Of course, but we are talking about out in the boondocks of rural Greece where religion and nationality are conflated in the popular mind.
Not all rural Greeks would think any such thing of course, but my monastic informant insisted that there were peasants who did indeed hold such views. If that doesn't sound too elitist and 'classist'.
Back to the OP ...
Given that no amount of conciliar creedal formularies or individual 'statements of belief' guarantee absolutely tight orthodoxy in the pews, the plastic bucket seats or among the benches, what can we do to foster closer ties?
Heck, my brother knew a woman in a Baptist church in South Wales who thought that John the Baptist set up the Baptist Church.
Conversely, he also knew an old lady in an Anglican parish who thought that John the Baptist wrote the New Testament.
I'm sure many of the people who attend my parish haven't the foggiest idea what it's all about - other than that it's about God in some way.
Lex orandi, lex credendi is one thing but ...
I remember a poll that was done among a particular network of 'new church'/restorationist leaders which had some surprising results. A very small minority didn't get the right answers on some very straightforward Christological and Trinitarian questions. I suspect this was more due to a lack of appropriate theological vocabulary than outright heretical views, but language is important and with all due respect to those of us who don't follow formal creeds and rubrics, this is one of the reasons why, pains in the butt as we undoubtedly are, the Orthodox insist on such things.
There's no guarantee that it'll percolate into the pews or out into the world of course.
By the way @Gamma Gamaliel since the Vatican document The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the Roman church has accepted the original 381 Creed without the filioque as fully orthodox. I would look for formal recognition of that very soon, considering Leo's ecumenical bent.
However--and this is a big "however"--
Saying that a shorter version of one's own accepted creed is ALSO fully orthodox, is not at all the same thing as saying that one's own accepted (longer) creed is wrong. I'm not aware of anyone (among the current contenders, I mean, not Arians etc) who thought it unorthodox. Why would they? You might as well think that the First Article all by itself is unorthodox. Of course it's not! It's incomplete, but not unorthodox.
The real question is whether 381 can and should replace the Nicene Creed-with-Filioque at all times and places. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been settled--certainly not in the affirmative. And THAT is the real issue between the churches.
I fear you are mistaking a minor point for real movement on the Filioque.
The deal of it is the 381 creed was the one that was approved by all the bishops attending the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. The Western version of the creed (with Filioque) was never approved in an Ecumenical Council. The matter is settled as far as the Orthodox are concerned and more western denominations are agreeing with them. The 381 creed does not have to be approved by anyone else.
You may call this a minor point, but it did lead to the great schism of the church in 1054.
Let's get past this issue, and let the healing begin.
For those of us who believe the Filioque is correct, simply ignoring it isn't going to "let the healing begin." It must either be decided one way or the other, or all agree to leave it as a matter on which different opinions may be held without loss of fellowship.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is almost universally recognised by Christian groups which look back to early times of Christianity as a basic statement of Christian belief..The 'filioque' first appeared in official written form in 589A.D. at the Third council of Toledo. The present Catholic teaching,( for .Catholics of the Roman rite,Byzantine rite and others within the community led by the Bishop of Rome),is that the 'filioque' should be accepted but not necessarily recited in liturgical use as it remains a barrier to the profession of a common Christian faith. Pope Paul VI recited in meetings with Orthodox the Creed in its earlier form and of course whole communities of Byzantine rite Catholics and others regularly recite the Creed without the 'filioque'
Most Western Protestant churches deriving from the 16th Century Reformation officially accept the Creed with the 'filioque'. German Lutheran communities change,however, 'eine heilige katholische Kirche' (one holy Catholic Church) to 'eine heilige christliche Kirche' (one holy Christian church). I don't know if American Lutherans do this
More modern Evangelical churches will generally have a statement of belief which has to be adhered to if one wishes to be a full member of the community. This 'What we believe' may be more rigorously imposed upon those desirous of membership than the ancient Creeds of both East and West.
Can't speak for what the German Lutherans are now doing. The American Lutherans used to say, "The Holy Christian Church," but since the mid sixties ELCA Lutheran hymnals have "The holy catholic church."
I don't understand why removing the filioque has become the shibboleth that it has. Believing in the filioque does not mean a lack of respect for Christians who disagree, so why is its removal seemingly now expected as just being part and parcel of ecumenical relations with apparently no equivalent move from the Orthodox? It's not like the Orthodox are now being expected to believe in original sin in return or whatever.
I think it has to do primarily with the Western Church having added to/altered the Creed as approved by the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. In other words, what is being asked/done is not so much trying to meet in the middle as it is acknowledging that a creed adopted by Ecumenical Councils can/should only be altered by an Ecumenical Council, and that doctrinal issues aside, it was inappropriate for one part of the Church to unilaterally change the Creed.
OK so why can't an Ecumenical Council then retroactively approve the filioque instead?
For those of us who believe the Filioque is correct, simply ignoring it isn't going to "let the healing begin." It must either be decided one way or the other, or all agree to leave it as a matter on which different opinions may be held without loss of fellowship.
Well, quite. I must admit to feeling quite annoyed by such decisions being taken on my behalf in the name of a level of unity I haven't actually agreed to, which does exactly the opposite of fostering unity. It feels like being signed up to a statement I don't believe in.
Maybe I'm just strange but when I say the Creed in church I view it as a theological statement, not a political one. Theologically I believe that the Father and the Son also proceed from the Holy Spirit, because my understanding of the Trinity is that there is no hierarchy between the three Persons and that all proceed from each other equally.
In terms of unity, I am personally more interested in unity between churches working together - I don't need theological unity in order to have practical friendship, nor would I expect it.
@Gamma Gamaliel I assume not intentional, but referring to "Original Son" in your comment is quite a good pun...! Fwiw I'm not a huge fan of Augustine in general and I'm not actually really wedded to Original Sin - but it does feel a bit like Western churches are making all the ecumenical moves here without the Orthodox changing anything. I realise that the issues around the filioque are more about political issues around ecumenical councils, and that it's not actually about who is being expected to do the unity legwork - but unfortunately that's not what it feels like.
I don't understand why removing the filioque has become the shibboleth that it has. Believing in the filioque does not mean a lack of respect for Christians who disagree, so why is its removal seemingly now expected as just being part and parcel of ecumenical relations with apparently no equivalent move from the Orthodox? It's not like the Orthodox are now being expected to believe in original sin in return or whatever.
I think it has to do primarily with the Western Church having added to/altered the Creed as approved by the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. In other words, what is being asked/done is not so much trying to meet in the middle as it is acknowledging that a creed adopted by Ecumenical Councils can/should only be altered by an Ecumenical Council, and that doctrinal issues aside, it was inappropriate for one part of the Church to unilaterally change the Creed.
