question contained in the post you quoted and appeared to be responding to.
OK to return to @Lamb Chopped 's question, if the Spirit does not proceed from the Son in what sense is he "the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (e.g. Acts 16:7, Phillipians 1:19)? Does the phrase therefore mean "the Spirit who proceeds from the Father to Jesus Christ"? He is the Spirit who is sent from the Father to Jesus and through Jesus to us?
Would the filioque be acceptable to Orthodoxen if re-phrased:
"Who proceeds from the Father through the Son"?
(would that be a "per filio"?)
As I understand it, that was what was agreed by both sides at Florence in 1431 but which didn't stick on either side. Perhaps there are shipmates who know more about this than I do who can elucidate.
My impression is that some Orthodox would be happy with through the Son, but I can't cite sources off hand.
But to me it begs the question 'why?' Why should the Orthodox be asked or invited to add something to the Creed when there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with the Creed in the first place? 🤔
What does the addition bring to the table that wasn't there already?
I understand the objections raised to to Mousethief's geometrical schematic, that the closeness of the relationship between the Son and the Spirit might be lost.
But then, as has been argued, there can equally be a loosening, dilution or weakening of the Holy Spirit's place if we stick with the 'filioque.'
That said, I fully accept @Alan29's contention that this doesn't happen with RC understanding in practice. In which case the onus is on both sides to clear this one up once and for all.
@Nick Tamen, a Protestant lecturing RC and Orthodox Christians about breaking communion may sound a bit rich, but I can of course see your point. As I've said, the Great Schism was more political than theological and the 'filioque' became one of the sticking points.
From an Orthodox perspective it was the Pope trying to lord it over the other ancient Patriarchates and assert his ultimate authority.
From an RC perspective, it was the Eastern Patriarchs refusing to accept that the Pope should have pre-eminence.
But there weren't a great deal of theological differences at the time. Arguably, the gulf widened from the 13th century onwards and with further divergence after Trent.
At least both sides have lifted their anathemas. That's a start. There's a heck of a lot that needs to be done.
Things have got a bit unnecessarily heated on this thread, for instance.
@Nick Tamen, a Protestant lecturing RC and Orthodox Christians about breaking communion may sound a bit rich, but I can of course see your point.
I was intending to lament. But whether lamenting or lecturing, be assured that I direct such a laments or lectures to my own tradition as much as or more than any other tradition.
OK to return to @Lamb Chopped 's question, if the Spirit does not proceed from the Son in what sense is he "the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (e.g. Acts 16:7, Phillipians 1:19)? Does the phrase therefore mean "the Spirit who proceeds from the Father to Jesus Christ"? He is the Spirit who is sent from the Father to Jesus and through Jesus to us?
Would the filioque be acceptable to Orthodoxen if re-phrased:
"Who proceeds from the Father through the Son"?
(would that be a "per filio"?)
As I understand it, that was what was agreed by both sides at Florence in 1431 but which didn't stick on either side. Perhaps there are shipmates who know more about this than I do who can elucidate.
Ah right! So everyone agreed on a mutually acceptable formula in 1431, but instead they continued to be bitterly divided for hundreds of years!
I could, unfortunately, believe that to have happened, but is it really the case?
I think it was more complicated than that. From what I can gather, and this comes from Orthodox sources, so I'm not pretending it's neutral, as soon as the Greek bishops came home from the Council of Florence, their congregations said, 'You agreed what?!'
I've heard it cited as an instance where popular lay opinion overthrew the misguided decisions of the episcopate.
Again, I'm sure it was more complicated than that.
@Nick Tamen, very well, 'it sounds a bit rich for a Protestant Christian to be lamenting over divisions ...' 😉😘
I'm going to be a bit controversial now, whilst fully accepting that RC and Protestant Christians do believe 100% in the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
My controversial statement is this: why the heck should the Orthodox be expected to compromise or accept the filioque clause when a) they didn't agree to its addition in the first place and weren't consulted, and b) it adds nothing to our understanding of the Trinity - if we can understand the Trinity - and even if it doesn't have the nefarious effects that the Orthodox claim, it can cause confusion.
That said, I have heard that St Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury raised no objection to it when he encountered it after he moved to Western Europe.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that RCs or Protestants are 'deficient' Christians compared with the Orthodox, far from it.
But why should the Orthodox be expected to back down on this one when it seems that various Popes, Anglican provinces and other Christian churches are more than happy to omit it?
I know this sounds as if I want my cake and eat it but if Popes and the authorities within various churches are happy to drop the clause, why insist it should be retained?
It doesn't make any sense.
Then again, as a both/and person, I tend to think that Western and Eastern understandings of the Trinity are complementary rather than contradictory.
Bottom line .......
We don't know how the inner workings of the Trinity operate. We are not God. To argue over this is fruitless and does nothing for the mission entrusted to the churches by Christ.
