The Catholic Catechism is quite clear that the Orthodox view and the filioque are quite compatible since the Father is the primary source of all. If it takes me not saying a few words to help end a schism that has been the shame of the Body of Christ for a millenium, I'll do that. After all there are plenty of truths we don't say in the Creed. If the hierarchy of the Church accepts such a suggestion and the Vatican gives it its OK -- who am I a simple non-theologically educated layman to disagree, let alone go crazy in my opposition. There is nothing wrong with taking actions do avoid disputes between the brothers and sisters, witness the Council of Jerusalem.
"If it takes me not saying a few words to help end a schism that has been the shame of the Body of Christ for a millenium, I'll do that."
Not just "not saying" it--in the midst of my "going crazy," I conceded the liturgical angle, more or less.
The recommendation also requires not teaching it. A complete jettison.
Furthermore, despite what the Catechism says (yes, I have read it), it is clear that there is no *Orthodox* consensus that the Western and Eastern formulations confess the same mystery. We can say its compatible all day long, but if they don't agree, you are standing in square one at sundown.
"There is nothing wrong with taking actions do avoid disputes between the brothers and sisters, witness the Council of Jerusalem."
All very well and good, but you can't do so by surrendering your own position.
The filioque isn't the stumbling block here, and dumping it won't bridge the gap. The real theological (as opposed to practical) issue is the Papacy and its authority, with the secondary issue being the status of the post-split Catholic councils and their canons. Finessing "and the Son" out of existence alters the position of the deck chairs by a few feet.
Dale, I'm probably against removing the filioque from the Creed. However, I don't see where the recommendations speak of anything like "not teaching it" - "A complete jettison."
They do include declaring a Conciliar condemnation no longer applicable - in light of growing consensus. That doesn't mean declaring it wrong. It just means acknowledging that the position it condemns is not necessarily the position actually held by our Orthodox dialogue partners.
Kevin:
My thought is this: "and the Son" is centrally a creedal statement. Removing it from the creed is a momentous act. Again, I think Catholics can justify it liturgically, and with some qualms I can sign on, although not praying it in the Mass is not something that Western Catholics should regard lightly.
However, the Recommendations state that *only* the Creed of 381 be used for *catechetical* purposes.
I don't see a functional difference between deleting the filioque from creeds used in catechesis and "not teaching it." I shudder to think how this recommendation will be misused.
Your point about the condemnation is good food for thought. It squares with the reconciliation with the "monophysite" Eastern Churches, and also the JD on Justification. I guess I need to see where the Orthodox position varies with Lyons.
Dale:
I understand your concern here; however, I must ask if you have read the filioque deliberations at Florence. A good summary of the situation can be read HERE. Considering all the talk about "principles" and "spirations" involved, I can see why not bringing up the subject in catechesis makes sense. (This is a subject because of its complexities which belongs to the realm of theological study beyond simple catechesis.)
For my money, the solution is clear and both sides should recognize it. The solution is that the Creed should be amended to alter the text from "and the Son" to "through the Son." Since Florence already recognized this as expressing the same doctrine as the current western formulation -and since the Easterns have long recognized this as the teaching of their own divines from as early as the fourth century- there should be no problem whatsoever from a practical standpoint to making this agreed upon adjustment in both traditions.
Dale,
To get into even dicier territory: it turns out after all these years of saying "and the Son" it left in my mind an impression which I find out after looking at the that the Son was a separate source so to speak of the Holy Spirit. This was reinforced by the use of analogy that the Holy Spirit represented the love of the first two persons for each other. I do not know if others had this impression but imagine my dismay when I read the Second General Council of Lyons Constitution onf the Blessed Trinity and On the Catholic Faith:
"We confess faithfully and devoutly that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Father and Son, not as from two principles but from one, not by two spirations but by one only. This the holy Roman Church, the mother and teacher of all the faithful, has so far professed preached and taught; this she continues to hold to preach, to profess and to teach. This is the unchangeable and true doctrine of the orthodox Fathers and Doctors both Latin and Greek. However, some have fallen in into various errors out of ignorance of the aove indisputable truth. Therefore in order to forestall such errors, with the approval of the holy Council we condemn those who presume to deny that Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Father and Son, or who rashly dare to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son as from two principles, not from one."
I'm thinking that our teaching or at least the pedogogy on which I was brought up, and I suspect many others, led us out of ignoranceto rashly assert, or at least believe, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son as from two principles not one.
One final note: the Council of Florence's Decree for the Greeks defines: "that the explanatory words'Filioque' have been added in the Symbol legitimately and with good reason for the sake of clarifying the truth and under the impact of a real need at that time"
Maybe the removal of the filioque would actually have a beneficial pedagogical effect on future Catholics or for those of us who have we have gone to far in the other direction and maybe we need a new explanatory phrase ". . .and from the Son but not from two principles but from one, not by two spirations but by one only."
(Total aside: From the attackers of Vatican II you would think that the idea of responding to a real need "at that time" was an idea invented in the early 1960's not used explicitly in 1439.)
J.J.
I would like to believe that the condemnations are "no longer in effect" because the Eastern Orthodox no longer reject the truths taught at Florence and Lyons. This would be a generous (and comforting) interpretation of the committee's recommendations. I have to say, however, from my own conversations with Eastern Orthodox Xians that this interpretation is not plausible.
I am sure that there are some Orthodox believers who hold to the faith of the Florentine and Lyonine fathers, but there are quite a lot who do not; I do not see how we can say that the concilar condemnation no longer applies to these folks without saying "whoops, I guess we were wrong; Lyons II was not an ecumenical council after all." Once we start down that road, I do not know where we can stop.
Commenting by HaloScan
