It's been a while, and other Orthodoxen may correct me, but I believe when the baptism ceremony gets to the creed, the congregation faces east and all say the creed together.
Not in my experience (but I have only been a member of the Orthodox Church since 1968). The creed is said by the baptismal candidate, or for an infant by their godparent.
Just to be clear. Are you talking about the original Nicene Creed (325AD)?
I'm talking about the unadulterated Nicene/Constantinopolitan creed that was agreed upon by both the Catholic and the Orthodox.
Well, the terms 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' were co-terminous then so the term both is redundant and the distinction only really becomes applicable after the Great Schism and even then the distinctions weren't particularly clear cut initially.
I think what you mean is that the Nicene-Chalcedonian (Constantinopolitan?) Creed was agreed by all the Patriarchates (including Rome). The groups that became non-Chalcedonian Orthodox didn't accept it though.
So what I think you are saying is that Rome gradually adopted the filioque clause, which had been in circulation in Western Europe for some time, and then insisted that the Patriarchates in the eastern part of Christendom should follow suit.
There's the rub. That's why it became contentious. Whatever the theological aspects of the debate the whole thing became politicised and a focus for a power struggle.
Upthread, someone asked why can't the various denominations--or stockholders--find some compromise. Well, a number of mainline Protestant denominations have reached agreement with the Orthodox to drop the phrase. It is non-essential and non-biblical. That is compromise enough.
Just to be clear. Are you talking about the original Nicene Creed (325AD)?
I'm talking about the unadulterated Nicene/Constantinopolitan creed that was agreed upon by both the Catholic and the Orthodox.
Well, the terms 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' were co-terminous then so the term both is redundant and the distinction only really becomes applicable after the Great Schism and even then the distinctions weren't particularly clear cut initially.
I think what you mean is that the Nicene-Chalcedonian (Constantinopolitan?) Creed was agreed by all the Patriarchates (including Rome). The groups that became non-Chalcedonian Orthodox didn't accept it though.
So what I think you are saying is that Rome gradually adopted the filioque clause, which had been in circulation in Western Europe for some time, and then insisted that the Patriarchates in the eastern part of Christendom should follow suit.
There's the rub. That's why it became contentious. Whatever the theological aspects of the debate the whole thing became politicised and a focus for a power struggle.
It's always struck me as being like one of those last straw type heated disagreements which precede a divorce. On the surface you can't see why it matters so much but it becomes symbolic of everything toxic in the relationship.
Upthread, someone asked why can't the various denominations--or stockholders--find some compromise. Well, a number of mainline Protestant denominations have reached agreement with the Orthodox to drop the phrase. It is non-essential and non-biblical. That is compromise enough.
That's compromise on one party's part, but not on the other's.
And why I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with any of that, @Barnabas62 and @Lamb Chopped.
You'll both have your own particular convictions that you hold strongly. Those who have read your posts over the years will have an idea what those are. Holding to those convictions doesn't betoken a lack of humility on your part any more than people holding different convictions necessarily implies a lack of humility on theirs.
Of course, any conviction or position can be held in an inflexible or brittle way. Nobody is denying that either.
And I agree with that too. My point was different. The more important issues of the law are justice, mercy and faith. As Lamb Chopped says, humility about the correctness of our own views on faith seems to me to be an essential aid to maintaining the necessary focus on justice and mercy.
Do I find this kind of discussion a waste of time? By no means. I do fear that they can becoming polarising about our differences rather than helping us to look at common ground.
There is so much polarising these days. It seems to be the Zeitgeist. I hope to find ways of moving away from its destructive tendencies.
Trying to be moderate, or even build bridges, or find compromises, or even (as @Martin54 has occasionally mentioned (hi Martin!)) using Rogerian methods to do so, may currently be the most radical thing of all… ❤️
I don't think I'd argue for theological or even liturgical compromise with other churches. We're other churches for a reason. (I'm actually not a fan of the Episcopal/Lutheran concordat, myself.) I think that, with our different theological and ecclesiastical understandings (who has Apostolic Succession? Who doesn't? Who might or might not but one side isn't sure? What are the doctrines surrounding the Sacraments? Etc.), we can still work together in areas of common ground, in charity, rather than water down what we believe.
Just to be clear. Are you talking about the original Nicene Creed (325AD)?
I'm talking about the unadulterated Nicene/Constantinopolitan creed that was agreed upon by both the Catholic and the Orthodox.
Well, the terms 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' were co-terminous then so the term both is redundant and the distinction only really becomes applicable after the Great Schism and even then the distinctions weren't particularly clear cut initially.
I think what you mean is that the Nicene-Chalcedonian (Constantinopolitan?) Creed was agreed by all the Patriarchates (including Rome). The groups that became non-Chalcedonian Orthodox didn't accept it though.
So what I think you are saying is that Rome gradually adopted the filioque clause, which had been in circulation in Western Europe for some time, and then insisted that the Patriarchates in the eastern part of Christendom should follow suit.
There's the rub. That's why it became contentious. Whatever the theological aspects of the debate the whole thing became politicised and a focus for a power struggle.
It's always struck me as being like one of those last straw type heated disagreements which precede a divorce. On the surface you can't see why it matters so much but it becomes symbolic of everything toxic in the relationship.
Yes, I think that's right.
@Gramps49, I would agree with you but then I'm Orthodox not Roman Catholic.
@ChastMastr, yes, but the Orthodox would say that there is no need for them to compromise because they weren't in the wrong in the first place. Rome was perfectly happy with the original wording of the Nicene Creed. If they hadn't been they should have spoken up at the time instead of sneaking it in unilaterally later on and then trying to insist that that everyone else followed suit.
I'm perfectly happy to accept that there were a range of understandings and permutations during the Patristic period and that some 'eastern' figures like St Theodore of Tarsus Archbishop of Canterbury was more than happy to go along with it when he moved to Western Europe.
And if we take some of the Patristic quotes at face value from the RC source you cited then it seems that some of the Fathers didn't have an issue with it either.
I suspect @Twangist is right, as in a divorce, it is one of those issues and sources of contention that congealed over time.
What I'm saying - and I think @Gramps49 is on a similar page - is that the filioque clause doesn't add anything of value to the way we understand the Trinity and as various Protestant groups have dropped it and the Popes seem happy to waive it on occasion, then there isn't really much point in holding onto it.
That still begs the question as to whether it does any harm or whether, as @Barnabas62 has asked, it actually has any bearing on how we treat one another or live out the Gospel.
FWIW, and without wishing to cause offence to our RC friends here, I do think it has betokened a somewhat overweening attitude on the part of the Papacy at times, but that doesn't mean that the Eastern Patriarchates have always been squeaky clean.
But at least we've lifted the anathemas on both sides, although there's still a long way to go.
I'm beginning to think we'd do better to say less and do more in terms of charity and mutual kindness. Not that truth doesn't matter, but so often we handle it so poorly.
Simply put, the Western Tradition was in the wrong. The Eastern tradition has always been in the right (on this question). The Eastern tradition does not need to compromise on it. The World Council of Churches which has over 352 member denominations is recommending the phrase be dropped.
I agree with LC's statement, the less we say, the better. Let's just drop the phrase.
Simply put, the Western Tradition was in the wrong.
You may believe that, but Rome does not.
Well, given that @Gramps49 is Lutheran, I suspect he thinks Rome has indeed gotten a few things wrong. As do I.
But given the fact that recent popes seem quite willing to say the Creed without the filioque, and given that Eastern Rite churches that do not say the filioque and yet are in communion with Rome, it does appear that Rome does not believe the filioque is at all necessary.
Simply put, the Western Tradition was in the wrong.
You may believe that, but Rome does not.
Well, given that @Gramps49 is Lutheran, I suspect he thinks Rome has indeed gotten a few things wrong. As do I.
