Talk:Filioque clause
|
|
Pjacobi 11:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What does exactly mean "proceeds from the Father and the Son"?
This must have been a source of heated theological debate where we barely understand even the question nowadays.
Could somebody elaborate this a bit please?
sure. will do when I get some time this (Eastern Daylight Time) afternoon. It's a big topic.
is 'heresy' npov? Only if you're accusing someone of it. The term itself becomes merely descriptive, like 'schism', of groups which are not part of the larger church. You can, if you like, refer to them as 'Arian Christians,' but they were a separate body and recognized themselves as such. Lutherans and Calvinists did factually become separate from the Catholic church - schism would be an entirely appropriate term.
- I think that heresies in this case is NPOV -- one of the primary focuses of the early church was to define orthodoxy, which necessitated defining the non-orthodox, i.e., the heretical. I'm fairly sure that Arians were considered heretics rather than schismatics at the time.
On another note, are Calvinists really schismatic? I thought it was just the Lutherans and the Anglicans...
Did this really originate in the fourth century?? Just found two different online sources that say the filioque clause was first formally adopted at the Synod of Spain in 589, and gradually spread to the Franks. Also, while some Popes may have approved of its usage elsewhere, Pope Leo III had the Nicene Creed engraved in Greek and Latin without the filioque clause and placed on St. Peter' tomb as late as the early 800's, perhaps to avoid schism with the Eastern patriarchs. I can provide references if need be, but it does look like this history could be expanded and some dates adjusted.
Also, I don't think the Eastern view is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "through the Son", as the article says. Their view is what the Nicene Creed said, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Athanasian Creed says that the persons of the Trinity can be differentiated by their relationships to each other: the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not begotten of anyone, the Son and the Holy Spirit do not beget anyone or have anyone proceeding from them, and the Father is not begotten and does not proceed from anyone. They are God, neither confused with each other or divided, sharing one Divine Nature, one Divine Essence.
--Wesley
- Feel Free to expand the entry - it's wikipedia, after all.
- It's all a lot less clear cut, as you're finding out, than controversialists like to admit. And also, notice that in the Eastern Rite Churches in union with the papacy the filioque is not said. So, it hasn't been (for at least the last 500 years) the make-or-break issue that some controversialists would like to make it. The standard explanation the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Rite Churches gives for lay people (which is all I am - not a theologian) is that the difference in formula does not express a difference in belief. I leave the fine points to the professionals, though, and just deal with the histories. One other thing to check is the actual creed of Nicaea vs. the Creed of 381. There are differences. --MichaelTinkler
I certainly agree that it's a complex issue. I believe that some East Orthodox theologians would agree that the difference in wording does not represent a difference in belief, but others of them would insist that the difference reflects a fundamentally different understanding of the Trinity. What is more clear is the issue of the pope insisting on the right to edit a creed which had been established by the whole church at Nicaea I in 325, edited by the whole church at Constantinople I in 381 to expand on the definition of the Holy Spirit. (Thanks for inspiring me to research that. :-) The Third Ecumenical Council in 431 expressly forbade any further changes in the creed, or the composition of any new creeds. At any point, I think the role of the Pope in the church continues to be a much larger obstacle to reunification than the filioque clause itself; if East and West were to agree that it should consistently be one way or the other, the significance would be that they would have resolved how to settle differences between them, whether by all deferring to the Pope, or the Pope and everyone else deferring to Ecumenical Councils of the entire church.
The existence of the Eastern Rite churches is a current point of contention between Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II wanted to visit Moscow earlier this year, but was refused by the Patriarch, partly because the Catholic Church is continuing to invite Russian Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism and come under the Pope without making substantial changes to their prayers. This is viewed as something of a 'sweetheart deal'. Jurisdictional disagreements in Europe between East and West have been source of contention since at least the ninth century.
In the interests of full disclosure, I suppose I should mention that I'm a recent (2-3 years) convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, and part of a parish that is slowly moving into communion with the Orthodox Church in America. I grew up in a variety of protestant denominations, one after the other, including one that was "non-denominational." I'm certainly biased in editing these articles, but I'm doing my best to retain a NPOV in what I write and edit. I hope others will continue to correct me when I fail to do so, as I'm aiming for accuracy, not necessarily persuasion or proselytizing. I'm also using the process as a chance to research and learn.
