Honestly, as a Latin Catholic, I'd be fine with dropping the filioque, and I think it'd be a very good thing for ecumenism and reunification with the Eastern Orthodox (yes, I know that *technically* it's now a resolved matter on paper, but still). I actually see this as the best option all around.
All it would take is a bull from the Pope of Rome saying "We authoritatively declare that the recitation of the filioque in the creed is now suppressed. The Catholic Church maintains her theological position on the Doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit, and this disciplinary directive should not be construed as a reversal of teaching or anything thereabouts. Also, the use of the filioque in artistic liturgical contexts (Classic settings for Masses and other choral arrangements from the past) are permitted." Easy peasy, lemon sqeezy.
Drop the filioque, and then we can tackle the big prize: restoring the discipline of administering the sacraments to align with the Eastern (and actually traditional) arrangement of Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, and Eucharist together from birth. The whole "age of reason" thing makes no sense theologically, and was clearly just something convenient Saint Pius X used to justify his reform of sacramental communion practices. When I go to Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy and my friend's toddler can receive Jesus in the Eucharsit, but my toddler can't, you feel just how wrong this practice is practically and theologically.
Is it resolved on paper? Every time I've talked with an Orthodox (which hasn't been often) they make a point about that. And about Uniatism (their word). And about purgatory. And about the papacy. And about...
Lots.of thing are passed.around in Orthodoxy,especially among the hyper-dox and zealots.
Many of their lay faithful remember what Yaya or Baba told them more than anything they got in Church school.
Their hierarchs don't want to rock the boat with talk about the filioque.
They rarely speak pastorally about how an Orthodox and Catholic married couple can live out their faith which is expressed differently but that there is more that unites instead of divides our two Churches.
My favourite anti-Ecumenical event was that 87 page letter from two Greek Orthodox bishops in April 2014. They urged Pope Francis to repent of his many errors and convert to Orthodoxy. Then there was that humiliating fiasco in Bucharest where the Romanian Orthodox patriarch quite correctly refused to even say the Lord's Prayer with PF. And Pope Francis declares that it is a grave error to try to convert any Orthodox. Reunion is an unbelievably long way off.
Thanks for a thought provoking comment Matthew. My immediate reaction was recalling the words of that great theologian Humpty Dumpty who famously declared that when he used a word it meant anything he meant it to mean. If the words of the Creed can be amended anytime, it sends a very bad message, pastorally and psychologically. It is far worse than having Mass in another language and we have had 60 years of wrangling over Latin. Ditto if you can just abandon the "age of reason" reasoning....or lack of reasoning.
Try explaining this change to your average Joe and Josephine in the pew. They probably already have accepted for years that sodomy is AOK, Fiducia Supplicans confirms that the Pope has finally caught up to the 21st century and this "age of reason" change further confirms that our clergy, ancient and modern, are beyond clueless.
Other Christians endow certain practices with huge significance. One obvious example is the bitter split between the Russian Orthodox and the Old Believers which runs to this day. Look at the reasons behind that, which look ridiculously trivial to most Catholics.
The article states that "The Catechism says that Pope Leo I, who led the Church 440 from 461, had 'confessed [the Filioque] dogmatically' in the year 447".
Exactly. The recitation of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed has been adjusted at several points throughout Church History, primarily as a matter of discipline to address some theological matter in the Church. Leo’s profession at the Toledo Synod is one example.
That said, not retaining the Filioque in the recitation of the Creed is not necessarily a reversal of dogma, because such a change is a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine.
The discipline of what is recited in the Creed is not the same thing as the various dogmatic teachings posited in the Creed.
Just fyi age of reason is not that new at all. Baptism and confirmation were separated in the west over a thousand years prior as the west chose to emphasize apostolic succession with confirmation retained by bishops and east chose to emphasize unity of sacraments of initiation. This was as t he church grew too large for bishop to attend every baptism.
St Pius the X moved first communion EARLIER to age of reason bc custom had become 12ish or some foolish bound up with heresies of “never good enough to receive Eucharist” that also meant nobody ever went to communion at weekly mass.
Before SPx, babies weren’t being confirmed in the west . Not since early hundreds.
Great job, Luke. Solid research, as always. I smiled at the irony of the statement:
"The Catechism says that Pope Leo I, who led the Church 440 from 461, had “confessed [the Filioque] dogmatically” in the year 447, following “an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition.”
Since creedal formulas were rarely recited (except at Councils) in the early Church. The first five Ecumenical Councils never obliged that the Symbols be recited at a Sunday Mass. They were confessions, in the early Church, of the orthodoxy and unity of bishops when they gathered.