But given the fact that recent popes seem quite willing to say the Creed without the filioque, and given that Eastern Rite churches that do not say the filioque and yet are in communion with Rome, it does appear that Rome does not believe the filioque is at all necessary.
I'd have to read more about what Rome says on the matter, and about why it treats it as wise in most other situations. Just because Rome makes an exception for specific cases does not mean it has decided it is not an accurate, and from their POV fuller, description of the Trinity. (Whether one thinks they are right or wrong is another matter.) And I don't know what the 1.3 billion Roman Catholics would think if the church suddenly dropped it, either.
At the moment my own local Episcopal church uses it, at least in the services I have been to. (And the service I usually attend is Rite I anyway, with the thees and thous and such. (Regardless of the filioque, I assume/hope any new Prayer Book will include Rite I or something like it, and also--this drives me nuts--in the equivalent of Rite II, a modern-language version of the Prayer of Humble Access, and I've never understood why that's left out of Rite II, even as something optional...))
Upthread, someone asked why can't the various denominations--or stockholders--find some compromise. Well, a number of mainline Protestant denominations have reached agreement with the Orthodox to drop the phrase. It is non-essential and non-biblical. That is compromise enough.
That's compromise on one party's part, but not on the other's.
How would you compromise? Say it every other Sunday? Say only half of each word?
I'm beginning to think we'd do better to say less and do more in terms of charity and mutual kindness. Not that truth doesn't matter, but so often we handle it so poorly.
I'd have to read more about what Rome says on the matter, and about why it treats it as wise in most other situations. Just because Rome makes an exception for specific cases does not mean it has decided it is not an accurate, and from their POV fuller, description of the Trinity. (Whether one thinks they are right or wrong is another matter.) And I don't know what the 1.3 billion Roman Catholics would think if the church suddenly dropped it, either.
Ah, but we're talking about the advisability of dropping it, not whether it's accurate. There are a lot of things that are accurate that haven't been jammed into the Creed. They could remove it and still think it's accurate. Maybe that's the compromise.
Upthread, someone asked why can't the various denominations--or stockholders--find some compromise. Well, a number of mainline Protestant denominations have reached agreement with the Orthodox to drop the phrase. It is non-essential and non-biblical. That is compromise enough.
That's compromise on one party's part, but not on the other's.
How would you compromise? Say it every other Sunday? Say only half of each word?
This might not be something to compromise on. But bridges can still be built between different churches despite different doctrinal understandings.
Upthread, someone asked why can't the various denominations--or stockholders--find some compromise. Well, a number of mainline Protestant denominations have reached agreement with the Orthodox to drop the phrase. It is non-essential and non-biblical. That is compromise enough.
That's compromise on one party's part, but not on the other's.
How would you compromise? Say it every other Sunday? Say only half of each word?
This might not be something to compromise on. But bridges can still be built between different churches despite different doctrinal understandings.
Of course. Nobody is saying otherwise.
The devil, as they say 😉 is in the detail which is one of the reasons, sadly, that it takes us all so long to sort contentious issues out.
As @mousethief says, we can also tend to 'fetishise' the TruthTM or those things we hold as distinctives or non-negotiables.
Somehow we have to find a way through all of that. Some options have been suggested here on this particular issue. Some of us would be happy with those, others less so, others not at all.
And I'm thinking, the RC church is already (and still, even now) struggling with absorbing Vatican II--making a change to a creed, however justifiable it might be to do so, that has been said for centuries, might cause much worse internal conflict. (There's a whole contingent of anti-Pope-Francis people, certainly in the US, who worry me.)
(There's a whole "Let's get back to Latin and pre-Vatican II stuff" contingent, for good or for bad, in the RCC currently. I think the Pope and the RCC would rather hold the church together rather than give anyone an excuse to break off and declare themselves the real RCC, etc.)
Anyhow. You aren't RC and neither am I. So any speculation as to what impact dropping the filioque clause might have within the RCC is a matter for our RC friends.
As has been said, the Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome don't include the filioque clause. Various Popes have dropped it on occasion.
It's up to them whether they ditch it or retain it and yes, they've got a lot more on their plate to contend with - as indeed all Churches have. We've all got our internal problems.
It's not as though anyone actually knows the inner workings of the Trinity. That's why I can't get het up about this question.
Clerical pride on all sides is deeply unedifying.
Anyhow. You aren't RC and neither am I. So any speculation as to what impact dropping the filioque clause might have within the RCC is a matter for our RC friends.
I don't agree--people can discuss things without being a member of a particular group. Also, I'm part of the Western Catholic Christian tradition--i.e., Anglican, which as far as I and others with my view are concerned, is indeed Catholic, just not Roman, but still springs from the Roman Catholic Church. And you may not know this, but when I became a Christian, the church I chose was indeed the RCC, on the grounds that (as I understood at the time, at the age of 16, not knowing much about Eastern Orthodoxy) everything else broke away from it, so why not go to the original? I was baptized Roman Catholic and had Communion as a Roman Catholic, even winding up with a nun as a sort of catechism tutor because I kept asking questions the lay CCD teacher couldn't answer (it still baffles me that they'd never asked themselves those questions before themselves...). A few years later, I was concerned about/didn't agree with what I understood (at the time) to be the RCC's approach to the Papacy and to saintly devotions, so I wound up in the Episcopal Church--but for me it was and is critical that TEC is indeed Catholic in the sense of having definitively valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession*, and if I ever decided I had to leave TEC, then I would almost certainly go back to the RCC. So to me these are indeed live issues.
* It is my understanding that those also apply to Eastern Orthodoxy, and apparently one small Lutheran denomination in Latvia and Estonia which is barely known in the US. Not sure about the Coptics. Again, this is regards to definitively valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession, not that those cannot be present in other churches--God can do what He likes. I suppose it would also apply to at least some of the breakaway Anglican churches that split from TEC some years ago, too, though their attitude at least at the time seemed not very good to me, so I have gladly stuck with TEC after wrestling with what to do back in the 1990s. I definitely don't like the political crap which seems to have been involved though, and especially not the "culture war" stuff.
The other day, I almost posted a comment that .0001% of RC laypeople would notice. It is the Curia that would be most upset since they hold the pope is infallible.
Well, even that requires some qualifying caveats, @Gramps49.
The Pope is only considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra as I understand it.
Has any Pope done so on this particular issue?
@ChastMastr - I'm not saying any of us shouldn't comment on the positions taken by Christian churches or traditions other than our own. Heck, I do that all the time.
What I'm saying is that this is an issue for the RCC to resolve - if indeed it thinks there is a need to do so. Besides, whatever you or I think about the matter, whether the RCC would consider Anglo-Catholics like yourself to have 'valid' orders, Apostolic Succession and the whole kit and caboodle is another issue for them to come to a position on themselves.
@Alan29 yes, clerical pride is an issue all ways round and does indeed apply on all sides.
Again though, it's all a matter of perspective. From an RCC (or Curia?) perspective the Orthodox position on this, and other matters, must appear obstinate, prideful and awkward. 'Why don't they just accept that we can't fathom the inner workings of the Trinity? Why bear these ancient grudges, why not leave it be and agree with us?'
From an Orthodox perspective it can come across as if the RCC authorities couldn't give a flying fart about the sensibilities of anyone else, Orthodox or Protestant, and should shut up and dance to their particular tune.
To 'historic' Protestant Churches like the Lutherans and the Anglicans (some of whom would see themselves as hybrid Catholic/Protestant or somewhere on a sliding scale between the two) then their 'take' on this will vary according to a range of factors and which end of the spectrum they are.
To 'non-conformist' Protestants thr whole thing will look pretty arcane and there won't be the same kind of concerns about creedal exactitude, Big T Tradition, sacramental validity and Apostolic Succession in a 'tactile' sense etc etc etc.
So whilst clerical pride is certainly a factor and cause of concern, it's only one of many tangled and thorny issues at play here.
