Recently, Constantinople has consecrated a new bishop for their Albanian Diocese of America; this was met with some outcry from the Albanian Church who say that Bishop Theophan was part of "schismatic activity" and that he recited the Nicene Creed with the Filioque addition (Constantinople consecrates bishop for Albanians in America, Albanian Church protests with serious accusation).
Apparently, Bishop Theophan did indeed say the Filioque as he issued a statement in an attempt to explain why he said the Filioque (New Constantinople bishop explains why he recited Creed with Filioque).
However, there is an issue with his statement, namely that he he said that his oversight was in reciting "parts of the English version of the text of the Hierarchal Confession..." Any Eastern Orthodox who speaks English should be able to spot what the issue is: it is amazingly easy to not say the Filioque in the English translation of the Hierarchal Confession as we in English speaking parishes say the Nicene Creed without the Filioque at least every Sunday during the Divine Liturgy - more often if we keep a prayer rule at home and attend other services. It seems odd for a clergy member who is "cradle" Orthodox to even be familiar enough with the Filioque to say it due to "emotional intensity and great personal anxiety".
For myself, I can say that I have never even slightly slipped in this one regard. Granted, I did not grow up reciting the Creed - with or without the Filioque - at every church service, but I did enough to know the Creed by heart - in fact, most of the schools I went to required us to know the Creed. However, when I became Orthodox, and it came time for me to recite the Creed in its proper form during my Chrismation, the Filioque never entered my mind. I am not saying that I am perfect, and I do know converts who have slipped and said the Filioque during the Creed - but never have I heard of a "cradle" having that slip, no matter the circumstances.
I am not trying to be overly harsh, merely reporting on current events in the Orthodox world as I understand them to be. I am not going to go on about any supposed invalidity of the consecration due to the "misstep" - that is an issue with the Patriarchate of Constantinople; though I am not a fan of many of the decisions that the EP has made as of late. Still, the issue lies within Constantinople.
I also am not saying that no member of the clergy should not be familiar with the Filioque, they definitely should so they can understand it for the heresy that it is and defend against it. And, yes, it is indeed a heresy (by my own opinion).
For any of my readers who are not Orthodox left wondering what all of the hoopla is about, I'll try to explain as best as I am able in a short post.
Firstly, the term filioque means "and the Son", and it was added to the Nicene Creed unilaterally by Rome against the canons of the Church. I'll add the full text of the Nicene Creed below, with the Filioque added in italics so those who aren't familiar can see where the addition is. I am not professing the Filioque as a part of my belief.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;
And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
We look for the Resurrection of the dead,
And the Life of the age to come. Amen.
The original Creed - first established in the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea - was a bit shorter and some verbiage was different. The version above is what was established at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople minus the Filioque. Because the Creed we use today was established and then expounded upon in Nicea and then Constantinople it is called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, though the term "Nicene Creed" is used as well.
The Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) prohibited any change to the Creed without an Ecumenical Council (Third Ecumenical Council - OrthodoxWiki, Filioque - OrthodoxWiki). Also, the so called "Eighth Ecumenical Council" (not accepted as the ecumenical by all Orthodox) seemingly has language "denoucning" the Filioque - which was gaining traction in the Latin West during the time of this council (Eighth Ecumenical Council - OrthodoxWiki). Of note is that Rome supposedly accepted this council originally, only to later be repudiated in the 11th century (ibid).
It should be fairly obvious that calling the Creed with the addition of the Filioque the "English translation" is erroneous, and also rather misleading considering that English speaking Orthodox parishes - no matter their jurisdiction - don't use the Filioque at all.
So, what is the big issue all about?
According to St. Photius the Great, and St. Mark of Ephesus, the Filioque is a heresy - which is amazingly ironic as the West accused the East of heresy for not including the Filioque in the Creed (Filioque - OrthodoxWiki). It should be noted, however, that the Filioque has never actually been officially declared as a heresy in a council or a synod (as far as I am aware). There are doctrinal reasons for not accepting the Filioque;
It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.
The justifications for including the filioque in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."
The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails. (Filioque - OrthodoxWiki)
Basically, it boils down to a difference of faith; it could be accurately stated that the Creed without the Filioque is the Orthodox statement of faith while the Creed with the Filioque is the Latin statement of faith. And considering that the Schism has not yet been healed, and that no ecumenical council has been held to add the Filioque, then it stands to reason that reciting the Creed with the Filioque means that you are stating that you share faith with the Latins, and not with the Orthodox Church. Since the Church is the Pillar of Truth, and the Pillar Truth includes the Creed without the Filioque, then to state the Creed with the Filioque is to separate oneself from the Truth and stand with non-truth. Stating the Creed with the Filioque is definitely schismatic activity.
Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner.
No comments:
Post a Comment