The Creed is in the Gelasian Missal (in Latin), for the baptism rite. It does *not* have the filioque clause. As you correctly point out, the filioque clause was added in the liturgical missals a century or two later.
From what I understand, several trends led to the adoption of the filioque clause. I wasn't aware the Pope had endorsed it in the fifth century. There were also regional episcopal councils that adopted the filioque as a defense of Christ's divinity. During the time of Charlemagne, there was a push to popularize the use of the filioque in the Creed as it was published in some of the Latin Rite Missals. While there was sound theological basis for the use of the filioque in the West, some historians say Charlemagne pushed for its wide adoption in order to bring Rome into Charlemagne's political orbit, and away from the influence of Constantinople.
Like it or not, the filioque is not really about doctrine.
It is about authority.
Did some of the Iberian bishops have the authority to add to the Creed in their fight against Arianism?
Pope Leo III, who defended the filioque, saw fit to have the Creed, without the addition, engraved on silver tablets in both Latin and Greek. He had these hung on either side of the altar in old St. Peter's.
He did this out of solicitude for the Eastern part of the Church and seemingly acknowledging that an ecumenical Creed could only be revised by an Ecumenical Council.
While he made great claims for the authority of the papacy over the whole Church, he was wise enough not to tamper with the Creed that still united both sides of the one Church.
It was Benedict VIII who added the filioque in the Creed that began to be recited in the Roman Liturgy in 1014.
He did this at the request of Henry II who came to Rome for coronation as "holy, Roman Emperor."
Basically Benedict VIII "owed" Henry this because Henry restored Benedict to the papal chair after the anti pope Gregory VI tried to usurp the chair.
Politics won out over traditional eccesiology.
The bottom line is the issue of papal authority.
Does the pope have the authority to change the Creed of the undivided Church at his whim? Hyperpapalists say he does have this authority.
While the filioque has been something that has been "solved" on paper, it is not agreed upon that it should be inserted.
The first Ecumenical Council of Ephesus stated in Canon 7 that no one was to create a new creed or add or subtract to the conciliar one. In the same Canon it was stated that if the one changing the Creed was a bishop, he should be deposed and if a layman anathematized.
The N-C Creed, the product of two Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, can only be changed by another Ecumenical Council of the undivided Church.
The Latin Church would say the pope can do as he pleases being the vicar of Christ and the whole Church should follow along.
The Orthodox teach that the bishop of Rome does not have this authority without consent of the the Latin and Eastern bishops gathered in Council.
We should be fair to the bishops of the West in the first millenium. The Fathers of the Eastern Church looked at their local region and their predecessors for inspiration when they wrote. So distinctive theological schools arose in different regions in the East (Cappadocia, Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch).
In the West, especially on Trinitarian issues, there was a greater tendency for the bishops to speak with one voice, and to take a firm view on Christology. The Eastern bishops took pride in their original thinking, the Western bishops took pride in their unity on issues of high Christology.
In adopting the filoque, the western bishops were not thinking, "oh they are wrong." They were thinking, "the eastern bishops did not go far enough."
We should all pray for a healing of the division between the orthodox and catholic confessions.
As mentioned above, who has the authority to add to the Creed?
It's a very simple answer.
An ecumenical Creed can only be altered by an Ecumenical Council of both the Eastern and Western Churches since it is meant to be what unites the Churches instead of dividing them. That was the original purpose of Creeds.
Keep in mind too that the West also added "God from God" when there is already the statement, "light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made of one essences with the Father." We were better of in this one case to use the old translation, "one in being with the Father. Words like "Consubstantial' and "preveniant grace" (Mass for the Immaculate Conception) do not catechize or foster understanding, they just confuse, no matter how many times one explains the meanings
Why repeat the two statements?
It could be a copyist's error or deliberate but why?
The phrase "God from God" is not in the original Greek.
If this is , in fact, the very simple answer, it should not be in the Creed. I would understand that you are a priest from prior comments. So if you believe this very simple answer - do you recite the filoque in Mass? If so , how do you satisfy your conscience? This is a sincere question, not a gotcha.
Seems like a good argument to me - if creedal assertion in the Liturgy is optional, why is not a liturgical posture of the celebrant optional. Will be interested to hear any rebuttal. By the way, this shows over-optionality can itself become problematic.
Because one (the creed) has been given to bishops to decide by the universal Church and by the sui iuris Church, and one (the posture of the celebrant) has specifically been withheld from the bishop's decision by the sui iuris Church with the support of the universal Church. Simple as that.