If the RCC and Orthodox were ever to resolve their differences on this it still leaves the issue of the rest of Christendom. Some wouldn't even be aware of it as an issue in the first place, of course.
Granted the EOC appears prideful, obstinate, and awkward. Because it is. But the RCC, or at least many of its members that jabber* on websites such as this one, fail to suss what is stuck in the Orthodox Church's craw: It wasn't added by an Ecumenical Council of the whole Chalcedonian Church. It might be biblical. It might be useful for teaching. It might prevent psoriasis, backache, and tooth decay. But it's not conciliar.
*I figure we're all jabbering, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and atheist alike.
The other day, I almost posted a comment that .0001% of RC laypeople would notice. It is the Curia that would be most upset since they hold the pope is infallible.
Thats not at all how infallability works. But the Pope does have the authority to change it.
My position is certainly not that the Orthodox should capitulate to Rome, but that either or neither view on the Trinity might be right/wrong and that the churches should have bigger fish to fry.
Thing is, none of us have a monopoly on pride, obstinacy and awkwardness. The Orthodox Church has it in spades, of course. 'You can be as ecumenical as you like, but only on our terms ...'
But then I've come across Quakers, Baptists and other non-conformists who have a kind of inverted pride or inverted snobbery about not being defined or confined by conciliar creedal statements and not having 'magical' sacraments or sacerdotalism and hocus pocus etc etc etc.
I've come across RCs who think everyone else is prideful, obstinate and awkward for not recognising the universal authority of the Pope.
I've come across Orthodox who think everyone else is prideful, obstinate and awkward for not allying themselves with one or other of the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions.
I don’t know how we all get round that.
We could parse this of course.
I am faithfully following the faith once revealed to the saints and ratified by those ecumenical councils my tribe recognises.
You are prideful, obstinate and awkward for not doing so or accepting additional councils that my tribe doesn't, or holding loosely to any of them or not holding to them at all.
With no offence intended to any atheists here, those without faith can be prideful, awkward and obstinate about that.
We are all prideful, awkward and obstinate. Somehow we've got to work through and deal with that.
I don't really meet many Orthodox Christians regularly,so cannot say how many of them are really worked up about the 'filioque' clause in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. What I can say with some certainty is that, apart from the few Catholics who are interested in controversies like the 'filioque' ,most Catholics may never have heard about the 'filioque' and certainly not worry about it.
Gamma G has suggested that it is a problem for the RCC to resolve. I would suggest that the RCC has resolved this by saying that the 'filioque' is a reasonable addition to the Nicene Creed ,but that it is also reasonable not to say it when reciting the Creed.
... * It is my understanding that those also apply to Eastern Orthodoxy, and apparently one small Lutheran denomination in Latvia and Estonia which is barely known in the US. Not sure about the Coptics. Again, this is regards to definitively valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession, not that those cannot be present in other churches--God can do what He likes. I suppose it would also apply to at least some of the breakaway Anglican churches that split from TEC some years ago, too, though their attitude at least at the time seemed not very good to me, so I have gladly stuck with TEC after wrestling with what to do back in the 1990s. I definitely don't like the political crap which seems to have been involved though, and especially not the "culture war" stuff.
It is likely that there are other shipmates who know more about this than I do, @ChastMastr but I'm under the impression there are a few more than just "one small Lutheran denomination in Latvia and Estonia which is barely known in the US". The CofE which is quite lax on a lot of other things is pernickety about apostolic succession. It recognises that in addition to the PCs and Orthodox, most, possibly all, the various Scandinavian Lutherans have retained it, and therefore also have 'valid' sacraments. I'm pretty sure it also recognises the successions of the Moravians, the Mar Thoma church in India, and the various other ancient churches like Copts, Armenians etc., though some of those I suppose are technically heretical for being on the 'wrong' side on issues from Nicaea and Chalcedon.
As far as I am aware, most of the breakaway Anglican churches are schismatic rather than heretical. so if they have managed to retain apostolic succession, they would continue to have it. We have only really got one of these in the UK, and it is small enough, < 20 congregations I think, that most people have never encountered it.
I don't really meet many Orthodox Christians regularly,so cannot say how many of them are really worked up about the 'filioque' clause in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. What I can say with some certainty is that, apart from the few Catholics who are interested in controversies like the 'filioque' ,most Catholics may never have heard about the 'filioque' and certainly not worry about it.
Gamma G has suggested that it is a problem for the RCC to resolve. I would suggest that the RCC has resolved this by saying that the 'filioque' is a reasonable addition to the Nicene Creed ,but that it is also reasonable not to say it when reciting the Creed.
That's because you are RC not Orthodox. 😉
@mousethief has put the Orthodox position very well, proud, stubborn and awkward though it might be.
The filioque clause is not conciliar. It never has been and never will be unless a future Ecumenical Council decides otherwise.
The only way, from an Orthodox perspective, for this to be resolved is for the RCC to drop it. We've been around this loop several times now. No Pope or church council acting unilaterally has any right to alter the Creed.
End of story.
You seem to suggest that the issue is on the Orthodox side or those Protestant groups which agree with the Orthodox on this point. It isn't. The issue is on the Roman side.
That doesn't mean that there isn't scope for discussion and debate on the relations between the Persons of the Holy and Undivided Trinity.
Of course not.
We can all debate and discuss that.
But if ever there were to be rapprochement and some kind of organisational unity between the RCC and the Orthodox the Orthodox would insist on the clause being dropped.
I'm sorry but that's where we are on this one.
It doesn't mean we can't find common ground with the RCC altogether. There is plenty of common ground. But we ain't going to budge on this one.
Rome added the clause unilaterally. The onus is on Rome to either drop it or convince the rest of us to adopt it.
Our not having it isn't the aberration. The RCC having it is.
Meanwhile @Enoch, I think you are right on which churches the Anglicans would see as having valid Apostolic Succession. And yes, they would probably view break-away Anglican groups as schismatic rather than heretical. I believe I'm right in thinking that there is more than one such group here in the UK. Other Shipmates may know better.
Presumably it would be possible for the Orthdox and RCs to agree to a Council, and possible for them to agree that Filioque was adiaphora, or some other rapprochement.
To 'historic' Protestant Churches like the Lutherans and the Anglicans (some of whom would see themselves as hybrid Catholic/Protestant or somewhere on a sliding scale between the two) then their 'take' on this will vary according to a range of factors and which end of the spectrum they are.
To 'non-conformist' Protestants thr whole thing will look pretty arcane and there won't be the same kind of concerns about creedal exactitude, Big T Tradition, sacramental validity and Apostolic Succession in a 'tactile' sense etc etc etc.
Just a note to mention that “nonconformist” is a specifically English and Welsh concept, which so far as I know has little if any meaning elsewhere. I usually have a sense of what is more-or-less meant by it. But where, as here, Lutherans are classed as “historic” Protestant churches rather than as “nonconformist,” I can’t quite map what is meant onto my American experience of denominations. (The same goes for me for “Free Church,” unless it means the Free Church of Scotland.)
Getting back to the original question of if and how other (Western) communions have approached the filioque, I have looked to see what I can find on Reformed/Presbyterian takes. Some decades ago, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), went through the process of amending our Book of Confessions to replace the older translation of the Nicene Creed with the International Consultation on English Texts’ translation. I recall the discussion at General Assembly and materials provided when the proposed amendment was submitted to the presbyteries noted issues surrounding the filioque and encouraged discussion about that, but also noted that proposed amendment wasn’t addressing the filioque issue.
The PC(USA)’s 1990 hymnal and 1993 edition of the Book of Common Worship had “who proceeds from the Father (and the Son) . . . ,” as a way of noting the issue. Our 2013 hymnal and the 2018 edition of the BCW lost the parentheses, presumably to give the text as it appears in the Book of Confessions.