We need to remember there were two other causes of the Gteat Schism: whether the pope is the head of the church. RC says yes. Orthodox say Jesus is the head of the church. Protestants agree with the Orthodox. Some Protestants will also say the pope is a bishop among bishops--which the Orthodox can agree, I think only in slightly different words.
Then there is thee issue of ecumenical councils. The Orthodox say there are 7. The RCs say there are 21. Some protestants will say there were seven. Other protestants ask "what is ecumenical council (this is a joke)?
In other words, if we put Orthodox and RC on a continuum, many protestants would be more on the Orthodox side.
And then there is the question of liturgy. But that should be another topic of discussion.
Oh, and I should say that jokes aside, if someone finds things like “shamala hamala” genuinely spiritually helpful, then God bless them.
Not Kamala Harrisa?
Actually, when she became the candidate, Kevin James Thornton (from the links above) did do some “Shamala Hamala Kamala” stuff… it was too perfect not to.
whether the pope is the head of the church. RC says yes. Orthodox say Jesus is the head of the church.
Er… The RC says that the Pope is the head of the Church on Earth, yes, but it definitely believes Jesus is the ultimate head of the Church. It’s not like the Pope replaces Jesus at all.
Indeed. Some Orthodox can sound rather like the late Rev Ian Paisley when it comes to the Pope. Lots of beardie-wierdies claiming that the Pope is 'Anti-christ.'
But I don't think most of us would claim that the Pope thinks he trumps Christ as Head of the Church.
Besides, @Gramps49 is Lutheran not RC nor Orthodox, so how he can claim to speak authoritively on behalf of either body is beyond me, nor how he thinks he can speak on behalf of goodness knows how many Protestant denominations there are when it comes to their view of the Ecumenical Councils.
Back in my evangelical days it was generally reckoned that most Protestant evangelicals, were they even aware of the Ecumenical Councils 😉 - I share @Gramps49's joke there - would go along with the first 4 or 5.
But who can say? There are broad principles in common of course across the Protestant spectrum but no definitive consensus other than on those issues on which most Christians would agree irrespective of affiliation or label.
I'm sorry to say, though that there are more differences between the Orthodox and the Protestant churches than simply questions of liturgy. Sadly.
@Alan29 - I'm not disagreeing. I think we should stop arguing about the filioque and get round a table and sort it out once and for all. I was simply highlighting an assumption, which is that the Orthodox should give ground on this one and then everything would be OK.
If we can't possibly know the inner workings of the Trinity - which is indeed the case of course - why expect us to accept a clause that purports to do just that when there's an already acceptable form of words available?
Various Popes and Protestant bodies find the original wording acceptable without the addition of the filioque clause. So what is there to discuss?
If they are happy to use it on occasion, then why not do so all the time?
Nobody, as far as I can see, has brought out a coherent explanation or argument on this thread as to 1) what the filioque clause brings to the table that isn't there in the Creed as originally formulated 2) why it or some variation of vitamin should be universally accepted.
Heck, the Orthodox are often accused of being hide-bound by traditions and by 'we do this because we've always done it.' But I'm not seeing any substantial argument for adopting the filioque clause beyond, 'Well, we've adopted it now but can waive it on occasion but we still expect you to adopt it in some form as well.'
Does the current RCC expect the Orthodox to adopt the filioque, when it's own Eastern Churches don't use it? I doubt it. But those are the vibes I'm getting from @Gamma Gamaliel.
Could the differing RC and EO churches, perhaps, look at matters like the filioque as theological differences, but not so intense as to block mutual acceptance as valid churches with Apostolic Succession, valid Sacraments, etc., without having make one or the other side accept the formulation of filioque or absence thereof?
How can I speak regarding other denominations? Have you ever heard of comparative religions courses @Gamma Gamaliel? I follow a number of ecumenical dialogues between different denominations. The ELCA itself has been in many with the Orthodox and the RC. And I spent a major part of my ministry in a multi denominational setting in the military.
Oh, and I should say that jokes aside, if someone finds things like “shamala hamala” genuinely spiritually helpful, then God bless them.
Not Kamala Harrisa?
Actually, when she became the candidate, Kevin James Thornton (from the links above) did do some “Shamala Hamala Kamala” stuff… it was too perfect not to.
whether the pope is the head of the church. RC says yes. Orthodox say Jesus is the head of the church.
Er… The RC says that the Pope is the head of the Church on Earth, yes, but it definitely believes Jesus is the ultimate head of the Church. It’s not like the Pope replaces Jesus at all.
One difference is that the RCC has a (human) head of the Church on Earth. It's not like the Orthodox have a different pope. They don't have a pope, or a single leader, at all. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is counted as "first among equals" of the Orthodox Churches (plural), but he is not the head or ruler. The Orthodoxen before the Split figured that's what the Pope of Rome was. Some popes even agreed, down through the halls of history. Clearly others did not, and the "Christ's vicar on earth" view became more and more entrenched as the centuries ticked wearily on. Holy shit would hit the fan if the E.P. tried to pull "head of all the Church" card. He might find himself out of communion with a lot of the Orthodox churches. It would be the end of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which the Turks only allow to remain in Istanbul because of its vast importance. Once that imporance goes, he might as well pack his bags.