--Wesley, a sinner
nice to meet you, Wesley - I'm glad you're here; in interest of disclosure (not that you couldn't find it if you trolled long enough, because it's come up before), I'll say that I am a cradle-Presbyterian-turned-Roman-Catholic, and I actually have family members who have become Orthodox (OCA - one's in seminary now) and friends who are Melkhite and Maronite priests. I think we can keep the entries npov - I agree with your historical summary above - after all, it's clearly true. The difference, whether or not it's irreconcilable, needs to be presented clearly but in a non-inflammatory way - including the inflammatory interventions of those across history (Photius, Humbert of Romans, Michael Caerulius, etc., etc.) who have made the difference less easy to reconcile because so unpleasant to review. On the other hand, we shouldn't be afraid to call spades shovels sometimes, either (I think Humbert was a hand-trowel of the spirit, though a fine public speaker). Let me take up one sentence in your response to show how hard npov on jurisdictional niceties is:
- because the Catholic Church is continuing to invite Russian Orthodox churches to convert to Catholicism and come under the Pope without making substantial changes to their prayers
Russian Orthodox churches - meaning parishes? or some of the several Russian Orthodox bodies? Or the whole shooting match (by the way, i'm sure the Pope would be delighted if they all came over at once) - or are we talking about th situation in the Ukraine, which is truly unpleasant and leads from statement to accusation immediately? I would rewrite it to say "because the Patriarch of Moscow perceives xxxx (spelling it out) as an invitation to Russian Orthodox (parishes/communions/whatever) to submit to Papal authority, the invitation sweetened with the promise that they would not have to alter their liturgy." I'm not certain that it's better, but I hope it is. So, are you going to start working on the big entry for Eastern Orthodox? --MichaelTinkler
It's good talking to you too, Michael. Yes, npov gets sticky when we talk about the nature and causes of the continuing schism between East and West. FWIW, I don't think the differences are irreconcilable, even in my lifetime. How they'll be reconciled, who knows, I just follow my bishop. But my guess would be it would need increasing informal cooperation and friendship at the local level, in lots of places, followed perhaps by more formal steps toward reunion. In the section you quoted, I was mostly referring to parishes in several parts of Russia and Eastern Europe, and especially to the mess in the Ukraine. I just found what seems to be a decent summary of the problem from the Russian Orthodox pov: http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/ve110771.htm. Sometime I need to go see what the Vatican has to say about it. The only reason I brought it up at all in this section was to point out that, from the East, allowing eastern rite churches to omit the filioque might be seen as less conciliatory if it seems to go along with taking over Russian Orthodox church buildings and parishes. I don't know that any of this discussion belongs in the article about the filioque clause itself. And yes, I have started thinking about working on the Eastern Orthodox entry, but I'd rather wait a couple weeks until I have time to do it justice, even as a beginning. Wesley
Wesley referred to "a parish that is slowly moving into communion with the Orthodox Church in America". I am puzzled. I thought the Orthodox Church in America was one of the 16 autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches (having been granted autocephaly by the Patriarch of Moscow in 1970) and therefore to be in communion with it is the same as being in communion with the whole Eastern Orthodox communion. Therefore, I would have thought one would speak of "slowly moving into communion with Eastern Orthodoxy". Could it be that you mean the parish is already in communion with the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy and is slowly moving toward membership in this one particular autocephalous branch of that communion? Or does "communion" simply mean membership in that particular hierarchical church (in which case my understanding needs revision)? Is this a "dissident Orthodox" church that is not part of the Eastern Orthodox communion but nonetheless considers itself Eastern Orthodox? (Full disclosure: I am an atheist. And the author of some Wikipedia material on Catholic sacraments and similar topics.) -- Mike Hardy
- Many Orthodox Christian parishes in the USA have very perigrinatory histories. There is a parish in Indianapolis that, for a while, was the last headquarters of the "Holy Order of MANS" (HOOM)--a theosophical group formed in the 1960s. Gradually, many individuals and groups within MANS embraced the Orthodox Church. Likewise, there have been many Evangelical parishes who, in an attempt to become more like the ancient Church, have determined that the Orthodox Church is that ancient Church. In addition, due to the fact that the US government does not intervene in who and who is not allowed to use terms like "Orthodox" in their names, there are many groups who owe their establishment to "independent" Bishops, some of whom were Old Catholic, others were of groups that left the majority of Orthodoxy over various local controversies. After emigrating to the USA, they would establish their own parishes. Some of these have entered a jurisdiction of the larger Eastern Orthodox communion.Dogface 04:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is no et in the filioque clause. This is readily apparent to those that have studied Latin, since the -que in filioque simply means and, so no et is necessary. But don't take my word for it, the Nicene Creed on the Vatican web site [1] (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p1s1c3a2_lt.htm) also lacks the spurious et! Stephen C. Carlson 22:06 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)
Sorry --- I got that one wrong. -- Mike Hardy
"....the connection between the Son and the Spirit is nevertheless clear" This statement is inaccurate, especially in an entry that is about the controversy over just this relationship. References here to the "Bible" to "Scripture" to "Gospel" need to be made specific, and distinction has to be maintained between a statement in scripture and its interpretation before the entry meets Wikipedia standards. --Wetman 08:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
--I agree wholeheartedly. The original (Orthodox?) author of this article said that Scripture is "clear" with regard to his interpretation of Scripture. You point out, rightly, that this is the whole point of the controversy, over many generations. Therefore, the text has been updated, in the interest of greater objectivity. Michael Gilligan 68.78.34.133 05:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the article as the link is dead:
An excellent history of the filioque is available, as assembled by Gerard Serafin: Filioque/And the Son (http://praiseofglory.com/filiogue.htm), replete with images and links.