Meanwhile, in 1992, representatives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (now the World Communion of Reformed Churches) and of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as part of the Orthodox-Reformed Dialog, entered into an “Agreed Statement on the Holy Trinity.” That agreed statement included these provisions relating to the filioque:
The three Divine Persons are also conjoined through their special relations. Thus the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son, in ineffable ways that are beyond all time (achronos), beyond all origin (anarchos), and beyond all cause (anaitios). The generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are unknowable mysteries which cannot be explained by recourse to human or creaturely images, although some images (e.g. Light from Light) may provide a way for us to grasp some aspects of the reality to which they are used to refer (cf. Athanasius, Con. Ar. 2.36; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 11.11).
Thus the order inherent in the Trinitarian relations is grounded on the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but because of the unity of the Godhead in which each Person is perfectly and wholly God, he proceeds from the Father through the Son for the Spirit belongs to and is inseparable from the Being of the Father and of the Son. He receives from the Son and through him is given to us. Thus “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.” (The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed). It is precisely with the doctrine of the consubstantiality and Deity of the Holy Spirit that the proper understanding of the Holy Trinity is brought to its completion in the theology and worship of the Church.
So, the Agreed Statement reflects the Orthodox understanding and quotes the Creed without the filioque, and uses the approach of “abides in the Son” and proceeds “through the Son” without explicitly rejecting the filioque.
As I said earlier The Roman Church in all its Latin rites sees the 'filioque' as a reasonable addition to the Nicene Creed but is happy for those who do not use it to omit it from the Creed. In searching for agreement then that seems to me again a 'reasonable' statement about something which we cannot really understand.
In attempting to answer the question it raises other questions about what exactly is the 'Petrine ministry' which is not only theological, but also a historical, cultural and political topic which is best left undiscussed.
There can be no parallel to the UK term 'Nonconformist'. From the time of Henry VIII's break with Rome until the 19th century, the Church of England (and, in Scotland the {Presbyterian) Church of Scotland) were the lawfully 'Established Churches. All other religious denominations were 'nonconformist' and technically illegal unless granted toleration. In practice, the term became confined in ordinary usage to non-Anglican Protestant churches, including Methodists. In Scotland, the Episcopalians would have been non-conformists, though I believe the term is not used there. In England, the distinction used to be between 'Church' and 'Chapel' and carried a social connotation. RCs wre a special case and were not usually termed Nonconformist.
To 'historic' Protestant Churches like the Lutherans and the Anglicans (some of whom would see themselves as hybrid Catholic/Protestant or somewhere on a sliding scale between the two) then their 'take' on this will vary according to a range of factors and which end of the spectrum they are.
To 'non-conformist' Protestants thr whole thing will look pretty arcane and there won't be the same kind of concerns about creedal exactitude, Big T Tradition, sacramental validity and Apostolic Succession in a 'tactile' sense etc etc etc.
Just a note to mention that “nonconformist” is a specifically English and Welsh concept, which so far as I know has little if any meaning elsewhere. I usually have a sense of what is more-or-less meant by it. But where, as here, Lutherans are classed as “historic” Protestant churches rather than as “nonconformist,” I can’t quite map what is meant onto my American experience of denominations. (The same goes for me for “Free Church,” unless it means the Free Church of Scotland.)
Getting back to the original question of if and how other (Western) communions have approached the filioque, I have looked to see what I can find on Reformed/Presbyterian takes. Some decades ago, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), went through the process of amending our Book of Confessions to replace the older translation of the Nicene Creed with the International Consultation on English Texts’ translation. I recall the discussion at General Assembly and materials provided when the proposed amendment was submitted to the presbyteries noted issues surrounding the filioque and encouraged discussion about that, but also noted that proposed amendment wasn’t addressing the filioque issue.
The PC(USA)’s 1990 hymnal and 1993 edition of the Book of Common Worship had “who proceeds from the Father (and the Son) . . . ,” as a way of noting the issue. Our 2013 hymnal and the 2018 edition of the BCW lost the parentheses, presumably to give the text as it appears in the Book of Confessions.
Meanwhile, in 1992, representatives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (now the World Communion of Reformed Churches) and of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as part of the Orthodox-Reformed Dialog, entered into an “Agreed Statement on the Holy Trinity.” That agreed statement included these provisions relating to the filioque:
The three Divine Persons are also conjoined through their special relations. Thus the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son, in ineffable ways that are beyond all time (achronos), beyond all origin (anarchos), and beyond all cause (anaitios). The generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are unknowable mysteries which cannot be explained by recourse to human or creaturely images, although some images (e.g. Light from Light) may provide a way for us to grasp some aspects of the reality to which they are used to refer (cf. Athanasius, Con. Ar. 2.36; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 11.11).
Thus the order inherent in the Trinitarian relations is grounded on the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but because of the unity of the Godhead in which each Person is perfectly and wholly God, he proceeds from the Father through the Son for the Spirit belongs to and is inseparable from the Being of the Father and of the Son. He receives from the Son and through him is given to us. Thus “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.” (The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed). It is precisely with the doctrine of the consubstantiality and Deity of the Holy Spirit that the proper understanding of the Holy Trinity is brought to its completion in the theology and worship of the Church.
So, the Agreed Statement reflects the Orthodox understanding and quotes the Creed without the filioque, and uses the approach of “abides in the Son” and proceeds “through the Son” without explicitly rejecting the filioque.
Ok. Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. It's a pity the RCC doesn't adopt this approach ... 😉
Apologies for using the term 'non-conformist" loosely. I am, of course, aware that it doesn't apply in a US context, or anywhere else outside England and Wales for that matter, although I'd be interested to hear how churches like the Baptists, for instance, are classified in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
I'm really not sure what term to use in an international context. 'Non-Anglican Protestants'? But where would that leave the Lutherans, for instance, who form the national church in Scandinavia and elsewhere? Or the Presbyterians in Scotland? Or Reformed Churches in Swiss cantons?
@BroJames - 'presumably it would be possible ...' Well yes, one would hope so. In reality though, for reasons @Alan29 and others have alluded to, it ain't going to happen anytime soon.
@Forthview - why is the nature of the Petrine ministry best left 'undiscussed'? Why should it be out of bounds? 'Come now let us reason together ...'
You know as well as I do that Rome understands that differently to both Orthodoxy and the Protestants. That's the nub of the issue here I think. The rest of us consider the Papacy/Curia overweening at times - "Tradition? I am Tradition.' - whilst we can be seen as not toeing the line and not acknowledging the full Petrine authority of the Pope.
As I've said before, there are Orthodox who'd be happy to accept the Pope as 'primus inter pares' but not 'Universal Pontiff.'
Whatever happened to his old title? Patriarch of the West? The Papacy ditched that one.
Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough. 😉
Seriously, though, there may be scope for another thread on the role of the Papacy.
I'm really not sure what term to use in an international context. 'Non-Anglican Protestants'? But where would that leave the Lutherans, for instance, who form the national church in Scandinavia and elsewhere? Or the Presbyterians in Scotland? Or Reformed Churches in Swiss cantons?
Being “Protestant” and being a national church are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, “Magisterial Reformation” and “Magisterial Protestant” specifically refer to those bodies that, at least historically, tick both boxes.
The broadest break-downs as I usually hear them are: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, or Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant. Among Protestants, there are the aforementioned churches of the Magisterial Reformation (Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed/Presbyterian) as opposed to churches of the Radical Reformation, such as Anabaptists. I also hear “churches of the Reformation” to describe the Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed and Anabaptists. “Evangelical Protestant” can describe a discernible subgroup of Protestants, as can “mainline” in the US. (But I realize “mainline,” which generally refers to a specific group of denominations, may not translate outside the US, in the same way as “nonconformist” doesn’t translate outside England and Wales. And there’s also the caveat of the traditional Lutheran use of “evangelical.”)
I think that the question of the papacy is best left undiscussed as it simply leads to disagreements. I only mentioned it as it does have a role in the ''filioque' discussion.