OK so why can't an Ecumenical Council then retroactively approve the filioque instead?
So far as I know, it could. But that requires convening of an ecumenical council, and it requires very broad recognition of such a council’s ecumenical legitimacy.
The improved relations between the RCC and churches from the Reformation in the West has gone hand in hand with people cooperating together in various activities outside church. In our area Food Banks and charity shops are staffed predominantly by church people from a variety of places. Barriers are broken down, old wives tales are addressed and common ground is found.
I wonder what opportunity there is for widespread cooperation in Orthodox lands, or in S America, Africa and Asia. How do you break down barriers and address misconceptions if you can't meet?
Incidentally here's a Vatican report that points out that a formal schism was never declared between East and West, but that named individuals were eccommunicated not entire Churches. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-01/lifting-anathemas-60-years-paul-vi-anathagoras-koch-getcha.html
Yes, @Nick Tamen is right, an Ecumenical Council could retrospectively agree to the inclusion of the filioque clause. Whether it would is a moot point of course. Besides, given the debacle when Patriarch Bartholomew called an Ecumenical Council for the Eastern Orthodox Churches - big bust up - it's hard to see how such a Council could be convened within the bickering Orthodox family let alone Christendom as a whole.
@Pomona - yes, various 'Western' Churches are making all the running when it comes to making ecumenical overtures to the Orthodox. In fairness to Patriarch Bartholomew he's very keen on ecumenical relations and he gets a lot of stick for that from some of the beardy-wierdies on Mount Athos as well as die-hards and blow-hards in various jurisdictions.
Don't expect any concessions from the Orthodox any time soon.
When you believe your group has the 'fullness of the faith' - or are at least working towards it - then it's easy to take the 'ecumenical' stance of - 'Right, why don't you join us then?'
I'd like to think I'm personally more flexible than that, but then I'm not in charge.
Those who believe that the filioque clause should be in the Creed have to demonstrate that by scripture and tradition - or Tradition.
People can believe that the filioque clause is justified as much as they like but they'd have to put forward a pretty good case to convince the Orthodox who are predisposed against it for the reasons I've outlined.
For my own part, I'm not one of those who thinks the sky is about to fall in unless the clause is dropped, but neither do I believe it should have been inserted unilaterally nor do I think it's consonant with scripture - unless it's understood in temporal rather than eternal terms. Perhaps I've missed something. What that might be is probably best explored in another thread.
I really can't understand why anyone would object to its removal. I don't know what it adds apart from confusion.
Well, because it's being removed on behalf of people who do believe in it in order to please people in another church who we're not in communion with anyway. Like you said, we're doing all the running. I also don't see how the filioque adds confusion, it's a pretty straightforward sentence.
I'm not sure why you can't understand that some people like myself and Lamb Chopped do actually believe in the filioque. Surely then it's reasonable to not want it removed?
I sincerely am not bothered by the Orthodox not believing in it. I don't feel the need to prove why I believe in a faith matter, but likewise wouldn't expect them to have to prove why they don't believe in it. I don't feel like being expected to change my beliefs is actually unity.
The improved relations between the RCC and churches from the Reformation in the West has gone hand in hand with people cooperating together in various activities outside church. In our area Food Banks and charity shops are staffed predominantly by church people from a variety of places. Barriers are broken down, old wives tales are addressed and common ground is found.
I wonder what opportunity there is for widespread cooperation in Orthodox lands, or in S America, Africa and Asia. How do you break down barriers and address misconceptions if you can't meet?
Incidentally here's a Vatican report that points out that a formal schism was never declared between East and West, but that named individuals were eccommunicated not entire Churches. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-01/lifting-anathemas-60-years-paul-vi-anathagoras-koch-getcha.html
Certainly in my experience local relationships between RC and Protestant churches are good, and are usually based on practical working together eg via food banks. I think that this is really where unity matters the most - because it also really affects evangelism too, much moreso than theological unity. I don't need to agree with every belief held by a church in order to work on a project together.
That said, the reverse also applies - sometimes there is stronger allyhood between different denominations than between opposite ends of a denomination.
Well, because it's being removed on behalf of people who do believe in it in order to please people in another church who we're not in communion with anyway. Like you said, we're doing all the running. I also don't see how the filioque adds confusion, it's a pretty straightforward sentence.
I'm not sure why you can't understand that some people like myself and Lamb Chopped do actually believe in the filioque. Surely then it's reasonable to not want it removed?
I sincerely am not bothered by the Orthodox not believing in it. I don't feel the need to prove why I believe in a faith matter, but likewise wouldn't expect them to have to prove why they don't believe in it. I don't feel like being expected to change my beliefs is actually unity.
Sure, I get that. But is the corollary of what you are saying is that you'd expect the Orthodox to change their views on this issue in order to tie in with what @Lamb Chopped and yourself believe. I'm not actually sure Lamb Chopped would agree with your take on the Trinity but she can speak for herself on that one.
I think this may be a matter for another thread, but FWIW I can understand why the clause was inserted - in Spain initially - in a laudable attempt to refute Arianism by emphasising the co-equality of the Father and the Son. Full marks.
However, in doing so, from an Orthodox perspective, it introduces potential problems and can lead to forms of Modalism.
It's not that I believe that the clause is wicked and evil and responsible for all the ills in the world since it was unilaterally adopted, it's more that I feel it's redundant and doesn't add anything to our understanding of the Trinity that couldn't be made from the Creed as it was originally agreed.
I'm not saying that everyone who recites the Creed with the filioque clause in it is a modalist of some kind. Far from it. But it can confuse matters which is why I think it's better left out.
That isn't to say I'd visit your respective churches and wrestle you to the ground for reciting it.
I'd love to see the Orthodox play soft ball rather than hard ball in ecumenical relations but I can't see what we'd be expected to 'trade' in this instance. What would you want us to drop to compensate you for omitting the filioque clause?
Theologically I believe that the Father and the Son also proceed from the Holy Spirit, because my understanding of the Trinity is that there is no hierarchy between the three Persons and that all proceed from each other equally.
I am probably showing my ignorance here but:
I thought the original had all members of the trinity co equal - and western churches added the filioque which said the spirit preceded from the father and the son (ie not co-equal).
@Gamma Gamaliel I explicitly said that I *don't* expect the Orthodox to change their beliefs. I don't think a change in beliefs is necessary on either side. I don't understand why, from the Orthodox perspective, Orthodox and Western churches can't have a closer relationships without changing beliefs on the filioque. It can't simultaneously be a huge hindrance and also not a big deal.