Does the current RCC expect the Orthodox to adopt the filioque, when it's own Eastern Churches don't use it? I doubt it. But those are the vibes I'm getting from @Gamma Gamaliel.
No, I'm not saying that. What I am responding to are suggestions on this thread that somehow the Orthodox should accommodate themselves to the clause or accept a modified version in some way.
As if somehow the Orthodox have to make concessions for a 'mistake' - if mistake it were - that they were not party to in the first place.
One might argue, and many Orthodox would of course, that if the RCs are happy to waive the clause when Popes interact with Eastern Patriarchs etc, and within the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, then they ought to drop it entirely.
After all, they adopted it unilaterally in the first place.
Or that those Anglican provinces which have dropped the clause should encourage others to do the same.
That's the point I'm making.
If one of my kids stole from a sweety shop I would have admonished them for it and applied some sanction not implicated the other one unless they were complicit in some way.
Now, I'm not saying the addition of the clause was a 'crime' but, from an Orthodox perspective it betrays the kind of overbearing attitude that came to associated with the Papacy, as @mousethief has outlined.
That doesn't mean that the Orthodox world, as it has developed (such as it has 😉) always considers the Papacy to be wrong. 'Peter has spoken through Leo.'
No, during the Iconoclast and other controversies, the Pope as the Western Patriarch often intervened to resolve and broker conflict. There are Orthodox who would recognise the Pope as primus inter pares rather than Universal Pontiff.
The Orthodox have their own issues of course. I've come across some hot-heads who think that the Ecumenical Patriarch has overstepped the mark by granting autocephaly to one of the competing Orthodox Churches in Ukraine and for allegedly making quasi-Papal statements.
When I've challenged them to explain why this hasn't led to all the other Patriarchates calling for his resignation they are at a loss to do so. One even said that Patriarchs and bishops can miss things, as at the Council of Florence, and that it's up to the laity to call things out ...
There is of course a desperately sad 'civil war' and shit-storm going on between Moscow and those most closely aligned with it and those most closely aligned with Constantinople and the Greek side of things.
Some of the Russians also see the Greeks as dangerously liberal and ecumenical.
It tends not to impinge on day-to-day parish life but it does bubble away in the background and does create tensions. 😞
@Gramps49, I'm not saying you shouldn't compare and contrast various positions across the Christian spectrum. Nor am I saying that your description of them in this instance was wildly inaccurate. In a broad-brush sense I concur with your analysis.
Rather, I was picking up on what I felt was your 'definitive' tone and rather unnuanced accusation that the RCs see the Pope rather than Christ as the Head of the Church.
Sure, as @mousethief has reminded us, the Pope is seen as Christ's Vicar on Earth. The difference may be a subtle one but it is there.
I can't speak for the RCs, of course, but my impression would be that both @Alan29 and @Forthview would hold a more nuanced view of this than many Orthodox or Protestants might. Why? Because they are RC and we aren't.
That's what I meant. We need 'own voices' not what you or I or anyone else who isn't RC thinks.
And I point the finger at myself there. I'm sure I've misunderstood or misrepresented the position/s held by Christians from traditions other than my own on these boards before now.
Sorry to double-post, but at the risk of a tangent, I can understand RC objections to the ethnocentrism that bedevils Orthodoxy just as I can understand Orthodox objections to the Papacy - at least in its 'monarchical' form.
It's interesting though, I think that whilst the Orthodox arguably have a somewhat 'monarchical' view of the Trinity, that doesn't translate (in theory at least) into the way the Patriarchates operate. One Supreme Head Honcho over all the others.
Our RC friends may say that this isn't how the Papacy operates either.
Any reunion between the RC and Orthodox Churches would obviously have to agree and define the role of the Papacy as well as issues like the filioque clause.
Since John Paul II refused to wear the Triregno ( the traditional triple crown of the papacy)
the pope is styled as Supreme Pastor reminding us of his role in keeping the flock together
and he still retains the role of Servus Servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God)
The present pope emphasises also his role as Bishop of Rome and uses Italian in almost all of his public addresses.
Sorry to double-post, but at the risk of a tangent, I can understand RC objections to the ethnocentrism that bedevils Orthodoxy just as I can understand Orthodox objections to the Papacy - at least in its 'monarchical' form.
It's interesting though, I think that whilst the Orthodox arguably have a somewhat 'monarchical' view of the Trinity, that doesn't translate (in theory at least) into the way the Patriarchates operate. One Supreme Head Honcho over all the others.
Our RC friends may say that this isn't how the Papacy operates either.