As we have seen the papacy is happy to accept the validity of the point of view of those who reject the 'filioque' in the recitation of the Creed, but asks for a recognition of its historic point of view.
The term 'nonconformist' is rarely used in Scotland. Certainly until the early 20th Century the Church of Scotland was the 'established' Church but has been for over 100 years the 'National Church' There were many, too many groupings who were not part of the Church of Scotland,but who were basically Presbyterians but were rarely,if ever called 'nonconformists'
Though only Church of Scotland buildings were officially allowed to call themselves 'churches' this died out with the rise of so many 'relief' and independent groupings especially after the Disruption of 1843.
church and chapel came to mark the distinction between Protestant and Catholic groups, the name 'chapel' having been brought mainly into use by Irish immigrants. In Ireland only Protestant CofI buildings were called churches and Catholic buildings were called chapels.
Well, the filioque clause leads to disagreements too and we are discussing that. So why not the Papacy?
It's not the sole factor in play here, of course but it is a factor.
From an Orthodox perspective it's essentially the Papacy's 'fault' that the filioque clause was adopted in the West in the first place. It's the role of the Papacy as much as the clause itself which is the bone of contention.
So it should be discussed.
@Nick Tamen, where did I say that being a Protestant church precludes it being a national one?
I live in Europe for Pete's Sake (ha! See what I did there?). I'm used to national churches.
@Forthview thanks for the info on the Scottish scene.
What I find rather odd is that most of us are quite prepared to differ from the ancient Church's views on (for example) Hell, or divorce, or other religions, but are much more militant about how our understanding of the Trinity is phrased...
To me the questions about the role of the papacy in the history of the Church are more historical and political rather than theological.
Both the Orthodox and the Catholics claim to be an essential part of the 'right believing,universal church. Both believe in Apostolic succession and both accept the Latin saying 'Ubi episcopus,ibi ecclesia (where the bishop is ,that is where the Church is).
Both accept that there is a Bishop of Rome and both accept that in the order of apostolic succession the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter who was given by Jesus a special mission to 'feed the sheep'. How that ministry has developed over the centuries has a politically motivated and historically motivated development. The core of it is just as the individual bishop is responsible for his flock,so the successor of Peter has the role of keeping together in one flock all the other bishops and their flocks. Anything else is historical and political and over time also cultural.
Historical,political,cultural and linguistic difficulties have caused difficulties over the centuries of Christian history, differences which still exist today also.
As individual Christians it should be our mission to seek for what unites, respecting the views of others and seeking respect for our own - and realising that our own views are often coloured by the society in which we live and the stories which are told in that society.
The CofE which is quite lax on a lot of other things is pernickety about apostolic succession. It recognises that in addition to the PCs and Orthodox, most, possibly all, the various Scandinavian Lutherans have retained it, and therefore also have 'valid' sacraments.
If this is the case regarding the Scandinavian Lutherans, it is news to me. I know that we have a concordat with a US Lutheran body, the ELCA, though I don’t think that was wise, but in order to do that there had to be some extra steps taken so that future ELCA clergy had to have Episcopal clergy involved.
I genuinely think the push for churches modifying what they believe to connect formally with other churches isn’t fair to any of them, and that we’d all be better off just trying to accept our differences in theology and ecclesiology, in mutual charity, and work together in areas of common ground.
I'm really not sure what term to use in an international context. 'Non-Anglican Protestants'? But where would that leave the Lutherans, for instance, who form the national church in Scandinavia and elsewhere? Or the Presbyterians in Scotland? Or Reformed Churches in Swiss cantons?
I read that as questioning describing Lutherans in Scandinavia, Presbyterians in Scotland or the Reformed in parts of Switzerland as “non-Anglican Protestants.”
But I think I misunderstood you, which may be due at least in part to how you worded things. On re-reading, I’m guessing what you meant was more along the lines of “I'm really not sure what term to use in an international context. 'Non-Anglican Protestants'? But where would that leave the non-Lutherans, for instance, in Scandinavia and elsewhere, where the national churches are Lutheran? Or the non-Presbyterians in Scotland? Or non-Reformed Churches in Swiss cantons?” Is that what you meant?
Personally, in an international context I wouldn’t try to distinguish between established/national churches and other churches. Such distinctions have little or no relevance outside the particular country, and no relevance I'm aware of in a discussion like this one.
The CofE which is quite lax on a lot of other things is pernickety about apostolic succession. It recognises that in addition to the PCs and Orthodox, most, possibly all, the various Scandinavian Lutherans have retained it, and therefore also have 'valid' sacraments.
If this is the case regarding the Scandinavian Lutherans, it is news to me.
I believe that the Church of Sweden, the Church of Norway, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Church of Iceland all claim to have apostolic succession.
Upthread, you asked, in so many words, if the pope had ever asserted the filioque clause. It appears Leo I may have affirmed it. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims several popes and councils affirmed it.
I'm really not sure what term to use in an international context. 'Non-Anglican Protestants'? But where would that leave the Lutherans, for instance, who form the national church in Scandinavia and elsewhere? Or the Presbyterians in Scotland? Or Reformed Churches in Swiss cantons?
I read that as questioning describing Lutherans in Scandinavia, Presbyterians in Scotland or the Reformed in parts of Switzerland as “non-Anglican Protestants.”
But I think I misunderstood you, which may be due at least in part to how you worded things. On re-reading, I’m guessing what you meant was more along the lines of “I'm really not sure what term to use in an international context. 'Non-Anglican Protestants'? But where would that leave the non-Lutherans, for instance, in Scandinavia and elsewhere, where the national churches are Lutheran? Or the non-Presbyterians in Scotland? Or non-Reformed Churches in Swiss cantons?” Is that what you meant?
Personally, in an international context I wouldn’t try to distinguish between established/national churches and other churches. Such distinctions have little or no relevance outside the particular country, and no relevance I'm aware of in a discussion like this one.
The CofE which is quite lax on a lot of other things is pernickety about apostolic succession. It recognises that in addition to the PCs and Orthodox, most, possibly all, the various Scandinavian Lutherans have retained it, and therefore also have 'valid' sacraments.
If this is the case regarding the Scandinavian Lutherans, it is news to me.
I believe that the Church of Sweden, the Church of Norway, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Church of Iceland all claim to have apostolic succession.
I'm really not sure what term to use in an international context. 'Non-Anglican Protestants'? But where would that leave the Lutherans, for instance, who form the national church in Scandinavia and elsewhere? Or the Presbyterians in Scotland? Or Reformed Churches in Swiss cantons?
I read that as questioning describing Lutherans in Scandinavia, Presbyterians in Scotland or the Reformed in parts of Switzerland as “non-Anglican Protestants.”
But I think I misunderstood you, which may be due at least in part to how you worded things. On re-reading, I’m guessing what you meant was more along the lines of “I'm really not sure what term to use in an international context. 'Non-Anglican Protestants'? But where would that leave the non-Lutherans, for instance, in Scandinavia and elsewhere, where the national churches are Lutheran? Or the non-Presbyterians in Scotland? Or non-Reformed Churches in Swiss cantons?” Is that what you meant?
Personally, in an international context I wouldn’t try to distinguish between established/national churches and other churches. Such distinctions have little or no relevance outside the particular country, and no relevance I'm aware of in a discussion like this one.
The CofE which is quite lax on a lot of other things is pernickety about apostolic succession. It recognises that in addition to the PCs and Orthodox, most, possibly all, the various Scandinavian Lutherans have retained it, and therefore also have 'valid' sacraments.
If this is the case regarding the Scandinavian Lutherans, it is news to me.
I believe that the Church of Sweden, the Church of Norway, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Church of Iceland all claim to have apostolic succession.
They may claim to, yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do, in my understanding of how it works. Maybe they do. It would be news to me, if so, but welcome news. (If I am not convinced of it, it doesn't mean ill will--the RCs don't accept that the Anglican churches have Apostolic Succession, but that doesn't mean they hate us or anything.)