Frankly I think that unity in terms of working together at a local level needs to come first. Statements of unity without experience of being hands on the ground together is worthless. If local Orthodox churches were regularly involved in running food banks and playgroups, then perhaps it would be different - but in my experience they're not.
Also as an aside, I only brought up Lamb Chopped as an example of someone who also believes in the filioque - no other theological agreement was inferred. Although, that said, I would be surprised if the LCMS stance on the Trinity was wildly different.
I thought the original had all members of the trinity co equal - and western churches added the filioque which said the spirit preceded from the father and the son (ie not co-equal?
As I understand it, the Orthodox of that sort are strong believers in the monarchy of the Father - and the co-equality of the Son and Spirit. It is of course required for logical consistency that if the procession of the Spirit from the Son as well as the Father implies subordination of the Spirit to the Son, then the Spirit is subordinate to the Father.
I am not personally convinced that the procession of the Spirit implies subordination and I find the resulting assertion of the monarchy of the Father suspect.
But I think there's a strong temptation to rationalise the version in our tradition.
@Gamma Gamaliel I explicitly said that I *don't* expect the Orthodox to change their beliefs. I don't think a change in beliefs is necessary on either side. I don't understand why, from the Orthodox perspective, Orthodox and Western churches can't have a closer relationships without changing beliefs on the filioque. It can't simultaneously be a huge hindrance and also not a big deal.
Frankly I think that unity in terms of working together at a local level needs to come first. Statements of unity without experience of being hands on the ground together is worthless. If local Orthodox churches were regularly involved in running food banks and playgroups, then perhaps it would be different - but in my experience they're not.
They should be.
I know instances of Orthodox parishes distributing food to people in poverty without making a big song and dance about it and also making donations to initiatives run by non-Orthodox churches to help the homeless etc.
But yes, more should be done and in collaboration with other churches too.
It seems to me that removing the filioque isn't saying the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, it's merely not asserting that the Spirit does i.e. it is something on which there is not ecumenical agreement even if some of us believe it. The whole point of the creed is to include beliefs that are both shared and necessary.
I thought the original had all members of the trinity co equal - and western churches added the filioque which said the spirit preceded from the father and the son (ie not co-equal?
As I understand it, the Orthodox of that sort are strong believers in the monarchy of the Father - and the co-equality of the Son and Spirit. It is of course required for logical consistency that if the procession of the Spirit from the Son as well as the Father implies subordination of the Spirit to the Son, then the Spirit is subordinate to the Father.
I am not personally convinced that the procession of the Spirit implies subordination and I find the resulting assertion of the monarchy of the Father suspect.
But I think there's a strong temptation to rationalise the version in our tradition.
The 'monarchy' of the Father in the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is to do with source and origin not the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
All the Divine persons are co-equal and co-eternal.
I'm sure the LCMS believe that too.
The issue is one of roles as it were. The Father eternally begets, the Son is eternally begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeds.
Apologies, @Pomona, I misunderstood what you wrote earlier and my suggestion that you might be on a different page to @Lamb Chopped was misleading. I take that back.
We are all Trinitarian believers and I'm not suggesting that anyone here is deficient in that respect.
Nevertheless, whilst I understand what the filioque clause aims to assert, I feel it can inadvertently confuse and make it look as if the Holy Spirit is subordinate and some kind of afterthought.
I'm not saying individual Orthodox believers have doctorates in Trinitarian doctrine. They can be pretty slapdash. But there is an attempt within Orthodoxy to assert the co-equality of the Persons of the Godhead which, in our view, the filioque clause can confuse or undermine.
I'm not saying those who insist on retaining the filioque clause are setting out to do that or out to be mischievous. But the filioque clause can be misunderstood. Which is why it's better, in our view, not to add it retrospectively and unilaterally.
I've always thought that the problematic phrase is not the '...and the Son' but the phrase preceding it, 'who proceeds from..'.
It is difficult not to understand this as suggesting that the Spirit is some sense subsidiary. The same understanding would pertain with respect to the Son, were it not that the Nicene Creed specifically spells out that He is 'God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.' This seems to be in response to the views of Arius, who was big on the oneness of God but at the cost of the status of the Son and Spirit. Had similar language about the Spirit been incorporated into the original creed, perhaps the subsequent 'filioque' controversies could have been avoided, but my impression - which someone better read than me can confirm or otherwise - is that the fuller development of Trinitarian doctrine post-dated the Nicene creed and did not stabilise until the end of the century.
All this probably falls into the realm of 'angels dancing on pinheads' in relation to what unites us in faith and co-operation at local level.
I should say that poor catechism is common to pretty much every denomination, especially ongoing adult catechism. It's somewhat better in places with a tradition of adult Sunday School, such as the US (I believe other places have also adopted the model) but obviously this depends on the quality of the teaching too. Certainly I wouldn't dream of suggesting that Anglicans or whatever denomination are more theologically knowledgable or better catechised than the average Orthodox Christian.
@Gamma Gamaliel no problem, I can see where the misunderstanding came from. Also, I don't mean that I would want Orthodox groups to make a big song and dance about charitable projects - it's more about joining in and running or participating in projects with other groups and churches. Things like volunteering with Street Pastors and doing things with local Churches Together groups.
I think for me, for any form of ecumenism, relationships come from individuals not official bodies. You can't have genuine friendship between corporate entities because they aren't people. Genuine friendship has to start one at a time. If you don't have the local relationships between churches, there's no foundation to build on.
Sure, but it's a fact that there's all sorts of confusion out there on these issues - hardly surprising when we are dealing with a complex issue like the Trinity.
However we cut it we all develop an agreed system of interpretation of scripture and creedal formularies either at an individual church level - such as a 'statement of faith' by a Protestant group, Baptists, Pentecostals, Reformed etc - or a wider one that most Christian churches and denominations would accept.
How do we understand the Nicene Creed? We discuss, debate and develop some kind of consensus.
How do we understand scripture? We discuss, debate and develop some kind of consensus.
It happens in community.
That hasn't happened in the case of the filioque clause. One section of the Church adopted it unilaterally, without consulting anyone else.
That flies in the face of how the process of interpretation works- or ideally should work.
The burden of proof for accepting the adoption of the clause lies with those who inserted it and their heirs and successors.
These things are received and understood collectively, collegially and in a conciliar way.
It's not up to me to concoct my own personal interpretations and expect everyone else to follow suit, however benign or well-meaning my motives might be.
Alright, I'm being hyperbolic but you get my drift.