Any reunion between the RC and Orthodox Churches would obviously have to agree and define the role of the Papacy as well as issues like the filioque clause.
Now there's a challenge for someone. Any takers?
The Eastern rite patriarchs and major archbishops are pretty autonomous. They are elected by their own synods and only appeal to Rome when there is an internal issue that needs mediation. But they are involved in the decisions of the wider RCC.
Ok, I get all that @Forthview and @Alan29. We are veering off the OP theme a bit here but the Papacy issue is germane insofar that one of the Orthodox objections to the filioque clause, of course, is that the Popes allegedly tried to inpose it on everyone else.
Are we saying that Orthodox and Protestant concerns about the Papacy should now be allayed?
The Orthodox have lo-o-oo-o-ng memories of course. But these memories can be selective. You'll often hear the Greeks in particular banging on about the Sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. You don't hear them saying much about the 'Massacre of The Latins' in the previous century.
To be fair, they will acknowledge that to have been a 'bad thing'.
Don’t they have to learn that as part of catechism/CCD?
If we're talking about what "cradle Catholics" (or "cradle anything else") learn, we'd have to ask what fraction of people actually retain a set of somewhat abstract and technical discussions that occur in a room that their body is present in in childhood. If these aren't concepts that the average person in the pew actually uses on a regular basis, then I'd expect the fraction able to recall the details of their catechesis to be similar to the fraction who could, for example, draw and label a cross-section of a volcano (which I'm sure they all learned in middle school).
Interesting. Also, sadly, interesting to note which Orthodox Churches were not represented at the discussions.
Guess who?
I will say no more than that.
No guessing needed. The lists included make no mention of the Patriarchates of Antioch and of Bulgaria.
Nor of Moscow and its Ukrainian affiliate. Nor the non-Moscow affiliated Ukrainian Church which the EP recognises but which other Patriarchates don't.
No guessing required indeed.
At one time I heard rumblings that Moscow and Rome could conceivably get closer. I don't see much prospect of that now.
FWIW the Antiochian Patriarch supports Moscow because they're grateful for Russian aid during the Syrian civil war. Not that Antiochians are uncritical of Assad but they did fear Islamist extremism and let's not forget that two Archbishops of Aleppo, one Antiochian and one Syriac, were taken by rebels and remain unaccounted for.
Opinion is pretty mixed across most jurisdictions I think. Here in the West many Antiochians wouldn't necessarily agree with their Patriarch.
But the jurisdictional thing is pretty messy in the 'diaspora' anyway, to say the least.
But that's a tangent.
It does serve to underline @Alan29's point about politics though.
Interesting. Also, sadly, interesting to note which Orthodox Churches were not represented at the discussions.
Guess who?
I will say no more than that.
No guessing needed. The lists included make no mention of the Patriarchates of Antioch and of Bulgaria.
Nor of Moscow and its Ukrainian affiliate. Nor the non-Moscow affiliated Ukrainian Church which the EP recognises but which other Patriarchates don't.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church formerly under Moscow would never have had separate representation as it is not a recognised autocephalous Church. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine, an autocephaous body set up by Constantinople, was only established long after this series of talks began, and so would not have been invited in at such a late stage.
Interesting to note that the Orthodox Co-Chair of the talks is a Canadian (Québécois) of Ukrainian ancestry.
Interesting. Also, sadly, interesting to note which Orthodox Churches were not represented at the discussions.
Guess who?
I will say no more than that.
No guessing needed. The lists included make no mention of the Patriarchates of Antioch and of Bulgaria.
Nor of Moscow and its Ukrainian affiliate. Nor the non-Moscow affiliated Ukrainian Church which the EP recognises but which other Patriarchates don't.
No guessing required indeed.
At one time I heard rumblings that Moscow and Rome could conceivably get closer. I don't see much prospect of that now.
FWIW the Antiochian Patriarch supports Moscow because they're grateful for Russian aid during the Syrian civil war. Not that Antiochians are uncritical of Assad but they did fear Islamist extremism and let's not forget that two Archbishops of Aleppo, one Antiochian and one Syriac, were taken by rebels and remain unaccounted for.
Opinion is pretty mixed across most jurisdictions I think. Here in the West many Antiochians wouldn't necessarily agree with their Patriarch.
But the jurisdictional thing is pretty messy in the 'diaspora' anyway, to say the least.
But that's a tangent.
It does serve to underline @Alan29's point about politics though.
Re “ two Archbishops of Aleppo, one Antiochian and one Syriac, were taken by rebels and remain unaccounted for,” 🥺🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Wife and I went to Christmas day service at the local Episcopal church. When we came to the Nicene Creed, I noticed the phrase, "(the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father) and the Son" had been dropped. Now, the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father.
I bring this up to ask is this common in other communions, or has our local vicar taken some liberty in her rendition of the creed?
