Orthodox-Catholic Commission to discuss primacy of the Pope at the meeting in October in Italy

The reason the Filioque is impossible to reconcile is simply because, retro-translated into Greek, it affirms a double beginnig (or two ?????).

But the mistake is in insisting that it must be retro-translated into Greek. As far as I know, the Catholic Church has never called for the Greek to include a translation of Filioque. What is important is that we share the same ideas, not the same words. The words are merely signs that point to the reality of the ideas. Since no two languages are identical in vocabulary, or even grammar, we have to accept the messy reality that sometimes we must use different words.

P.S. As an example of retro-translation problems, when I copied and pasted the quote above the Greek word "archai" came out in the "Preview "(and I am guessing also in the final post) as "?????" eventhough it appeared correctly in the "Your Reply" box. What gives?

but the reason the Filioque is impossible to reconcile is simply because, retro-translated into Greek, it affirms a double beginnig (or two αρχαί).

ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ

This makes it impossible to have one and the same text of the Creed.

Wiser minds than me have suggested the following:

"who proceeds from the Father and through the Son"

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt66.html

It does seem perfectly clear that the "filioque" itself, meaning the single word adition to the creed will have to go.

And this was the reason the 150 Fathers at the Second Ecumenical Council did not word it any other way and warned that any change essentially constituted "another faith," and therefore heresy.

And yet 300 years later at Nicea II, the Patriarch of Constantinople St. Tarasius saw fit to to greatly expand upon the Creed and to use the phrase "who proceeds from the Father through the Son" in that expansion.

"And yet 300 years later at Nicea II, the Patriarch of Constantinople St. Tarasius saw fit to to greatly expand upon the Creed and to use the phrase "who proceeds from the Father through the Son" in that expansion."

Well...the phrase in Greek is "διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ" "through the Son", but in Greek, "δια" never, ever, means "by" as in "by means of" but rather it means more like "channeling" (I know, I know, sounds terrible!) or like water through a pipe. Thus the Greek doesn't imply in any way an orgin of the HS unlike the Latin or even the English. The distinction isn't a fine one. Implying that the origin of the HS is in both the Father and the Son is heresy.

As for Pat. +Tarasius, his comment was made in the personal profession of faith, the like of which was and is made by all Patriarchs upon the announcing of their election. This was not an addition to nor a clarification of the Creed as determined by the Councils. I have seen articles arguing that this comment by the EP meant that the East and West were doctrinally/dogmaticly united on this concept. That's simply not true. It is true that a number of the Fathers used the term "διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ" when engaging in the always dangerous practice of speculating on the internal "nature" of the Most Holy Trinity, but their remarks and those of the EP were no more than theologoumenna, neither doctrine nor dogma. It has never been accepted by The Church in the East. As an aside, I personally happen to believe that "διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ" is likely a correct statement, but its not in the Creed and it is not what the Creed as determined by the Councils was speaking about.

Here's the problem. The "Filioque" addition to the Creed in any language does not say "διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ". Now it seems to me that it is disingenuous at best to say that the Creed as said in Latin with the "filioque" or in any translation which uses "proceeds from the Father and the Son" is simply a liturgical prayer like any other and its OK. The Creed is the Creed. It is a dogmatic expression of The Faith as established at Nicea and Constantinople. If the "creed" prayed in the West is simply a liturgical prayer, why has it been called the "Nicene Creed" for rather more than 1100 years? If the Latin "procedit" does not imply an origin and if what is prayed in the West "really" means "διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ", wouldn't it have been better to simply say that and not pretend that the clear words of the Western creed, whether in Latin, or English, or French or Spanish mean something other than what they say...and not pretend that the West is truly praying the Nicene Creed?