I should say that poor catechism is common to pretty much every denomination, especially ongoing adult catechism. It's somewhat better in places with a tradition of adult Sunday School, such as the US (I believe other places have also adopted the model) but obviously this depends on the quality of the teaching too. Certainly I wouldn't dream of suggesting that Anglicans or whatever denomination are more theologically knowledgable or better catechised than the average Orthodox Christian.
@Gamma Gamaliel no problem, I can see where the misunderstanding came from. Also, I don't mean that I would want Orthodox groups to make a big song and dance about charitable projects - it's more about joining in and running or participating in projects with other groups and churches. Things like volunteering with Street Pastors and doing things with local Churches Together groups.
I think for me, for any form of ecumenism, relationships come from individuals not official bodies. You can't have genuine friendship between corporate entities because they aren't people. Genuine friendship has to start one at a time. If you don't have the local relationships between churches, there's no foundation to build on.
Sure and there's a heck of a lot more Orthodox parishes should be doing in that regard.
As for catechesis it's generally piss-poor across most Orthodox parishes with some honourable exceptions.
Theologically I believe that the Father and the Son also proceed from the Holy Spirit, because my understanding of the Trinity is that there is no hierarchy between the three Persons and that all proceed from each other equally.
I am probably showing my ignorance here but:
I thought the original had all members of the trinity co equal - and western churches added the filioque which said the spirit preceded from the father and the son (ie not co-equal).
Have I got that the wrong way round ?
For what it's worth, this is what I understand to be the ordinary, straightforward Western view (with filioque). It also happens to be the view of my own church and a great many others.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, one God. The Three Persons are coequal in majesty, in power, in the omnis, and so forth. None of them is subordinate to the rest. Being one, they are basically indistinguishable from one another EXCEPT in terms of relationship. That is, you can't tell the Father from the Son except by the single relational difference--that the Father IS Father (divine paternity) and the Son is begotten by him (divine filiation). This is a statement about origin, yes--but we have to remember that God is not in time, and there never was a point where the Father, the Son, or the Spirit did not already exist. So those who take filiation in a too-human sense are out of bounds.
It's also not a statement about the Son (Christ, Jesus, Immanuel, whatever you want to call him) being somehow subordinate in nature to the Father. They are coequal. If the Son deliberately sets out to glorify the Father above himself, that's a very proper and sonly thing to do, but has to be kept in perspective with the fact that the Father glorifies the Son. (Also we get into a spot of difficulty as regards Jesus' human nature, which is created and most definitely subordinate to the Father by virtue of that fact.)
You can make parallel statements about the Spirit. He is not separate from the Father or the Son--they are one God. Nor is he subordinate simply because he takes his origin from either the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, depending on where you come down on the controversy. It is the Spirit's position, his relationships with the other two Persons, that allows us to identify any "difference" at all. And nobody contests the fact that he proceeds from the Father (some call this "spiration," which is a reference to breathing out). Half the Christian church believes he proceeds also from the Son in the same way (this is what lies behind the Filioque clause). Finding Scriptural backing for either position is the hard thing, as God doesn't ever set out to give us a nice little technical treatise on his own interworkings anywhere. Thus it would be a good idea for us all to stay humble and be charitable with one another.
What follows is a partial explanation of why I lean toward the idea that the Filioque is in fact true, and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The first is because if the Spirit takes his sole origin from the Father, just as the Son does, how exactly is there any difference between Son and Spirit? It's not as if begetting/filiation and spiration/procession are different processes that can be observed by us. As far as I can make out, they are labels based on Scriptural passages that more or less label a mystery rather than seeking to explain it. And so with the Orthodox view, one is left with the Father as the sole origin of both the Son and the Spirit, but no real clarity on how you tell the Spirit from the Son--or how they relate to one another. I mean, is this divine siblinghood or what? Are they two of a kind in a way that leaves the Father as a single different one? In the Western view, the double procession/spiration/origin of the Spirit from the Father AND the Son means that there is never any confusion about who is who. Each person in the Trinity has a relationship "position" that is unique to himself, and that we can use to identify who we're talking about, which is kind of handy.
But in itself, the above is not enough to make the Filioque true. There are other indications. The first is the fact that the Spirit gets called "the Spirit of Jesus" or "the Spirit of Christ" all over the place. It's such a marked emphasis that it leads me to think the relationship between them goes much further than simply divine co-origin in the Father (siblinghood). It looks like origin to me.
Then there are the human analogies--things in the created world that appear to be modeled after the divine Trinity. The creative experience of a writer is one (see Dorothy L. Sayers, The Mind of the Maker, if you'd like to see this worked out in wonderful and convincing detail. It's pretty awesome. There are other analogies that the theologians use, but this is the one I know the best, because I'm a writer. (And on the question of analogies--what we mean here is not simply "It matches, so the doctrine must be true." Here "analogies" is a more technical word and means more or less "created objects or situations that God deliberately made to reflect the Trinity in some fashion," and therefore the "mini-trinities" can be used as a source of possible information about the real, divine Trinity.
There is also the fact that Christ, on earth and after his ascension, sends the Spirit to his people. The idea behind this observation is that it makes more sense for him to be doing this in his incarnate life if in fact the Spirit takes his origin from the Son (and the Father, naturally) within the Trinity. This is a weaker argument, because God is infinitely courteous and loving, and if the Orthodox view of the Spirit's procession is correct, the Spirit would still certainly consent to be sent by Jesus anywhere the Trinity-in-Unity chose. I mean, he's not going to say "no" regardless of the facts about his procession.
This is as far as I've gotten with my investigations into Trinitarian inter-relations. It very quickly becomes too high for me, and my head starts to spin. Then, too, I have this urge to keep saying, "Show it to me in the Scriptures." Those who appeal to this saint or that do me no good, whether Western or Eastern. I want something more solid than that. And while we do get some data in the Scriptures, it's far from being the super-clear diagram with footnotes that some people talk as if they had.
I get all of that, of course, @Lamb Chopped and understand the difficulties with the Orthodox position - there are head-spinning difficulties on both sides with these issues of course.
The standard and riskily reductionist response to 'show me in the scriptures' from an Orthodox perspective would of course be, 'where do you think the scriptures came from in the first place?'
We can't disaggregate scripture from Tradition. Yes, scripture is primary but the interpretative framework comes within Holy Tradition and is worked out in community - as I outlined above.
Which is why we all need to talk to one another even though on both sides at times there can be a 'la la la we're not listening' response. There can be a lot of that on my side of the fence. To give Rome its due it seems to be doing less of that these days and many of our lovely Protestant brothers and sisters are exemplary in ecumenical dialogue and exploration.
As you'd expect, the Orthodox would say that they have answers to thr particular points you raise, 'Ah! We've thought of that one ...'
But I'm no expert and would need to mug up on all this a lot more, and get a head-spin in the process.