Thank God Father SonHoly Spirit in fact of Incarnation Carnality Car ne Carnivale Mardi Gras etc "Verbum Caro Factum est" Life was lived by Mother and "the other" two in Nazareth "about 30 years" BC 24-24 AD Greece Rome Jerusalem - 2000 years ago when Vernal Equinox was March 21/22 -and Still is as Men and women grappledwith the same Tissue Issue as did "OCTOMOM" of frozen Embryo dilema Nadia Suleiman California 2000-2004. She was not voted " most Pro life Mom of 14 " (why ? ) I think, those who "vote" on social Media on such matters, know that Patrimony Patriarchy and Patronage of an "In The House" "In your face daddy" is still preferred ( by Grandparents over 80) to a "early childhood State funded " headstart " managed by Ph D' MD Psychiatrists with no children of their own
The last time Rome and Constantinople came to an agreement at the Council of Florence-Firenze they agreed that the west could use it and the east could omit it. They agreed that both sides could do things differently. They also agreed that the west would send troops to defend the city from the Turks. Obviously didn't happen. Some say it was never received in the east, some say it was, but once Constantinople fell the Turks saw to it that it was no longer received. At any rate, reunion would be a good thing.
Good heavens! So much tension and disunity over such a small matter. Doesn’t the Church have bigger fish to fry than this? Would giving the Eastern Bishops the authority over this damage the Church more than the scandal of sexual abuse and inner fighting over words that don’t necessarily change the over all doctrine of the Church? Doesn’t the devil love all of the negativity the Church presents to the secular world.
In case anyone besides me wondered, ChatGPT explains:
In the context of "Mar Joseph Perumthottam," "Mar" is a title used in certain Christian traditions, particularly in the Syriac Christian churches. It is akin to "Saint" or "Lord" and is often used as a form of address or honorific for bishops, saints, or other revered figures within those traditions. So, in the case of "Mar Joseph Perumthottam," "Mar" would likely signify a person of high religious standing, possibly a bishop or saint named Joseph Perumthottam.
I imagine that much popular reaction to enforced change is less an objection to the change itself and much more to the enforcing. Maintaining tradition is maintaining continuity, whereas breaking the one is breaking the other. In these times, progressives, for whom continuity is of little if any importance, insist on breaking things liberally, and progressives are in charge.
Filioque in Latin, but not in Greek. Makes sense to me--but then we have other language traditions, influenced by both. Hmmmm.
Honestly, as a Latin Catholic, I'd be fine with dropping the filioque, and I think it'd be a very good thing for ecumenism and reunification with the Eastern Orthodox (yes, I know that *technically* it's now a resolved matter on paper, but still). I actually see this as the best option all around.
All it would take is a bull from the Pope of Rome saying "We authoritatively declare that the recitation of the filioque in the creed is now suppressed. The Catholic Church maintains her theological position on the Doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit, and this disciplinary directive should not be construed as a reversal of teaching or anything thereabouts. Also, the use of the filioque in artistic liturgical contexts (Classic settings for Masses and other choral arrangements from the past) are permitted." Easy peasy, lemon sqeezy.
Drop the filioque, and then we can tackle the big prize: restoring the discipline of administering the sacraments to align with the Eastern (and actually traditional) arrangement of Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, and Eucharist together from birth. The whole "age of reason" thing makes no sense theologically, and was clearly just something convenient Saint Pius X used to justify his reform of sacramental communion practices. When I go to Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy and my friend's toddler can receive Jesus in the Eucharsit, but my toddler can't, you feel just how wrong this practice is practically and theologically.
Is it resolved on paper? Every time I've talked with an Orthodox (which hasn't been often) they make a point about that. And about Uniatism (their word). And about purgatory. And about the papacy. And about...
Lots.of thing are passed.around in Orthodoxy,especially among the hyper-dox and zealots.
Many of their lay faithful remember what Yaya or Baba told them more than anything they got in Church school.
Their hierarchs don't want to rock the boat with talk about the filioque.
They rarely speak pastorally about how an Orthodox and Catholic married couple can live out their faith which is expressed differently but that there is more that unites instead of divides our two Churches.
My favourite anti-Ecumenical event was that 87 page letter from two Greek Orthodox bishops in April 2014. They urged Pope Francis to repent of his many errors and convert to Orthodoxy. Then there was that humiliating fiasco in Bucharest where the Romanian Orthodox patriarch quite correctly refused to even say the Lord's Prayer with PF. And Pope Francis declares that it is a grave error to try to convert any Orthodox. Reunion is an unbelievably long way off.
Thanks for a thought provoking comment Matthew. My immediate reaction was recalling the words of that great theologian Humpty Dumpty who famously declared that when he used a word it meant anything he meant it to mean. If the words of the Creed can be amended anytime, it sends a very bad message, pastorally and psychologically. It is far worse than having Mass in another language and we have had 60 years of wrangling over Latin. Ditto if you can just abandon the "age of reason" reasoning....or lack of reasoning.