I'm all for a resolution of this issue between the East and the West, but the simple fact of the matter is that the only solution to this is to dump the filioque or pray, in the West, a form of creed which is neither dogmatic nor doctrinal but rather theologoumennon (which is not a bad thing, by the way), but everyone would need to understand that whoever prays that is saying something different and meaning something different from what the Councils determined was dogmatic. From what I have seen, this wouldn't have much effect on the Western people since the Creed seems to be prayed only at Sunday liturgies anyway, it having been dumped from other liturgies. I suppose there might be questions raised about lex orandi, lex credendi, but the liturgies are full of theologoumenna anyway.

Just a quick note, before I go to church.

the mistake is in insisting that it must be retro-translated into Greek

No, Father, the Creed should say one and the same thing in all languages.

The way it was formulated (san-Filioque) is unambiguous and dogmatically correct. It expresses the mode of existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit, not their relationship in the Divine Economy of our salvation.

There is no reason whatsoever to change it. The reason the Spanish clergy used it was for legitimate cause of eliminating Arian heresy there among the Visigoths, but that change should have been part of the expanded teaching and not an actual alteration of the Creed itself.

Or it should have been returned to the original and the only legitimate form (san-Filioque) once the threat of widespread Arian heresy disappeared.

The popes steadfastly refused to change the Creed for that reason all the way through the first part of the 11th century, and then only under threat by Frankish kings who have come to believe that the Greeks actually "dropped" the Filioque from the Creed. Such ignorance cannot possibly be the principle on which the Catholic Church should argue for the Filioque to be retained.

But once you drop the reasons used locally in Toledo and by Frankish zealots (both of which are inapplicable), the Church in the West will have to show cause why the Creed should be changed to express something other than the origin of the HS's divinity. And I don't believe there is a valid cause to show that the Creed is somehow 'deficient' and in need of alteration.

Thus the Greek doesn't imply in any way an orgin of the HS unlike the Latin or even the English. The distinction isn't a fine one. Implying that the origin of the HS is in both the Father and the Son is heresy.

The way the filioque has always been explained to me is as in the triangle diagrams in the article I linked. The procession from the Son stated in the filioque is something that comes through Him from the Father, and is what distinguishes the Spirit and His procession from the Son and His generation, so that we need not say like St. Cyril that we do not know what the difference is between procession and generation so that one is the Son and another the Spirit. In other words the Spirit is the Spirit, and not a Son, because he takes his origin in the Father and proceeds from the Father and from the Father through the Son.

I have seen articles arguing that this comment by the EP meant that the East and West were doctrinally/dogmaticly united on this concept.

I believe they were. The purpose of adding the section on the Holy Spirit was in the words I have heard to use scriptual testimony against Macedonius, who was denying the divinity of the Spirit. The specific words "who proceeds from the Father" were not just happily in Scripture, but also completely contradicted the Macedonian teaching, which was that the Holy Spirit was the first creature of the Son. Since that was the intent behind the words, its wrong to try to read more into them than that, or to use them to contradict the universal profession of the Fathers that the procession of the Holy Spirit did involve the Son, whether by "and" in the Latin West, or "through" in the Greek East, or to use them to claim a division in belief and understanding between East and West during the patristic times. Patriarch St. Tarsius' confession was merely one more witness of this union.

If the Latin "procedit" does not imply an origin and if what is prayed in the West "really" means "διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ", wouldn't it have been better to simply say that and not pretend that the clear words of the Western creed, whether in Latin, or English, or French or Spanish mean something other than what they say...and not pretend that the West is truly praying the Nicene Creed?

Maybe it would have. But the Latin West (and the Persian East) was using the formula "proceeds from the Father and the Son" before the Council of Constantinople. E.g. the statements of St. Ambrose on this topic.

From what I have seen, this wouldn't have much effect on the Western people since the Creed seems to be prayed only at Sunday liturgies anyway, it having been dumped from other liturgies.

The Nicene Creed was not dumped. Rather, it was added to the Roman Sunday and Holy Day Mass very late. The normative Western Credal statement is the Apostles Creed, as seen by its daily use in the Divine Office and its confession at Baptism in the Roman Rite.

I suppose there might be questions raised about lex orandi, lex credendi

If the act of changing the Creed at the Western Mmass were accompanied by reunion with the East, I think relatively little explanation would be required.