I know things aren't as clear cut as those with entrenched positions would like them to be.
I certainly don't like the polemical tone and reductionism of some Orthodox push-back on what we see as 'Western' innovations. 'The nefarious and delinquent West introduced the filioque clause without consulting the rest of us and subordinated the Holy Spirit. Everything has gone to Hell in a hand-cart ever since and that's why I have bunions, why my cat is incontinent and why my tomatoes didn't do very well this year ...'
FWIW, whilst the Orthodox would understand the 'two siblings' objection they would argue that insisting that the Son is the source of the Spirit's eternal, rather than temporal, procession confuses the issue by effectively creating two sources rather than one.
To which it can be objected, of course, that 'I and the Fathervare one' so this potential confusion need not arise.
A standard Orthodox analogy would be the sun. The Son may be the rays of the sun as it were and the Holy Spirit the heat, but only the sun itself is the source. Yes, I know, like all analogies it has flaws and limitations.
Whatever the case, the Orthodox believe that the Persons of the Holy and Undivided Trinity are equally engaged and involved in all divine actions. So it is legitimate to talk of 'The Spirit of Christ' - without diminishing the monarchical source/origin of the eternal Father who 'begets' the Son and from whom the Spirit eternally proceeds.
An Anglican friend who sings with our choir with the blessing of our parish priest although he has no current intention of becoming Orthodox, suggests that if the filioque clause had been framed as 'and through the Logos' then difficulties could have been avoided.
I'm not convinced he's right about that but it's an interesting suggestion.
One of the many difficulties of course is that the way the filioque was introduced, without consultation and conciliar debate, has muddied the waters and introduced a 'political' element.
Humans being humans - and men being men - we could say this was tragically unfortunate but perhaps inevitable. I've seen it suggested that if women had been present at the great Councils then all these things could have been resolved amicably.
Although given that @Lamb Chopped is a woman yet persists in ... no, no, I am joking of course. I'm sure if Lamb Chopped has been at one or other of the early Councils she would have made an outstanding contribution as I'm sure she does within her own church circles today.
Coming back to the OP and pursuing the 'organic' rather than institutional unity theme, I was struck during my time in local/regional politics by times when councillors of very different persuasions 'clicked' and found common ground on a range of issues.
The same applies, I think in churchy circles of whatever stripe.
There's a story about an Orthodox bishop who was assigned a place near the RCs at an ecumenical conference. He asked the organisers to move him nearer to the Pentecostals as, 'we both emphasise the Person and work of the Holy Spirit.'
Now, I'm not suggesting that the RC's don't - and for all I know the story might be apocryphal. It's not yet been ratified through Holy Tradition at an Ecumenical Council ... 😉
Maybe I'm just strange but when I say the Creed in church I view it as a theological statement, not a political one. Theologically I believe…
In terms of unity, I am personally more interested in unity between churches working together - I don't need theological unity in order to have practical friendship, nor would I expect it.
…I realise that the issues around the filioque are more about political issues around ecumenical councils, and that it's not actually about who is being expected to do the unity legwork - but unfortunately that's not what it feels like.
My take these days is that the controversy about the filioque clause was (and still is) mostly about the politics. Going back to the first millennium, it looks like a major split was coming, regardless, and the filioque clause provided a useful definitive (and widely-practised) expression of a fundamental difference. In that regard, the theology sits, at best, alongside the issues of orthodoxy, legitimacy and especially authority in its significance.
Pomona's posts remind me of my own experiences, starting from an early age. Once you're old enough to start thinking about the words we regularly recite in church services, the Creed takes shape as a theological statement of what we believe. After a few years, as I learned more of the history of why we say it, the political angle became rather more evident. I didn't find this detracted from the theological statement. When I said the Creed, I was usually thinking both about the theology and the history, the politics of the theology. In some ways, this made it more real - what we believe and confess is located in a solid and believable historical context.
At the same time, working towards church unity was an important aspect of our faith, in the CofE churches which I attended as I grew up. The thing that was much harder to come to terms with wasn't that people in different churches believed different things - after all, if we all believed the same things, we wouldn't need different churches (or, more realistically, quite as many of them). The thing that was much harder to come to terms with was that some churches behaved as though not believing the same things was sufficient reason for opposing church unity. Looking back, I think the reason for my difficulty was because it calls into question so many of the fundamentals of Jesus' message regarding the Church.
ETA:
Has anyone had (or will have) any positive experiences of this year's Week of Prayer for Christian Unity? Or, indeed, negative ones?
Or, more generally, of ecumenical "successes" or "failures" in their area?
Or does ecumenism simply Not Happen?
The local Methodist Church opened their worship area for an hour or two for reflection, with prayer stations. This was yesterday, at the same time as their weekly coffee morning in the adjacent hall which is very well attended, thus making it easy for anyone to drop in. On Sunday they are holding an ecumenical service at 3pm, specifically to pray for Christian unity.
@Pease, yes, I like your observations and yes, I should have deleted my attempt at a joke. I meant to give no offence but can see how it could have done so.
I will try harder in future.
I agree with your points about the political machinations becoming part and parcel of the whole thing and not necessarily distracting from the theology - nor the genuineness or authenticity of the faith involved.
I s'pose I think of it rather like a tree. If nails are hammered in or barbed wire becomes embedded in the bark the tree continues to grow around them and the resulting whorls and lumps and bumps become part of its 'character'.
Again, like all analogies we shouldn't push this too far. The intrusion of some foreign bodies can prove fatal to the most robust and resilient tree.
But if the gates of Hell shall not prevail then we can have hope that some of the lumps, bumps and disagreements can be ironed out over time whichever the 'final' outcome.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if the 'West' had brought the filioque clause to an Ecumenical Council and either convinced their 'Eastern' brethren to accept it by presenting a case based on scripture and Tradition, or else agreed to drop it if convinced otherwise.
But that didn't happen and we have to deal with it.
Although I suspect that divergence between the 'Latin West' and the 'Greek East' may very well have happened anyway.
That process was well underway before 1054.
I think it is possible to exaggerate the differences in 'mindset' between Eastern and Western Christianity but they are there. We' all inevitably judge or assess other Christian expressions from the stand-point of our own traditions- or Tradition.
Much of 'Western' Christianity looks increasingly odd to me these days although I'm fully aware that what we Orthodox get up to looks pretty strange to everyone else.
At the risk of sounding as if I'm defending my poor taste ribbing and jests, I like to think that I reserve most 'judgement' firmly own particular neck of the Christian woods.
It probably looks from my posts that I fail miserably at that as I do in much else. Must try harder.