Pjacobi 11:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This sounds very POV to me: "(Instead, like all heretics, they will readily quote the Scripture in defense of their positions.) For this reason, over the years, creeds, decrees, hymns, and prayers have been formulated, in order to clarify, defend, and make explicit the faith we have from the apostles, the faith which is both Catholic and Orthodox. The filioque is but one such attempt." Who you calling 'heretics' and what do you mean 'we'? ThePedanticPrick 00:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While doing some research on the new Roman Catholic Pope Benedict XVI, and reviewing some of his writings on the Vatican Web site, I came across the document Dominus Iesus and as an old Latin student and former Catholic seminarian, I decided to take a look at the official Latin text. I was totally amazed to find the filoque REMOVED from the Latin. And mind you I was NOT expecting its removal. Can you imagine my total suprise? This removal, an obvious and conscious removal by Cardinal Ratzinger, a renowned Catholic theologian and Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, and now Pope Benedict XVI, was, to me, simply astounding! I HAD to update the Wikopedia discussions here and elsewhere with this "find" that I wasn't even looking for. Respectfully yours, User:KCSIMO-USA Major Keith Simon USMCR (Ret) 11:33 14 May 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
Thanks to all above
Sincere thanks to all those who made criticisms. I have tried to implement all suggestions, as noted. For example, while Orthodox and Catholics would look on Arians as heretics, it's more neutral to identify them at this point in the article as "those who denied the Trinity." In this context, it is not necessary to refer to Unitarians. Throughout this article, I have tried to be neutral with regard to Catholics and Orthodox. Especially for many Orthodox, this is a "hot-button" issue and has been so for a long time. From my perspective, this is a great time to see the Holy Spirit helping us to work out such a long-standing issue of controversy. It is necessary, too, to understand the history behind the dispute; much published material involves name-calling and unfair accusations.
I have also included what seem to me to be the best results of contemporary scholarship. For example, the Nicene Creed today is thought to be most likely the baptismal Creed of Constantinople, not something derived from the statement of Eusebius at the 325 council. It is also not true that Pope Leo III kept the filioque out of the Mass. At that time, there was no Creed in the Mass. Finally, the original author of this article said that the filioque was introduced to show a connection between the Son and the Spirit. He then included references to Scripture, to show that the Bible is clear enough on this point. (Hence, one would think, the Latins were obtuse.) The truth is rather that the Spanish were engaged in a rough struggle to fight denial of the divinity of the Son and divinity of the Spirit. So, these corrections seemed necessary. Michael Gilligan MichaelG 02:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
External links in article
It is generally considered against Wikipedia style guide, to put external links into the article text. Can you please clarify, why you added such a number of those? Do you have any suggestion for re-arranging to avoid them? --Pjacobi 15:35, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rationale for References Provided
Thank you, Peter, for this observation. I am new at Wikipedia and am sincerely grateful for any help offered, especially to conform to Wikipedia style; I am just beginning to learn. Specifically, with regard to the references added at the end of this filioque article, I wanted to provide indications of published material that to my knowledge is not available online and, consequently, cannot be the object of a link. Please tell me if such a bibliography is or is not appropriate. Advice is welcome.
Other references can be added, such as Congar and Gill, who do have links in the article. However, their complete works should be consulted in print, not merely in linked excerpts. Congar has an entire chapter on the filioque. Gill has assembled a thorough historical review, of benefit to any serious student of Florence.