In answer to @Gramps49's OP question, The Uniting Church in Australia (formed in 1977 when the Methodist Church of Australia and New Zealand, the Presbyterian Church of Australia, and the Congregational Church of Australia joined in union) does not feature the clause in written or recited versions of the Nicene Creed.
Perhaps I'm stuck in my decade or so old Schiffweldbilt (and remembering those days, Ship Worldview 😉) and Purg has morphed into Dead Horses while I've been ashore. @Gramps49 wanted to know which, if any, other communions have ditched the Filioque. And/or is ditching common in Anglican churches. Not what is/isn't the provenance of the clause.
C'mon Methodists other than Australasia, Presbyterians, Churches of Christ, denoms which nobody has heard of outside of North America, Anglicans in the wild, do you say those three/four words?
Comments
I understand the Filioque to refer to the eternal proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. Isn’t that what it’s taken to mean in the Roman Catholic and other churches?
Don’t they have to learn that as part of catechism/CCD?
(They called it CCD when I was learning stuff before my baptism.)
(Googles)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_of_Christian_Doctrine#:~:text=The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is now commonly referred to,Catholic children attending secular schools.
Mind you, I asked so many questions that the lay person teaching it couldn’t answer (such as “where did the cavemen go when they died?”) that the church (Our Lady of Fatima in Inverness, Florida) set me up with a very nice nun (RIP Sister Constance) who helped me find the books I wanted to read (this was the early 80s in Citrus County, Florida), mainly C.S. Lewis (yes, he was an Anglican and not RC).
(My own catechism book, Christ Among Us, was decommissioned from catechism use a year or so later by … guess who?
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/29/us/book-s-popularity-tests-the-vatican.html
Yes, the future Pope Benedict…)
So I’m not sure what people are being taught now, but I’d hope that both filioque and transubstantiation are part of what you’d need to learn before Confirmation…
The RCs and other Catholic churches can speak for themselves.
For the Orthodox both the Son and the Spirit proceed eternally from the Father. It isn't that the Son proceeded first, as it were, and then the Holy Spirit subsequently.
The Orthodox concern, rightly or wrongly is that the filioque clause subordinates the Holy Spir rather than recognises his co-equality and co-eternity as it were.
And yes @Lamb Chopped the Holy Spirit is referred to as 'the Spirit of Christ' in the NT, so yes, there is a very close relationship. As indeed there us between the Father and the Spirit, the Son and the Father, the Father and the Son ...
Ok, I recognise that in practice RCs and other 'Western' Christians don't have a deficient understanding or experience of the Trinity - if we want to bring the Wesleyan Quadrilateral into play (Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience). Nor am I saying that all Orthodox Christians are thoroughly on the ball.
But I'm afraid that I don't hold that it is only 'half-catechised' Christians who can be wonky on these things. Heck, I've come across plenty of evangelical charismatics who, of all people one might assume to know better, who come out with dodgy understandings of all this, as if the Holy Spirit is some kind of 'faith-force' or Star Wars style superpower.
I'd imagine this is less prevalent in 'historic' churches like the Lutherans and Anglicans but ...
At the same time, I'm not one those Orthodox who see the addition of the filioque clause as almost as calamitous as The Fall.
The Great Schism of 1054 was more political than theological and there were faults on both sides. There. I've said it. The sky hasn't fallen in. Heck, the Antiochian Orthodox for instance carried on as if no Schism had taken place and if they were blithely unaware of it until the rest of the Orthodox world caused them to toe the party-line as late as the 1740s.
I agree that there ought to be more humility on both sides, were that possible with bishops ...
And it needs to start with me, too. So if anything I've written on this thread is too partisan or strident, please forgive me.
But yes, I would not be the one to stop them. I used to find glossalalia helpful until I gradually felt that I no longer found it so. That isn't to say that others should do the same as me.
I venerate icons. I wouldn't expect everyone else to do so.
But in the Orthodox understanding, the Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son. And when the O's ask for proof of the dual procession from Scripture, more often than not the answer is that the Son sends the Spirit into the world as a comforter etc. Which is in time, not in eternity, so it doesn't count.
In geometrical terms, the Orthodox view is a triangle with the Father at the top and the Son and Spirit as the two verticies of the base. The Father is at the top because both the S and the S derive their being from the Father, the first by begetting and the second by procession.
The filioque view is a triangle with two vertices at the top (Father and Son) and on vertex -- the Spirit -- at the bottom, receivng procession from both the Father and Son. Thus it creates a Trinity without equality.
Also the O view is that every Person of the Trinity and every quality, they either all share it (divinity) or it is specific to one only (being the Source (Father), or being begotten (Son), or incarnating (Son), or proceeding from the Father (Spirit). The filioque view results in two of the Persons (Father and Son) being the source of the Spirit, so there is a property that two share but not the third.
Personally, I tend to think God likely views all the arguments about exactly from whom the Spirit proceeds, to say nothing over breaking communion over such arguments, as completely missing the plot.