Upthread, you asked, in so many words, if the pope had ever asserted the filioque clause. It appears Leo I may have affirmed it. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims several popes and councils affirmed it.
They may claim to, yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do, in my understanding of how it works. Maybe they do. It would be news to me, if so, but welcome news. (If I am not convinced of it, it doesn't mean ill will--the RCs don't accept that the Anglican churches have Apostolic Succession, but that doesn't mean they hate us or anything.)
Well, yeah—is it ever more than “claim to have it”? Can any bishop in any church actually establish a “family tree” that traces back to one or more of the apostles?
All the churches that think apostolic succession matters claim to have it, and other churches to whom it matters either accept or reject those claims.
What I find rather odd is that most of us are quite prepared to differ from the ancient Church's views on (for example) Hell, or divorce, or other religions, but are much more militant about how our understanding of the Trinity is phrased...
Well, as far as I am aware the Creeds don't stipulate particular views on those issues you mention.
The issue is conciliarity here. The Orthodox are strong on that. The corollary of that of course, is that we can suspect other churches of sitting very loosely on that, either in favour of individual opinion (Protestantism) or Papal diktat (Roman Catholicism).
The Orthodox take a different line to the RCs on divorce, by the way and a range of views are permissible on Hell.
The only thing we are real sticklers for is Creedal and conciliar belief.
Hence our intransigence on this particular issue. The Pope of Rome has no right to add anything to a Creed that was ratified universally (in Chalcedonian terms) by an Ecumenical Council.
As far as we are concerned any Pope who does that is acting outside of his remit and abusing his authority.
You won't find me digging my heels in on many things. I am digging my heels in on this one though.
That doesn't mean I'm some kind of Patristic fundamentalist. The Church Fathers came up with some pretty awful stuff, particularly in relation to Judaism.
@Forthview yes, except that historical, cultural and political issues can and do affect our theology. If a Pope insists on inserting a clause into the Creed that wasn't there in the first place, this is an historical cultural and political issue. It may have theological implications. It certainly has implications for how the Pope regards himself in relation to other bishops and hierarchs.
If other bishops and hierarchs, clergy and laity oppose the Pope on this issue then that too is an historical, cultural and political issue and may also have theological implications. At the very least it says something about their particular view of the Papacy namely that it too should be found by conciliar decisions and not act as if it can override them on a whim or to assert or impose their will on everyone else.
Comments
Not in my experience (but I have only been a member of the Orthodox Church since 1968). The creed is said by the baptismal candidate, or for an infant by their godparent.
Well, the terms 'Catholic' and 'Orthodox' were co-terminous then so the term both is redundant and the distinction only really becomes applicable after the Great Schism and even then the distinctions weren't particularly clear cut initially.
I think what you mean is that the Nicene-Chalcedonian (Constantinopolitan?) Creed was agreed by all the Patriarchates (including Rome). The groups that became non-Chalcedonian Orthodox didn't accept it though.
So what I think you are saying is that Rome gradually adopted the filioque clause, which had been in circulation in Western Europe for some time, and then insisted that the Patriarchates in the eastern part of Christendom should follow suit.
There's the rub. That's why it became contentious. Whatever the theological aspects of the debate the whole thing became politicised and a focus for a power struggle.
It's always struck me as being like one of those last straw type heated disagreements which precede a divorce. On the surface you can't see why it matters so much but it becomes symbolic of everything toxic in the relationship.
That's compromise on one party's part, but not on the other's.
I don't think I'd argue for theological or even liturgical compromise with other churches. We're other churches for a reason. (I'm actually not a fan of the Episcopal/Lutheran concordat, myself.) I think that, with our different theological and ecclesiastical understandings (who has Apostolic Succession? Who doesn't? Who might or might not but one side isn't sure? What are the doctrines surrounding the Sacraments? Etc.), we can still work together in areas of common ground, in charity, rather than water down what we believe.
Yes, I think that's right.
@Gramps49, I would agree with you but then I'm Orthodox not Roman Catholic.
@ChastMastr, yes, but the Orthodox would say that there is no need for them to compromise because they weren't in the wrong in the first place. Rome was perfectly happy with the original wording of the Nicene Creed. If they hadn't been they should have spoken up at the time instead of sneaking it in unilaterally later on and then trying to insist that that everyone else followed suit.
I'm perfectly happy to accept that there were a range of understandings and permutations during the Patristic period and that some 'eastern' figures like St Theodore of Tarsus Archbishop of Canterbury was more than happy to go along with it when he moved to Western Europe.
And if we take some of the Patristic quotes at face value from the RC source you cited then it seems that some of the Fathers didn't have an issue with it either.
I suspect @Twangist is right, as in a divorce, it is one of those issues and sources of contention that congealed over time.
What I'm saying - and I think @Gramps49 is on a similar page - is that the filioque clause doesn't add anything of value to the way we understand the Trinity and as various Protestant groups have dropped it and the Popes seem happy to waive it on occasion, then there isn't really much point in holding onto it.
That still begs the question as to whether it does any harm or whether, as @Barnabas62 has asked, it actually has any bearing on how we treat one another or live out the Gospel.
FWIW, and without wishing to cause offence to our RC friends here, I do think it has betokened a somewhat overweening attitude on the part of the Papacy at times, but that doesn't mean that the Eastern Patriarchates have always been squeaky clean.
But at least we've lifted the anathemas on both sides, although there's still a long way to go.
I agree with LC's statement, the less we say, the better. Let's just drop the phrase.
You may believe that, but Rome does not.
But given the fact that recent popes seem quite willing to say the Creed without the filioque, and given that Eastern Rite churches that do not say the filioque and yet are in communion with Rome, it does appear that Rome does not believe the filioque is at all necessary.
I'd have to read more about what Rome says on the matter, and about why it treats it as wise in most other situations. Just because Rome makes an exception for specific cases does not mean it has decided it is not an accurate, and from their POV fuller, description of the Trinity. (Whether one thinks they are right or wrong is another matter.) And I don't know what the 1.3 billion Roman Catholics would think if the church suddenly dropped it, either.
At the moment my own local Episcopal church uses it, at least in the services I have been to. (And the service I usually attend is Rite I anyway, with the thees and thous and such. (Regardless of the filioque, I assume/hope any new Prayer Book will include Rite I or something like it, and also--this drives me nuts--in the equivalent of Rite II, a modern-language version of the Prayer of Humble Access, and I've never understood why that's left out of Rite II, even as something optional...))
How would you compromise? Say it every other Sunday? Say only half of each word?
And fetishize it.
Ah, but we're talking about the advisability of dropping it, not whether it's accurate. There are a lot of things that are accurate that haven't been jammed into the Creed. They could remove it and still think it's accurate. Maybe that's the compromise.
This might not be something to compromise on. But bridges can still be built between different churches despite different doctrinal understandings.
Of course. Nobody is saying otherwise.
The devil, as they say 😉 is in the detail which is one of the reasons, sadly, that it takes us all so long to sort contentious issues out.
As @mousethief says, we can also tend to 'fetishise' the TruthTM or those things we hold as distinctives or non-negotiables.
Somehow we have to find a way through all of that. Some options have been suggested here on this particular issue. Some of us would be happy with those, others less so, others not at all.
Anyhow. You aren't RC and neither am I. So any speculation as to what impact dropping the filioque clause might have within the RCC is a matter for our RC friends.
As has been said, the Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome don't include the filioque clause. Various Popes have dropped it on occasion.
It's up to them whether they ditch it or retain it and yes, they've got a lot more on their plate to contend with - as indeed all Churches have. We've all got our internal problems.
Clerical pride on all sides is deeply unedifying.