Another example is that of Jungmann's Pastoral Liturgy, which provides an essay that is still of excellent value, in understanding the anti-Arian cast of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, especially the historical context. However, I can't find even an excerpt of this material online; therefore, a reference is added to the printed word. Similarly, I have included a reference to a document from the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. I have only the French edition on my shelf and can find nothing of it online. This document, however, represents valuable testimony to the scholarly, ecumenical work as of the early 1980s. Would this sort of thing not be useful to the reader, as in any scholarly encyclopedia?
For my part, I can only cite works that I actually have in my hands. In due course, I will go the library and confirm the works of Congar and Gill. For the moment, I have added only selected references I have used and which are in my hands. More work needs to be done.
At your convenience, please let me know what you think would be the best course of action in this matter. Sincerely, Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 20:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
External Links in Text
Sorry, Peter; I believe I misunderstood your note. I think you are referring to the links in the body of the text which are external, to sites outside Wikipedia. I did not know this was not appropriate and did not understand why. As in any published scholarly article, one should document statements that are made. Where I have added references, I did so in part because I found no equivalent reference within Wikipedia. For example, on the topic of the filioque, at the beginning of the article, there is a reference to Seraphin's website, which provides a wealth of citations and quotations that are important to understanding the controversy. Especially noteworthy are Seraphin's references to Grohe and to [Kalistos] Ware; their observations, as noted in the article, are critical.
Please help me out here. Would it appropriate simply to refer to such authors, without a link? I think that in such a case, the reader would not be able to check my work, to see if I have been accurate, or to follow up in more detail, for a deeper understanding. Would external links be more appropriate in a bibliography, at the end of the article? I could certainly do that. Sincerely, Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 20:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Michael, I must have been somewhat unclear in my statement above: The point, in which your changes contradict the usual style guide, is directly linking some words to external websites, e.g.:
- "influence of the Franks" => http://stjosephplacentia.org/RCath-L/history6.htm
- "new situation" => http://www.praiseofglory.com/photius.htm
- Perhaps in the second case, the internal link to Photius in the next sentence is good enough on its own, and the http://www.praiseofglory.com/photius.htm reference can be given in the Photius article?
- Pjacobi 21:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- External websites with general information to the article are usually put in the last section "External links" of the article. If for some sentence you want to give a specific external link, use the [http://www.example.org] syntax, which would look like this: [2] (http://www.example.org). --Pjacobi 21:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this advice, Peter. As you have suggested, so shall it be done. Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 23:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, now it's done. As best as I could, all external links in the body of the text have been transferred to the final section of this article. A few other editing upgrades have also been added. As you can guess, I'm still new at this, so the advice is appreciated. The extensive norms for writing provided by Wikipedians are well worked out. With regard to the link to the Congar article on Photius, it seems to me useful to keep it here, for the convenience of the reader who can thereby get ready access to an excellent author, on this precise topic. Overall, as noted, I have done my best to be fair to both Orthodox and Catholic positions, as clearly as possible in this format. Any further comments are welcome. (I'm still trying to log in to Wikipedia and awaiting a new password.) Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 10:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here's a question. When I first came to the brief, original version of this filioque article, the name of the page was and still is "Filioque clause." Yet, in English, a clause has a subject and a predicate. The word "filioque" could be called a "phrase," but it is really (in Latin) only a word. Why, then, does the page "Filioque" redirect to "Filioque clause"? It seems to me that, rather, the opposite should be true. Is there a Wikipedia expert out there who can answer this question? Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 03:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Objectivity in 2nd paragraph
Here's another question I have. In the 2nd paragraph the original author, presumably Orthodox, sets forth a distinction of meaning in two verse fragments of the Gospel of John, reflecting a long-standing Orthodox interpretation of the Scripture. On the one hand, I understand this interpretation; it is the familiar Orthodox response to the filioque. On the other hand, the texts in question can and have been interpreted differently. In the interest of objectivity, then, especially for fairness between Orthodox and Catholic, I think the article should just say that the wording of the Creed ("proceeds from the Father") is derived from the specific verse fragment quoted of John. At this point in the article, it seems that we should not include this interpretation right off; it is mentioned later and is explained somewhat extensively. The undeniable fact here is that the wording of the Creed is derived from the second verse fragment quoted. I think in the filioque article, at this point, we should just say that and move on. Is this not so? Would that be not more objective? Michael Gilligan 68.79.140.104 05:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)