So you're saying, "This is about the filioque churches, not the O's, so shut up."
So that’s the question I was responding to, myself. I haven’t suggested anyone shut up, myself…
You didn't say whatever it is you are saying very well, then.
Doublethink, Admin
Just as the Son shares his whole being from the 100% self-giving of the Father's being , so the Spirit shares his/her/it's whole being from the 100% self-giving of both.
I think that might be stronger if you said it was a triangle with one vertical side - so that the Father is at the top, the Spirit at the bottom, and the Son is half way up.
Even so, I think it looks to me like an ad hoc charge. If the Father is at the top then that's a Trinity without equality anyway. It assumes that the relations of begetting and proceeding are best understood as relations on a vertical scale rather than a horizontal scale, and Western theologians on the whole tend not to see the Trinity that way. I don't see the prior motivation behind the objection other than the search for a reason to object.
I am not sure that the difference between being begotten and proceeding is sufficiently clear, beyond 'there is a difference, definitely, that we cannot understand' for that to be clearly the cogent. (In any case, it's equally arguable that negative properties are the mirror image of positive properties; thus in the Orthodox the Spirit and Son share the property of having a Source outside themselves.)
One could equally argue that in the Orthodox Trinity the Son and Spirit have no inherent relationship to each other, and thus it's not really a Trinity. But that would be no doubt just as ad hoc.
Would the filioque be acceptable to Orthodoxen if re-phrased:
"Who proceeds from the Father through the Son"?
(would that be a "per filio"?)
But to me it begs the question 'why?' Why should the Orthodox be asked or invited to add something to the Creed when there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with the Creed in the first place? 🤔
What does the addition bring to the table that wasn't there already?
I understand the objections raised to to Mousethief's geometrical schematic, that the closeness of the relationship between the Son and the Spirit might be lost.
But then, as has been argued, there can equally be a loosening, dilution or weakening of the Holy Spirit's place if we stick with the 'filioque.'
That said, I fully accept @Alan29's contention that this doesn't happen with RC understanding in practice. In which case the onus is on both sides to clear this one up once and for all.
@Nick Tamen, a Protestant lecturing RC and Orthodox Christians about breaking communion may sound a bit rich, but I can of course see your point. As I've said, the Great Schism was more political than theological and the 'filioque' became one of the sticking points.
From an Orthodox perspective it was the Pope trying to lord it over the other ancient Patriarchates and assert his ultimate authority.
From an RC perspective, it was the Eastern Patriarchs refusing to accept that the Pope should have pre-eminence.
But there weren't a great deal of theological differences at the time. Arguably, the gulf widened from the 13th century onwards and with further divergence after Trent.
At least both sides have lifted their anathemas. That's a start. There's a heck of a lot that needs to be done.
Things have got a bit unnecessarily heated on this thread, for instance.
Not Kamala Harrisa?
Ah right! So everyone agreed on a mutually acceptable formula in 1431, but instead they continued to be bitterly divided for hundreds of years!
I could, unfortunately, believe that to have happened, but is it really the case?
I've heard it cited as an instance where popular lay opinion overthrew the misguided decisions of the episcopate.
Again, I'm sure it was more complicated than that.
@Nick Tamen, very well, 'it sounds a bit rich for a Protestant Christian to be lamenting over divisions ...' 😉😘
I'm going to be a bit controversial now, whilst fully accepting that RC and Protestant Christians do believe 100% in the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
My controversial statement is this: why the heck should the Orthodox be expected to compromise or accept the filioque clause when a) they didn't agree to its addition in the first place and weren't consulted, and b) it adds nothing to our understanding of the Trinity - if we can understand the Trinity - and even if it doesn't have the nefarious effects that the Orthodox claim, it can cause confusion.
That said, I have heard that St Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury raised no objection to it when he encountered it after he moved to Western Europe.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that RCs or Protestants are 'deficient' Christians compared with the Orthodox, far from it.
But why should the Orthodox be expected to back down on this one when it seems that various Popes, Anglican provinces and other Christian churches are more than happy to omit it?
I know this sounds as if I want my cake and eat it but if Popes and the authorities within various churches are happy to drop the clause, why insist it should be retained?
It doesn't make any sense.
Then again, as a both/and person, I tend to think that Western and Eastern understandings of the Trinity are complementary rather than contradictory.
Which is where I join @Nick Tamen in his lament.
We don't know how the inner workings of the Trinity operate. We are not God. To argue over this is fruitless and does nothing for the mission entrusted to the churches by Christ.
Then there is thee issue of ecumenical councils. The Orthodox say there are 7. The RCs say there are 21. Some protestants will say there were seven. Other protestants ask "what is ecumenical council (this is a joke)?
In other words, if we put Orthodox and RC on a continuum, many protestants would be more on the Orthodox side.
And then there is the question of liturgy. But that should be another topic of discussion.