I am thinking about starting a new thread on the 'Mind of the Church' and what it means to think 'Christianly' or 'scriptually' or 'Orthodox-ly', 'Anglican-ly', 'Lutheran-ly' or 'Baptistically' or Whatever Else-ly.
Before I do so I need some time to reflect on how to do that without cracking silly jokes of making light of things too much.
Just.stop.doing.it is a good place to start.
I've just spotted @Baptist Trainfan's post. Well, I did suggest a new thread on the filioque and perhaps someone should have done so before now to avoid clogging up this thread. Perhaps I should have done so.
The topic is pertinent insofar as it was one of the stated reasons for the grievous split between Western and Eastern Christianity but perhaps deserved a separate thread to discuss the ins and outs and the Kerygmatic dimension.
I agree with Baptist Trainfan that it's probably run it's course on this particular thread.
Several Shipmates have made suggestions about closer interaction between Christian believers of whatever flavour given that some form of institutional or structural unity doesn't look likely anytime soon and I'd thoroughly endorse those sort of common-ground joint initiatives.
Whoops! It was a PM from Baptist Trainfan not a post. I'm happy to drop discussion of the filioque here but haven't really got any more to say about Christian unity than:
We need to keep talking to and loving one another.
Has anyone had (or will have) any positive experiences of this year's Week of Prayer for Christian Unity? Or, indeed, negative ones?
Or, more generally, of ecumenical "successes" or "failures" in their area?
Or does ecumenism simply Not Happen?
The local Methodist Church opened their worship area for an hour or two for reflection, with prayer stations. This was yesterday, at the same time as their weekly coffee morning in the adjacent hall which is very well attended, thus making it easy for anyone to drop in. On Sunday they are holding an ecumenical service at 3pm, specifically to pray for Christian unity.
This sounds like a positive - if small - step forward, and it is to be hoped that your local C of E church joins in once their vacancy is filled.
I'm not quite sure, however, that praying for 'Christian unity' is what's wanted - praying for 'Christian co-operation' (and your Methodists are doing that already!) is perhaps a better term.
Full marks to them, though, and I hope the service is well-attended.
My church is part of an Ecumenical Area which began - with great fanfare it seems - 50 years ago; this was the time when there was a real hope that the mainline protestant denominations would merge. But over the last few years, beginning in 2012 with the failure to appoint an "ecumenical bishop", and since then due to declining congregations and ministers moving on and/or serving more congregations, enthusiasm seems to have largely collapsed. Covid seems to have dealt a killer blow. I'm sure that "structural unity" will never happen; but even co-operation seems quite "thin" as many churches are stretched just to keep going. Certainly ecumenism has never really bedded itself into the churches' "esse" as was once hoped, but remained a peripheral interest. The one thing that does draw us together - a bit - is Christian Aid.
You're certainly correct in saying that 'many churches are stretched just to keep going'. This is manifestly so in Our Town, and also in parts of our neighbouring Diocese, where C of E church attendance is diminishing rapidly, and clergy are as rare as the teeth of the hen...
There is also the fact that Christ, on earth and after his ascension, sends the Spirit to his people. The idea behind this observation is that it makes more sense for him to be doing this in his incarnate life if in fact the Spirit takes his origin from the Son (and the Father, naturally) within the Trinity. This is a weaker argument, because God is infinitely courteous and loving, and if the Orthodox view of the Spirit's procession is correct, the Spirit would still certainly consent to be sent by Jesus anywhere the Trinity-in-Unity chose. I mean, he's not going to say "no" regardless of the facts about his procession.
I’m pretty sure that I’m not dreaming when I remember reading some Orthodox theologians and/or bishops who’ve said that the Filioque is not objectionable on theological grounds (from an Orthodox perspective) if “and the Son” is understood to mean (or reworded to mean) “through the Son”; i.e.,
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father through the Son, . . . .
I like to think of myself as ecumenical as I like to know about what other Christians believe
and how they conduct their worship. I used to attend regularly the worship services of other Christians but don't do so much now. This is not because I don't think it is a good idea I just don't find the time as I suppose that I am more involved with my own church community and on average attend a number of different churches of the one denomination in the course of a week.
As far as I know there are no special services for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity in our local area but on the whole relationships are good between the different church communities. Within 5 minutes' walk from my house there is one RC parish church, two RC chapels,two Church of Scotland parish churches,one Scottish episcopal church, one United Reform church,one Elim Pentecostal church,one very evangelical church,one Baptist church and one Community of Brethren which advertises regular 'servicios en espanol'
So it is quite a selection !
@Forthview curious about what distinguishes a Catholic church from a Catholic chapel - are the chapels like historic chapels of ease? Or are they just smaller?
I can't speak authoritatively. However I do know that in Scotland (at least in the Glasgow area), "chapel" is (or used to be) the standard word used for a Catholic church.
A friend of mine, a Yorkshire Methodist, went to tea with some very Protestant folk in Glasgow about 50 years ago. They asked him what church he went to. "I don't go to the church, I go to the chapel", he replied. They nearly threw him out of the house for that, but probably ended up having a good laugh at the misunderstanding!
@Forthview curious about what distinguishes a Catholic church from a Catholic chapel - are the chapels like historic chapels of ease? Or are they just smaller?
A catholic chapel is usually attached to something else, a monastery, convent, school, big house etc and it's focus is that community. Whereas a church is free standing as a thing in the street and open to all.
As Alan 29 said. One of the chapels is the private chapel of the RC Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, the other chapel previously belonged to a convent.
Coming originally from Glasgow I understand the meaning in that city. Many years ago I met in Normandy a Glasgow man who was interested in war memorials from WW2.
I told him about a newly built church in St Valéry en Caux which had wonderful windows recalling the sacrifices made in WW2. He told me however that he wouldn't be able to visit it as 'that church will be a chapel'.
In the past only the state sponsored CofE or CofI centres of worship were allowed to call themselves 'churches' others were called 'chapels'
St Martin of Tours is well know for having given half of his cloak to a beggar. The part of his cloak/cape which he didn't give away became later a 'holy relic' .The small part of the cape was called the 'capella' and eventually placed in a special shrine in Worms. From this shrine the word started to be used as a word to denote a place of religious worship which was not a parish church and which usually had a special relic or statue.
I hesitate to resurrect the filioque thing again as I've been politely asked not to derail the thread with it, but would make one observation in response to @Nick Tamen's comment about what he may have read or dreamt he'd read.
I don’t recall reading anything like that from Orthodox sources, but I may have done. It wouldn't surprise me though if some Orthodox bishops and theologians held that particular view.
It would make sense.
Coming back to the OP, relations between the churches where I am are pretty cordial although the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity hasn't really featured too prominently in that.