Try explaining this change to your average Joe and Josephine in the pew. They probably already have accepted for years that sodomy is AOK, Fiducia Supplicans confirms that the Pope has finally caught up to the 21st century and this "age of reason" change further confirms that our clergy, ancient and modern, are beyond clueless.
Other Christians endow certain practices with huge significance. One obvious example is the bitter split between the Russian Orthodox and the Old Believers which runs to this day. Look at the reasons behind that, which look ridiculously trivial to most Catholics.
ok, pal
Bravo!
The article states that "The Catechism says that Pope Leo I, who led the Church 440 from 461, had 'confessed [the Filioque] dogmatically' in the year 447".
No takebacks for dogmatic declarations, right?
Exactly. The recitation of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed has been adjusted at several points throughout Church History, primarily as a matter of discipline to address some theological matter in the Church. Leo’s profession at the Toledo Synod is one example.
That said, not retaining the Filioque in the recitation of the Creed is not necessarily a reversal of dogma, because such a change is a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine.
The discipline of what is recited in the Creed is not the same thing as the various dogmatic teachings posited in the Creed.
Just fyi age of reason is not that new at all. Baptism and confirmation were separated in the west over a thousand years prior as the west chose to emphasize apostolic succession with confirmation retained by bishops and east chose to emphasize unity of sacraments of initiation. This was as t he church grew too large for bishop to attend every baptism.
St Pius the X moved first communion EARLIER to age of reason bc custom had become 12ish or some foolish bound up with heresies of “never good enough to receive Eucharist” that also meant nobody ever went to communion at weekly mass.
Before SPx, babies weren’t being confirmed in the west . Not since early hundreds.
Great job, Luke. Solid research, as always. I smiled at the irony of the statement:
"The Catechism says that Pope Leo I, who led the Church 440 from 461, had “confessed [the Filioque] dogmatically” in the year 447, following “an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition.”
Since creedal formulas were rarely recited (except at Councils) in the early Church. The first five Ecumenical Councils never obliged that the Symbols be recited at a Sunday Mass. They were confessions, in the early Church, of the orthodoxy and unity of bishops when they gathered.
The Creed is in the Gelasian Missal (in Latin), for the baptism rite. It does *not* have the filioque clause. As you correctly point out, the filioque clause was added in the liturgical missals a century or two later.
From what I understand, several trends led to the adoption of the filioque clause. I wasn't aware the Pope had endorsed it in the fifth century. There were also regional episcopal councils that adopted the filioque as a defense of Christ's divinity. During the time of Charlemagne, there was a push to popularize the use of the filioque in the Creed as it was published in some of the Latin Rite Missals. While there was sound theological basis for the use of the filioque in the West, some historians say Charlemagne pushed for its wide adoption in order to bring Rome into Charlemagne's political orbit, and away from the influence of Constantinople.
Like it or not, the filioque is not really about doctrine.
It is about authority.
Did some of the Iberian bishops have the authority to add to the Creed in their fight against Arianism?
Pope Leo III, who defended the filioque, saw fit to have the Creed, without the addition, engraved on silver tablets in both Latin and Greek. He had these hung on either side of the altar in old St. Peter's.
He did this out of solicitude for the Eastern part of the Church and seemingly acknowledging that an ecumenical Creed could only be revised by an Ecumenical Council.
While he made great claims for the authority of the papacy over the whole Church, he was wise enough not to tamper with the Creed that still united both sides of the one Church.
It was Benedict VIII who added the filioque in the Creed that began to be recited in the Roman Liturgy in 1014.
He did this at the request of Henry II who came to Rome for coronation as "holy, Roman Emperor."
Basically Benedict VIII "owed" Henry this because Henry restored Benedict to the papal chair after the anti pope Gregory VI tried to usurp the chair.
Politics won out over traditional eccesiology.
The bottom line is the issue of papal authority.
Does the pope have the authority to change the Creed of the undivided Church at his whim? Hyperpapalists say he does have this authority.
While the filioque has been something that has been "solved" on paper, it is not agreed upon that it should be inserted.
The first Ecumenical Council of Ephesus stated in Canon 7 that no one was to create a new creed or add or subtract to the conciliar one. In the same Canon it was stated that if the one changing the Creed was a bishop, he should be deposed and if a layman anathematized.
The N-C Creed, the product of two Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, can only be changed by another Ecumenical Council of the undivided Church.
The Latin Church would say the pope can do as he pleases being the vicar of Christ and the whole Church should follow along.