Martin, I think you know this is within the context of Christian belief…
Actually, when she became the candidate, Kevin James Thornton (from the links above) did do some “Shamala Hamala Kamala” stuff… it was too perfect not to.
@Gramps49 said
Er… The RC says that the Pope is the head of the Church on Earth, yes, but it definitely believes Jesus is the ultimate head of the Church. It’s not like the Pope replaces Jesus at all.
But I don't think most of us would claim that the Pope thinks he trumps Christ as Head of the Church.
Besides, @Gramps49 is Lutheran not RC nor Orthodox, so how he can claim to speak authoritively on behalf of either body is beyond me, nor how he thinks he can speak on behalf of goodness knows how many Protestant denominations there are when it comes to their view of the Ecumenical Councils.
Back in my evangelical days it was generally reckoned that most Protestant evangelicals, were they even aware of the Ecumenical Councils 😉 - I share @Gramps49's joke there - would go along with the first 4 or 5.
But who can say? There are broad principles in common of course across the Protestant spectrum but no definitive consensus other than on those issues on which most Christians would agree irrespective of affiliation or label.
I'm sorry to say, though that there are more differences between the Orthodox and the Protestant churches than simply questions of liturgy. Sadly.
@Alan29 - I'm not disagreeing. I think we should stop arguing about the filioque and get round a table and sort it out once and for all. I was simply highlighting an assumption, which is that the Orthodox should give ground on this one and then everything would be OK.
If we can't possibly know the inner workings of the Trinity - which is indeed the case of course - why expect us to accept a clause that purports to do just that when there's an already acceptable form of words available?
Various Popes and Protestant bodies find the original wording acceptable without the addition of the filioque clause. So what is there to discuss?
If they are happy to use it on occasion, then why not do so all the time?
Nobody, as far as I can see, has brought out a coherent explanation or argument on this thread as to 1) what the filioque clause brings to the table that isn't there in the Creed as originally formulated 2) why it or some variation of vitamin should be universally accepted.
Heck, the Orthodox are often accused of being hide-bound by traditions and by 'we do this because we've always done it.' But I'm not seeing any substantial argument for adopting the filioque clause beyond, 'Well, we've adopted it now but can waive it on occasion but we still expect you to adopt it in some form as well.'
One difference is that the RCC has a (human) head of the Church on Earth. It's not like the Orthodox have a different pope. They don't have a pope, or a single leader, at all. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is counted as "first among equals" of the Orthodox Churches (plural), but he is not the head or ruler. The Orthodoxen before the Split figured that's what the Pope of Rome was. Some popes even agreed, down through the halls of history. Clearly others did not, and the "Christ's vicar on earth" view became more and more entrenched as the centuries ticked wearily on. Holy shit would hit the fan if the E.P. tried to pull "head of all the Church" card. He might find himself out of communion with a lot of the Orthodox churches. It would be the end of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which the Turks only allow to remain in Istanbul because of its vast importance. Once that imporance goes, he might as well pack his bags.
No, I'm not saying that. What I am responding to are suggestions on this thread that somehow the Orthodox should accommodate themselves to the clause or accept a modified version in some way.
As if somehow the Orthodox have to make concessions for a 'mistake' - if mistake it were - that they were not party to in the first place.
One might argue, and many Orthodox would of course, that if the RCs are happy to waive the clause when Popes interact with Eastern Patriarchs etc, and within the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, then they ought to drop it entirely.
After all, they adopted it unilaterally in the first place.
Or that those Anglican provinces which have dropped the clause should encourage others to do the same.
That's the point I'm making.
If one of my kids stole from a sweety shop I would have admonished them for it and applied some sanction not implicated the other one unless they were complicit in some way.
Now, I'm not saying the addition of the clause was a 'crime' but, from an Orthodox perspective it betrays the kind of overbearing attitude that came to associated with the Papacy, as @mousethief has outlined.
That doesn't mean that the Orthodox world, as it has developed (such as it has 😉) always considers the Papacy to be wrong. 'Peter has spoken through Leo.'
No, during the Iconoclast and other controversies, the Pope as the Western Patriarch often intervened to resolve and broker conflict. There are Orthodox who would recognise the Pope as primus inter pares rather than Universal Pontiff.
The Orthodox have their own issues of course. I've come across some hot-heads who think that the Ecumenical Patriarch has overstepped the mark by granting autocephaly to one of the competing Orthodox Churches in Ukraine and for allegedly making quasi-Papal statements.
When I've challenged them to explain why this hasn't led to all the other Patriarchates calling for his resignation they are at a loss to do so. One even said that Patriarchs and bishops can miss things, as at the Council of Florence, and that it's up to the laity to call things out ...
There is of course a desperately sad 'civil war' and shit-storm going on between Moscow and those most closely aligned with it and those most closely aligned with Constantinople and the Greek side of things.
Some of the Russians also see the Greeks as dangerously liberal and ecumenical.