I don't agree--people can discuss things without being a member of a particular group. Also, I'm part of the Western Catholic Christian tradition--i.e., Anglican, which as far as I and others with my view are concerned, is indeed Catholic, just not Roman, but still springs from the Roman Catholic Church. And you may not know this, but when I became a Christian, the church I chose was indeed the RCC, on the grounds that (as I understood at the time, at the age of 16, not knowing much about Eastern Orthodoxy) everything else broke away from it, so why not go to the original? I was baptized Roman Catholic and had Communion as a Roman Catholic, even winding up with a nun as a sort of catechism tutor because I kept asking questions the lay CCD teacher couldn't answer (it still baffles me that they'd never asked themselves those questions before themselves...). A few years later, I was concerned about/didn't agree with what I understood (at the time) to be the RCC's approach to the Papacy and to saintly devotions, so I wound up in the Episcopal Church--but for me it was and is critical that TEC is indeed Catholic in the sense of having definitively valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession*, and if I ever decided I had to leave TEC, then I would almost certainly go back to the RCC. So to me these are indeed live issues.
* It is my understanding that those also apply to Eastern Orthodoxy, and apparently one small Lutheran denomination in Latvia and Estonia which is barely known in the US. Not sure about the Coptics. Again, this is regards to definitively valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession, not that those cannot be present in other churches--God can do what He likes. I suppose it would also apply to at least some of the breakaway Anglican churches that split from TEC some years ago, too, though their attitude at least at the time seemed not very good to me, so I have gladly stuck with TEC after wrestling with what to do back in the 1990s. I definitely don't like the political crap which seems to have been involved though, and especially not the "culture war" stuff.
The Pope is only considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra as I understand it.
Has any Pope done so on this particular issue?
@ChastMastr - I'm not saying any of us shouldn't comment on the positions taken by Christian churches or traditions other than our own. Heck, I do that all the time.
What I'm saying is that this is an issue for the RCC to resolve - if indeed it thinks there is a need to do so. Besides, whatever you or I think about the matter, whether the RCC would consider Anglo-Catholics like yourself to have 'valid' orders, Apostolic Succession and the whole kit and caboodle is another issue for them to come to a position on themselves.
@Alan29 yes, clerical pride is an issue all ways round and does indeed apply on all sides.
Again though, it's all a matter of perspective. From an RCC (or Curia?) perspective the Orthodox position on this, and other matters, must appear obstinate, prideful and awkward. 'Why don't they just accept that we can't fathom the inner workings of the Trinity? Why bear these ancient grudges, why not leave it be and agree with us?'
From an Orthodox perspective it can come across as if the RCC authorities couldn't give a flying fart about the sensibilities of anyone else, Orthodox or Protestant, and should shut up and dance to their particular tune.
To 'historic' Protestant Churches like the Lutherans and the Anglicans (some of whom would see themselves as hybrid Catholic/Protestant or somewhere on a sliding scale between the two) then their 'take' on this will vary according to a range of factors and which end of the spectrum they are.
To 'non-conformist' Protestants thr whole thing will look pretty arcane and there won't be the same kind of concerns about creedal exactitude, Big T Tradition, sacramental validity and Apostolic Succession in a 'tactile' sense etc etc etc.
So whilst clerical pride is certainly a factor and cause of concern, it's only one of many tangled and thorny issues at play here.
If the RCC and Orthodox were ever to resolve their differences on this it still leaves the issue of the rest of Christendom. Some wouldn't even be aware of it as an issue in the first place, of course.
*I figure we're all jabbering, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and atheist alike.
Thats not at all how infallability works. But the Pope does have the authority to change it.
Thing is, none of us have a monopoly on pride, obstinacy and awkwardness. The Orthodox Church has it in spades, of course. 'You can be as ecumenical as you like, but only on our terms ...'
But then I've come across Quakers, Baptists and other non-conformists who have a kind of inverted pride or inverted snobbery about not being defined or confined by conciliar creedal statements and not having 'magical' sacraments or sacerdotalism and hocus pocus etc etc etc.
I've come across RCs who think everyone else is prideful, obstinate and awkward for not recognising the universal authority of the Pope.
I've come across Orthodox who think everyone else is prideful, obstinate and awkward for not allying themselves with one or other of the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions.
I don’t know how we all get round that.
We could parse this of course.
I am faithfully following the faith once revealed to the saints and ratified by those ecumenical councils my tribe recognises.
You are prideful, obstinate and awkward for not doing so or accepting additional councils that my tribe doesn't, or holding loosely to any of them or not holding to them at all.
With no offence intended to any atheists here, those without faith can be prideful, awkward and obstinate about that.
We are all prideful, awkward and obstinate. Somehow we've got to work through and deal with that.
Gamma G has suggested that it is a problem for the RCC to resolve. I would suggest that the RCC has resolved this by saying that the 'filioque' is a reasonable addition to the Nicene Creed ,but that it is also reasonable not to say it when reciting the Creed.
As far as I am aware, most of the breakaway Anglican churches are schismatic rather than heretical. so if they have managed to retain apostolic succession, they would continue to have it. We have only really got one of these in the UK, and it is small enough, < 20 congregations I think, that most people have never encountered it.
That's because you are RC not Orthodox. 😉
@mousethief has put the Orthodox position very well, proud, stubborn and awkward though it might be.
The filioque clause is not conciliar. It never has been and never will be unless a future Ecumenical Council decides otherwise.
The only way, from an Orthodox perspective, for this to be resolved is for the RCC to drop it. We've been around this loop several times now. No Pope or church council acting unilaterally has any right to alter the Creed.
End of story.
You seem to suggest that the issue is on the Orthodox side or those Protestant groups which agree with the Orthodox on this point. It isn't. The issue is on the Roman side.
That doesn't mean that there isn't scope for discussion and debate on the relations between the Persons of the Holy and Undivided Trinity.
Of course not.
We can all debate and discuss that.
But if ever there were to be rapprochement and some kind of organisational unity between the RCC and the Orthodox the Orthodox would insist on the clause being dropped.
I'm sorry but that's where we are on this one.
It doesn't mean we can't find common ground with the RCC altogether. There is plenty of common ground. But we ain't going to budge on this one.
Rome added the clause unilaterally. The onus is on Rome to either drop it or convince the rest of us to adopt it.
Our not having it isn't the aberration. The RCC having it is.
Meanwhile @Enoch, I think you are right on which churches the Anglicans would see as having valid Apostolic Succession. And yes, they would probably view break-away Anglican groups as schismatic rather than heretical. I believe I'm right in thinking that there is more than one such group here in the UK. Other Shipmates may know better.
Getting back to the original question of if and how other (Western) communions have approached the filioque, I have looked to see what I can find on Reformed/Presbyterian takes. Some decades ago, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), went through the process of amending our Book of Confessions to replace the older translation of the Nicene Creed with the International Consultation on English Texts’ translation. I recall the discussion at General Assembly and materials provided when the proposed amendment was submitted to the presbyteries noted issues surrounding the filioque and encouraged discussion about that, but also noted that proposed amendment wasn’t addressing the filioque issue.
The PC(USA)’s 1990 hymnal and 1993 edition of the Book of Common Worship had “who proceeds from the Father (and the Son) . . . ,” as a way of noting the issue. Our 2013 hymnal and the 2018 edition of the BCW lost the parentheses, presumably to give the text as it appears in the Book of Confessions.
Meanwhile, in 1992, representatives of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (now the World Communion of Reformed Churches) and of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as part of the Orthodox-Reformed Dialog, entered into an “Agreed Statement on the Holy Trinity.” That agreed statement included these provisions relating to the filioque: So, the Agreed Statement reflects the Orthodox understanding and quotes the Creed without the filioque, and uses the approach of “abides in the Son” and proceeds “through the Son” without explicitly rejecting the filioque.
In attempting to answer the question it raises other questions about what exactly is the 'Petrine ministry' which is not only theological, but also a historical, cultural and political topic which is best left undiscussed.