I'm not sure it's any great loss though as Christians from the various churches around here tend to interact pretty well anyway.
I've just done a quick survey of the rural CofE churches of my acquaintance. None of them are marking the week of prayer, other than as part of the intercessions during services, whereas 10 or 20 years ago they would have held or participated in dedicated services or other events.
I was thinking about the points raised about rural parishes:
I can't help but wonder if the heyday of the ecumenism movement was in the 1970s- what has changed most since? Many ministers/vicars/pastors had just one church then, and so could work realistically in a local area & get to know their local ecumenical colleagues. Now we have several churches each often spread over a large area, and so our efforts are more driven by necessity of trying to get the our own multitudinous congregations to acknowledge one anothers' existence.
That certainly seems to be true of some C of E benefices, spread out over maybe 10 or 12 separate churches (between each of which is a great gulf fixed, as you imply), although it may be the case in rural areas that other denominations are conspicuous in any case by their sheer absence, their chapels having been closed over a period of many years.
As well as the "merging" of parishes into benefices, there is a more recent "merging" of parish shares (the financial contribution to the diocese). In some dioceses, parishes within a benefice are now expected to agree amongst themselves how much each of them should contribute to the pot.
It occurs to me that, when it comes to unity, nothing concentrates the mind like discussing who's going to pay, even more so than expectations of the proportion of a minister's time that individual parishes in a benefice "deserve".
The imagined ideal of church unity has had to cope with the reality of spreading shared resources ever more thinly.
The Anglican church I now attend has excellent relationships with the Methodist church in the village. Usually the Anglicans are invited to their Covenant Service in January, though it didn’t happen this year, partly because we are in vacancy.
The two churches share a Family Worker who runs Messy Church at the Methodists midweek monthly, and Pancakes and Praise Monthly on Sunday. She also goes into the village school which is CofE.
A couple of Methodists are bellringers at the Anglican church.
Such practical co-operation and collaboration is worth more than any written documents or statements of belief.
Our local churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Church of Scotland, Evangelical) have a committee which co-ordinates various activities. The Nativity in the Town Square, for example, is owned by this ecumenical committee. We produce a "What's On" leaflet at Christmas listing all Christmas services / Christingles / Carol Services and we organise a carol singing section at the municipal Christmas Lights Switch On. We organise the Good Friday Walk of Witness. We will be organising hustings ahead of the elections in May.
That comment does seem to support a thought that I've had for a long time: that ecumenism works best in smallish towns which have a clear sense of identity and where "everyone knows everybody else".
Yes, or in an 'urban village' setting too. I can think of a striking instance of that in a corner of a northern city 20 years ago. I don’t know whether it's continued but I hope so.
In a rural context, it's interesting that in many parts of the UK village Methodists used to attend services at both the parish church and the Methodist chapel for many years after the Methodists ceded from the Anglicans.
I'm involved with an ecumenical publication and a particular ecumenical fellowship/society.
The feeling within both is that formal/institutional unity and declarations are dead in the water but we can all work together at grass-roots levels.
Comments
Surely, per Galatians 3:18, Christians can't be Greek (or Jewish for that matter)?
Not all rural Greeks would think any such thing of course, but my monastic informant insisted that there were peasants who did indeed hold such views. If that doesn't sound too elitist and 'classist'.
Back to the OP ...
Given that no amount of conciliar creedal formularies or individual 'statements of belief' guarantee absolutely tight orthodoxy in the pews, the plastic bucket seats or among the benches, what can we do to foster closer ties?
Heck, my brother knew a woman in a Baptist church in South Wales who thought that John the Baptist set up the Baptist Church.
Conversely, he also knew an old lady in an Anglican parish who thought that John the Baptist wrote the New Testament.
I'm sure many of the people who attend my parish haven't the foggiest idea what it's all about - other than that it's about God in some way.
Lex orandi, lex credendi is one thing but ...
I remember a poll that was done among a particular network of 'new church'/restorationist leaders which had some surprising results. A very small minority didn't get the right answers on some very straightforward Christological and Trinitarian questions. I suspect this was more due to a lack of appropriate theological vocabulary than outright heretical views, but language is important and with all due respect to those of us who don't follow formal creeds and rubrics, this is one of the reasons why, pains in the butt as we undoubtedly are, the Orthodox insist on such things.
There's no guarantee that it'll percolate into the pews or out into the world of course.
The deal of it is the 381 creed was the one that was approved by all the bishops attending the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. The Western version of the creed (with Filioque) was never approved in an Ecumenical Council. The matter is settled as far as the Orthodox are concerned and more western denominations are agreeing with them. The 381 creed does not have to be approved by anyone else.
You may call this a minor point, but it did lead to the great schism of the church in 1054.
Let's get past this issue, and let the healing begin.
Can't speak for what the German Lutherans are now doing. The American Lutherans used to say, "The Holy Christian Church," but since the mid sixties ELCA Lutheran hymnals have "The holy catholic church."
OK so why can't an Ecumenical Council then retroactively approve the filioque instead?
Well, quite. I must admit to feeling quite annoyed by such decisions being taken on my behalf in the name of a level of unity I haven't actually agreed to, which does exactly the opposite of fostering unity. It feels like being signed up to a statement I don't believe in.
Maybe I'm just strange but when I say the Creed in church I view it as a theological statement, not a political one. Theologically I believe that the Father and the Son also proceed from the Holy Spirit, because my understanding of the Trinity is that there is no hierarchy between the three Persons and that all proceed from each other equally.
In terms of unity, I am personally more interested in unity between churches working together - I don't need theological unity in order to have practical friendship, nor would I expect it.
I wonder what opportunity there is for widespread cooperation in Orthodox lands, or in S America, Africa and Asia. How do you break down barriers and address misconceptions if you can't meet?
Incidentally here's a Vatican report that points out that a formal schism was never declared between East and West, but that named individuals were eccommunicated not entire Churches. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-01/lifting-anathemas-60-years-paul-vi-anathagoras-koch-getcha.html
@Pomona - yes, various 'Western' Churches are making all the running when it comes to making ecumenical overtures to the Orthodox. In fairness to Patriarch Bartholomew he's very keen on ecumenical relations and he gets a lot of stick for that from some of the beardy-wierdies on Mount Athos as well as die-hards and blow-hards in various jurisdictions.
Don't expect any concessions from the Orthodox any time soon.
When you believe your group has the 'fullness of the faith' - or are at least working towards it - then it's easy to take the 'ecumenical' stance of - 'Right, why don't you join us then?'
I'd like to think I'm personally more flexible than that, but then I'm not in charge.