It tends not to impinge on day-to-day parish life but it does bubble away in the background and does create tensions. 😞
@Gramps49, I'm not saying you shouldn't compare and contrast various positions across the Christian spectrum. Nor am I saying that your description of them in this instance was wildly inaccurate. In a broad-brush sense I concur with your analysis.
Rather, I was picking up on what I felt was your 'definitive' tone and rather unnuanced accusation that the RCs see the Pope rather than Christ as the Head of the Church.
Sure, as @mousethief has reminded us, the Pope is seen as Christ's Vicar on Earth. The difference may be a subtle one but it is there.
I can't speak for the RCs, of course, but my impression would be that both @Alan29 and @Forthview would hold a more nuanced view of this than many Orthodox or Protestants might. Why? Because they are RC and we aren't.
That's what I meant. We need 'own voices' not what you or I or anyone else who isn't RC thinks.
And I point the finger at myself there. I'm sure I've misunderstood or misrepresented the position/s held by Christians from traditions other than my own on these boards before now.
Let's hear from the RC posters on this one.
It's interesting though, I think that whilst the Orthodox arguably have a somewhat 'monarchical' view of the Trinity, that doesn't translate (in theory at least) into the way the Patriarchates operate. One Supreme Head Honcho over all the others.
Our RC friends may say that this isn't how the Papacy operates either.
Any reunion between the RC and Orthodox Churches would obviously have to agree and define the role of the Papacy as well as issues like the filioque clause.
Now there's a challenge for someone. Any takers?
the pope is styled as Supreme Pastor reminding us of his role in keeping the flock together
and he still retains the role of Servus Servorum Dei (Servant of the Servants of God)
The present pope emphasises also his role as Bishop of Rome and uses Italian in almost all of his public addresses.
The Eastern rite patriarchs and major archbishops are pretty autonomous. They are elected by their own synods and only appeal to Rome when there is an internal issue that needs mediation. But they are involved in the decisions of the wider RCC.
Are we saying that Orthodox and Protestant concerns about the Papacy should now be allayed?
The Orthodox have lo-o-oo-o-ng memories of course. But these memories can be selective. You'll often hear the Greeks in particular banging on about the Sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. You don't hear them saying much about the 'Massacre of The Latins' in the previous century.
To be fair, they will acknowledge that to have been a 'bad thing'.
https://aleteia.org/2023/06/14/catholic-orthodox-commission-manages-1st-joint-statement-in-7-years
Guess who?
I will say no more than that.
Politics, innit. Mind you, bishops and theologians agreeing something is a long way from churches agreeing too.
No guessing needed. The lists included make no mention of the Patriarchates of Antioch and of Bulgaria.
If we're talking about what "cradle Catholics" (or "cradle anything else") learn, we'd have to ask what fraction of people actually retain a set of somewhat abstract and technical discussions that occur in a room that their body is present in in childhood. If these aren't concepts that the average person in the pew actually uses on a regular basis, then I'd expect the fraction able to recall the details of their catechesis to be similar to the fraction who could, for example, draw and label a cross-section of a volcano (which I'm sure they all learned in middle school).
Nor of Moscow and its Ukrainian affiliate. Nor the non-Moscow affiliated Ukrainian Church which the EP recognises but which other Patriarchates don't.
No guessing required indeed.
At one time I heard rumblings that Moscow and Rome could conceivably get closer. I don't see much prospect of that now.
FWIW the Antiochian Patriarch supports Moscow because they're grateful for Russian aid during the Syrian civil war. Not that Antiochians are uncritical of Assad but they did fear Islamist extremism and let's not forget that two Archbishops of Aleppo, one Antiochian and one Syriac, were taken by rebels and remain unaccounted for.
Opinion is pretty mixed across most jurisdictions I think. Here in the West many Antiochians wouldn't necessarily agree with their Patriarch.
But the jurisdictional thing is pretty messy in the 'diaspora' anyway, to say the least.
But that's a tangent.
It does serve to underline @Alan29's point about politics though.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church formerly under Moscow would never have had separate representation as it is not a recognised autocephalous Church. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine, an autocephaous body set up by Constantinople, was only established long after this series of talks began, and so would not have been invited in at such a late stage.
Interesting to note that the Orthodox Co-Chair of the talks is a Canadian (Québécois) of Ukrainian ancestry.
Re “ two Archbishops of Aleppo, one Antiochian and one Syriac, were taken by rebels and remain unaccounted for,” 🥺🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
In answer to @Gramps49's OP question, The Uniting Church in Australia (formed in 1977 when the Methodist Church of Australia and New Zealand, the Presbyterian Church of Australia, and the Congregational Church of Australia joined in union) does not feature the clause in written or recited versions of the Nicene Creed.
This must all sound pretty arcane to you now, Martin54.
C'mon Methodists other than Australasia, Presbyterians, Churches of Christ, denoms which nobody has heard of outside of North America, Anglicans in the wild, do you say those three/four words?