Ok. Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. It's a pity the RCC doesn't adopt this approach ... 😉
Apologies for using the term 'non-conformist" loosely. I am, of course, aware that it doesn't apply in a US context, or anywhere else outside England and Wales for that matter, although I'd be interested to hear how churches like the Baptists, for instance, are classified in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
I'm really not sure what term to use in an international context. 'Non-Anglican Protestants'? But where would that leave the Lutherans, for instance, who form the national church in Scandinavia and elsewhere? Or the Presbyterians in Scotland? Or Reformed Churches in Swiss cantons?
@BroJames - 'presumably it would be possible ...' Well yes, one would hope so. In reality though, for reasons @Alan29 and others have alluded to, it ain't going to happen anytime soon.
@Forthview - why is the nature of the Petrine ministry best left 'undiscussed'? Why should it be out of bounds? 'Come now let us reason together ...'
You know as well as I do that Rome understands that differently to both Orthodoxy and the Protestants. That's the nub of the issue here I think. The rest of us consider the Papacy/Curia overweening at times - "Tradition? I am Tradition.' - whilst we can be seen as not toeing the line and not acknowledging the full Petrine authority of the Pope.
As I've said before, there are Orthodox who'd be happy to accept the Pope as 'primus inter pares' but not 'Universal Pontiff.'
Whatever happened to his old title? Patriarch of the West? The Papacy ditched that one.
Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough. 😉
Seriously, though, there may be scope for another thread on the role of the Papacy.
The broadest break-downs as I usually hear them are: Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, or Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant. Among Protestants, there are the aforementioned churches of the Magisterial Reformation (Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed/Presbyterian) as opposed to churches of the Radical Reformation, such as Anabaptists. I also hear “churches of the Reformation” to describe the Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed and Anabaptists. “Evangelical Protestant” can describe a discernible subgroup of Protestants, as can “mainline” in the US. (But I realize “mainline,” which generally refers to a specific group of denominations, may not translate outside the US, in the same way as “nonconformist” doesn’t translate outside England and Wales. And there’s also the caveat of the traditional Lutheran use of “evangelical.”)
/tangent
As we have seen the papacy is happy to accept the validity of the point of view of those who reject the 'filioque' in the recitation of the Creed, but asks for a recognition of its historic point of view.
The term 'nonconformist' is rarely used in Scotland. Certainly until the early 20th Century the Church of Scotland was the 'established' Church but has been for over 100 years the 'National Church' There were many, too many groupings who were not part of the Church of Scotland,but who were basically Presbyterians but were rarely,if ever called 'nonconformists'
Though only Church of Scotland buildings were officially allowed to call themselves 'churches' this died out with the rise of so many 'relief' and independent groupings especially after the Disruption of 1843.
church and chapel came to mark the distinction between Protestant and Catholic groups, the name 'chapel' having been brought mainly into use by Irish immigrants. In Ireland only Protestant CofI buildings were called churches and Catholic buildings were called chapels.
It's not the sole factor in play here, of course but it is a factor.
From an Orthodox perspective it's essentially the Papacy's 'fault' that the filioque clause was adopted in the West in the first place. It's the role of the Papacy as much as the clause itself which is the bone of contention.
So it should be discussed.
@Nick Tamen, where did I say that being a Protestant church precludes it being a national one?
I live in Europe for Pete's Sake (ha! See what I did there?). I'm used to national churches.
@Forthview thanks for the info on the Scottish scene.
Both the Orthodox and the Catholics claim to be an essential part of the 'right believing,universal church. Both believe in Apostolic succession and both accept the Latin saying 'Ubi episcopus,ibi ecclesia (where the bishop is ,that is where the Church is).
Both accept that there is a Bishop of Rome and both accept that in the order of apostolic succession the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter who was given by Jesus a special mission to 'feed the sheep'. How that ministry has developed over the centuries has a politically motivated and historically motivated development. The core of it is just as the individual bishop is responsible for his flock,so the successor of Peter has the role of keeping together in one flock all the other bishops and their flocks. Anything else is historical and political and over time also cultural.
Historical,political,cultural and linguistic difficulties have caused difficulties over the centuries of Christian history, differences which still exist today also.
As individual Christians it should be our mission to seek for what unites, respecting the views of others and seeking respect for our own - and realising that our own views are often coloured by the society in which we live and the stories which are told in that society.
If this is the case regarding the Scandinavian Lutherans, it is news to me. I know that we have a concordat with a US Lutheran body, the ELCA, though I don’t think that was wise, but in order to do that there had to be some extra steps taken so that future ELCA clergy had to have Episcopal clergy involved.
I genuinely think the push for churches modifying what they believe to connect formally with other churches isn’t fair to any of them, and that we’d all be better off just trying to accept our differences in theology and ecclesiology, in mutual charity, and work together in areas of common ground.
But I think I misunderstood you, which may be due at least in part to how you worded things. On re-reading, I’m guessing what you meant was more along the lines of “I'm really not sure what term to use in an international context. 'Non-Anglican Protestants'? But where would that leave the non-Lutherans, for instance, in Scandinavia and elsewhere, where the national churches are Lutheran? Or the non-Presbyterians in Scotland? Or non-Reformed Churches in Swiss cantons?” Is that what you meant?
Personally, in an international context I wouldn’t try to distinguish between established/national churches and other churches. Such distinctions have little or no relevance outside the particular country, and no relevance I'm aware of in a discussion like this one.
I believe that the Church of Sweden, the Church of Norway, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Church of Iceland all claim to have apostolic succession.
Upthread, you asked, in so many words, if the pope had ever asserted the filioque clause. It appears Leo I may have affirmed it. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims several popes and councils affirmed it.
Yes, that's what I meant.
They may claim to, yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do, in my understanding of how it works. Maybe they do. It would be news to me, if so, but welcome news. (If I am not convinced of it, it doesn't mean ill will--the RCs don't accept that the Anglican churches have Apostolic Succession, but that doesn't mean they hate us or anything.)
(I assume PCs by @Enoch means RCs.)
It wasn’t @Nick Tamen, I think, but @Gamma Gamaliel, here
And thanks, @BroJames. I was trying to remember when I asked about it, and was quite willing to accept that I’d asked and then forgotten.
Well, yeah—is it ever more than “claim to have it”? Can any bishop in any church actually establish a “family tree” that traces back to one or more of the apostles?
All the churches that think apostolic succession matters claim to have it, and other churches to whom it matters either accept or reject those claims.
Well, as far as I am aware the Creeds don't stipulate particular views on those issues you mention.
The issue is conciliarity here. The Orthodox are strong on that. The corollary of that of course, is that we can suspect other churches of sitting very loosely on that, either in favour of individual opinion (Protestantism) or Papal diktat (Roman Catholicism).
The Orthodox take a different line to the RCs on divorce, by the way and a range of views are permissible on Hell.
The only thing we are real sticklers for is Creedal and conciliar belief.
Hence our intransigence on this particular issue. The Pope of Rome has no right to add anything to a Creed that was ratified universally (in Chalcedonian terms) by an Ecumenical Council.
As far as we are concerned any Pope who does that is acting outside of his remit and abusing his authority.
You won't find me digging my heels in on many things. I am digging my heels in on this one though.
That doesn't mean I'm some kind of Patristic fundamentalist. The Church Fathers came up with some pretty awful stuff, particularly in relation to Judaism.
@Forthview yes, except that historical, cultural and political issues can and do affect our theology. If a Pope insists on inserting a clause into the Creed that wasn't there in the first place, this is an historical cultural and political issue. It may have theological implications. It certainly has implications for how the Pope regards himself in relation to other bishops and hierarchs.
If other bishops and hierarchs, clergy and laity oppose the Pope on this issue then that too is an historical, cultural and political issue and may also have theological implications. At the very least it says something about their particular view of the Papacy namely that it too should be found by conciliar decisions and not act as if it can override them on a whim or to assert or impose their will on everyone else.