The Orthodox teach that the bishop of Rome does not have this authority without consent of the the Latin and Eastern bishops gathered in Council.
We should be fair to the bishops of the West in the first millenium. The Fathers of the Eastern Church looked at their local region and their predecessors for inspiration when they wrote. So distinctive theological schools arose in different regions in the East (Cappadocia, Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch).
In the West, especially on Trinitarian issues, there was a greater tendency for the bishops to speak with one voice, and to take a firm view on Christology. The Eastern bishops took pride in their original thinking, the Western bishops took pride in their unity on issues of high Christology.
In adopting the filoque, the western bishops were not thinking, "oh they are wrong." They were thinking, "the eastern bishops did not go far enough."
We should all pray for a healing of the division between the orthodox and catholic confessions.
As mentioned above, who has the authority to add to the Creed?
It's a very simple answer.
An ecumenical Creed can only be altered by an Ecumenical Council of both the Eastern and Western Churches since it is meant to be what unites the Churches instead of dividing them. That was the original purpose of Creeds.
Keep in mind too that the West also added "God from God" when there is already the statement, "light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made of one essences with the Father." We were better of in this one case to use the old translation, "one in being with the Father. Words like "Consubstantial' and "preveniant grace" (Mass for the Immaculate Conception) do not catechize or foster understanding, they just confuse, no matter how many times one explains the meanings
Why repeat the two statements?
It could be a copyist's error or deliberate but why?
The phrase "God from God" is not in the original Greek.
If this is , in fact, the very simple answer, it should not be in the Creed. I would understand that you are a priest from prior comments. So if you believe this very simple answer - do you recite the filoque in Mass? If so , how do you satisfy your conscience? This is a sincere question, not a gotcha.
Seems like a good argument to me - if creedal assertion in the Liturgy is optional, why is not a liturgical posture of the celebrant optional. Will be interested to hear any rebuttal. By the way, this shows over-optionality can itself become problematic.
Because one (the creed) has been given to bishops to decide by the universal Church and by the sui iuris Church, and one (the posture of the celebrant) has specifically been withheld from the bishop's decision by the sui iuris Church with the support of the universal Church. Simple as that.
Thank God Father SonHoly Spirit in fact of Incarnation Carnality Car ne Carnivale Mardi Gras etc "Verbum Caro Factum est" Life was lived by Mother and "the other" two in Nazareth "about 30 years" BC 24-24 AD Greece Rome Jerusalem - 2000 years ago when Vernal Equinox was March 21/22 -and Still is as Men and women grappledwith the same Tissue Issue as did "OCTOMOM" of frozen Embryo dilema Nadia Suleiman California 2000-2004. She was not voted " most Pro life Mom of 14 " (why ? ) I think, those who "vote" on social Media on such matters, know that Patrimony Patriarchy and Patronage of an "In The House" "In your face daddy" is still preferred ( by Grandparents over 80) to a "early childhood State funded " headstart " managed by Ph D' MD Psychiatrists with no children of their own
Also, I believe when the Roman Mass is celebrated in the Greek language, the original version of the Creed is used.
The last time Rome and Constantinople came to an agreement at the Council of Florence-Firenze they agreed that the west could use it and the east could omit it. They agreed that both sides could do things differently. They also agreed that the west would send troops to defend the city from the Turks. Obviously didn't happen. Some say it was never received in the east, some say it was, but once Constantinople fell the Turks saw to it that it was no longer received. At any rate, reunion would be a good thing.
Good heavens! So much tension and disunity over such a small matter. Doesn’t the Church have bigger fish to fry than this? Would giving the Eastern Bishops the authority over this damage the Church more than the scandal of sexual abuse and inner fighting over words that don’t necessarily change the over all doctrine of the Church? Doesn’t the devil love all of the negativity the Church presents to the secular world.
In case anyone besides me wondered, ChatGPT explains:
In the context of "Mar Joseph Perumthottam," "Mar" is a title used in certain Christian traditions, particularly in the Syriac Christian churches. It is akin to "Saint" or "Lord" and is often used as a form of address or honorific for bishops, saints, or other revered figures within those traditions. So, in the case of "Mar Joseph Perumthottam," "Mar" would likely signify a person of high religious standing, possibly a bishop or saint named Joseph Perumthottam.
Me Pope, your boss. Obey me or God punish you.
I imagine that much popular reaction to enforced change is less an objection to the change itself and much more to the enforcing. Maintaining tradition is maintaining continuity, whereas breaking the one is breaking the other. In these times, progressives, for whom continuity is of little if any importance, insist on breaking things liberally, and progressives are in charge.