I daresay that "procedit" was being used in the Vetus Latina version of Scripture long before was given its technical definition by the Cappdocian Fathers. And before "ekporeuomenon" was written, the Aramaic word "npq" was uttered by Jesus in the actual discourse, which means "to go out from" and is more similar to "procedit" than to "ekporeuomenon".

Nothing was used in Latin prior to Greek, because liturgical Latin was based on Greek. Besides, the ekporeuomenon was used by the Ecumenical Councils and that in itself overrides any prior usage of any other form.

It is this perceived 'thumbing' by the West at Ecumenical Councils that the Orthodox find most objectionable. Local churches and individual fathers, no matter what dignity they have, cannot change or ignore the Ecumenical Councils. They are normative.

Thus, unless one can show that there is cause to alter the Creed, as it was formulated at the 2nd Ecumenical Council and affirmed in all subsequent Councils up to the 11th century, the entire Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is bound to use the Creed as formulated by the undivided Church.

This doesn't mean that Filioque cannot be taught, as long as we understand that it doesn't express the existence of the Holy Spirit, which is what the Creed does express, for as for His existence He only proceeds from the Father, as for His existence the Son is only begotten from the Father.

Nothing was used in Latin prior to Greek, because liturgical Latin was based on Greek. Besides, the ekporeuomenon was used by the Ecumenical Councils and that in itself overrides any prior usage of any other form.

That isn't what I said though.

I said the Latin speaking part of the Church (Italy, Africa, Gaul, Iberia, Dalmatia, Illyria, Britain) was using the Vetus Latina version of scriptures with the word "procedit" at St. John 15.26 for hundreds of years, elaborating Latin pneumatology around the word procedit, prior to the Cappadocians and Constantinople I giving the word "ekporeuomenon" a precise definition, equating it to the eternal generation of the Son.

Its strange to call "thumbing" the theologizing being done for 200 years prior to a Council being held and almost 75 years subsequent to its acts being widely promulgated in the west. How can one "thumb" at something one has never heard?

Similarly, the reaction of the West in its continued profession of the filioque, and its almost immediate insertion into creedal formulas (the Council of Toledo adopted it in AD 447, and the "Athanasian Creed" was drawn up about the same time) was mirrored in Persia, where a similarly somewhat ambiguous word "npq" was used in St. John 15.26. Upon being given the Nicene Creed for adoption, the Church in Persia also felt it necessary to prfess the filioque, doing both in the Council of Seleucia in AD 410.

What it appears is that the precise definition of the Cappadocians produced some confusion both in Rome and Persia when compared to the theology that was taught in both places, and that to both, it appeared that the state "and the Son" was implicit within the confession "who proceeds from the Father", because they had always taught that, and therefore it was quite natural to add it, and even later, to suppose the Greeks had removed it.

Andrew, brother, I understand what you are saying, but once the Church defines it precisely, the local churches should follow, don't you think?

Did +Paul not write epistles to vairous churches that were not keeping the orthodox line? Different churches also considered different books inspired, but once the Church as a whole defined the canon all churches, whether they agreed or not should have followed.

In that regard the East is no less to be faulted than the west. For instance, Constantinople considered the revelation of John "questionable" way into the 8th century!

The difference is that the East was eventually brought to comply and include the Revelation of John whereas the West refused to correct itself even though the popes were against it.

Toledo inserted "and the Son" more than a hundred years after the Creed was proclaimed. Can there really be any excuse for that?

At the next General Council the Spanish did not mention that they changed it, nor did they petition that it ought to be changed.

St. John 15.26 is something that is part of the Divine Economy of our salvation, and not How the Holy Spiris is, as regards His own existence.

The ekporeuomenon of the Creed goes beyond the Divine Economy of our salvation, and reaches as the very essence of the the Son's and Spirit's eternal existence: namely that the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit, as regards His existence, eternally proceeds from the Father.

I am sure the Spanish clerics understood that quite clearly.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.