Those who believe that the filioque clause should be in the Creed have to demonstrate that by scripture and tradition - or Tradition.
People can believe that the filioque clause is justified as much as they like but they'd have to put forward a pretty good case to convince the Orthodox who are predisposed against it for the reasons I've outlined.
For my own part, I'm not one of those who thinks the sky is about to fall in unless the clause is dropped, but neither do I believe it should have been inserted unilaterally nor do I think it's consonant with scripture - unless it's understood in temporal rather than eternal terms. Perhaps I've missed something. What that might be is probably best explored in another thread.
I really can't understand why anyone would object to its removal. I don't know what it adds apart from confusion.
I'm not sure why you can't understand that some people like myself and Lamb Chopped do actually believe in the filioque. Surely then it's reasonable to not want it removed?
I sincerely am not bothered by the Orthodox not believing in it. I don't feel the need to prove why I believe in a faith matter, but likewise wouldn't expect them to have to prove why they don't believe in it. I don't feel like being expected to change my beliefs is actually unity.
Certainly in my experience local relationships between RC and Protestant churches are good, and are usually based on practical working together eg via food banks. I think that this is really where unity matters the most - because it also really affects evangelism too, much moreso than theological unity. I don't need to agree with every belief held by a church in order to work on a project together.
That said, the reverse also applies - sometimes there is stronger allyhood between different denominations than between opposite ends of a denomination.
Sure, I get that. But is the corollary of what you are saying is that you'd expect the Orthodox to change their views on this issue in order to tie in with what @Lamb Chopped and yourself believe. I'm not actually sure Lamb Chopped would agree with your take on the Trinity but she can speak for herself on that one.
I think this may be a matter for another thread, but FWIW I can understand why the clause was inserted - in Spain initially - in a laudable attempt to refute Arianism by emphasising the co-equality of the Father and the Son. Full marks.
However, in doing so, from an Orthodox perspective, it introduces potential problems and can lead to forms of Modalism.
It's not that I believe that the clause is wicked and evil and responsible for all the ills in the world since it was unilaterally adopted, it's more that I feel it's redundant and doesn't add anything to our understanding of the Trinity that couldn't be made from the Creed as it was originally agreed.
I'm not saying that everyone who recites the Creed with the filioque clause in it is a modalist of some kind. Far from it. But it can confuse matters which is why I think it's better left out.
That isn't to say I'd visit your respective churches and wrestle you to the ground for reciting it.
I'd love to see the Orthodox play soft ball rather than hard ball in ecumenical relations but I can't see what we'd be expected to 'trade' in this instance. What would you want us to drop to compensate you for omitting the filioque clause?
I am probably showing my ignorance here but:
I thought the original had all members of the trinity co equal - and western churches added the filioque which said the spirit preceded from the father and the son (ie not co-equal).
Have I got that the wrong way round ?
Frankly I think that unity in terms of working together at a local level needs to come first. Statements of unity without experience of being hands on the ground together is worthless. If local Orthodox churches were regularly involved in running food banks and playgroups, then perhaps it would be different - but in my experience they're not.
I am not personally convinced that the procession of the Spirit implies subordination and I find the resulting assertion of the monarchy of the Father suspect.
But I think there's a strong temptation to rationalise the version in our tradition.
They should be.
I know instances of Orthodox parishes distributing food to people in poverty without making a big song and dance about it and also making donations to initiatives run by non-Orthodox churches to help the homeless etc.
But yes, more should be done and in collaboration with other churches too.
The 'monarchy' of the Father in the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity is to do with source and origin not the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
All the Divine persons are co-equal and co-eternal.
I'm sure the LCMS believe that too.
The issue is one of roles as it were. The Father eternally begets, the Son is eternally begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeds.
Apologies, @Pomona, I misunderstood what you wrote earlier and my suggestion that you might be on a different page to @Lamb Chopped was misleading. I take that back.
We are all Trinitarian believers and I'm not suggesting that anyone here is deficient in that respect.
Nevertheless, whilst I understand what the filioque clause aims to assert, I feel it can inadvertently confuse and make it look as if the Holy Spirit is subordinate and some kind of afterthought.
I'm not saying individual Orthodox believers have doctorates in Trinitarian doctrine. They can be pretty slapdash. But there is an attempt within Orthodoxy to assert the co-equality of the Persons of the Godhead which, in our view, the filioque clause can confuse or undermine.
I'm not saying those who insist on retaining the filioque clause are setting out to do that or out to be mischievous. But the filioque clause can be misunderstood. Which is why it's better, in our view, not to add it retrospectively and unilaterally.
That’s probably not the test it’s wise to apply, as the same could be said of many clauses in the Creed, and, for that matter, in Scripture.
It is difficult not to understand this as suggesting that the Spirit is some sense subsidiary. The same understanding would pertain with respect to the Son, were it not that the Nicene Creed specifically spells out that He is 'God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.' This seems to be in response to the views of Arius, who was big on the oneness of God but at the cost of the status of the Son and Spirit. Had similar language about the Spirit been incorporated into the original creed, perhaps the subsequent 'filioque' controversies could have been avoided, but my impression - which someone better read than me can confirm or otherwise - is that the fuller development of Trinitarian doctrine post-dated the Nicene creed and did not stabilise until the end of the century.
All this probably falls into the realm of 'angels dancing on pinheads' in relation to what unites us in faith and co-operation at local level.
@Gamma Gamaliel no problem, I can see where the misunderstanding came from. Also, I don't mean that I would want Orthodox groups to make a big song and dance about charitable projects - it's more about joining in and running or participating in projects with other groups and churches. Things like volunteering with Street Pastors and doing things with local Churches Together groups.
I think for me, for any form of ecumenism, relationships come from individuals not official bodies. You can't have genuine friendship between corporate entities because they aren't people. Genuine friendship has to start one at a time. If you don't have the local relationships between churches, there's no foundation to build on.
However we cut it we all develop an agreed system of interpretation of scripture and creedal formularies either at an individual church level - such as a 'statement of faith' by a Protestant group, Baptists, Pentecostals, Reformed etc - or a wider one that most Christian churches and denominations would accept.
How do we understand the Nicene Creed? We discuss, debate and develop some kind of consensus.
How do we understand scripture? We discuss, debate and develop some kind of consensus.
It happens in community.
That hasn't happened in the case of the filioque clause. One section of the Church adopted it unilaterally, without consulting anyone else.
That flies in the face of how the process of interpretation works- or ideally should work.
The burden of proof for accepting the adoption of the clause lies with those who inserted it and their heirs and successors.
These things are received and understood collectively, collegially and in a conciliar way.
It's not up to me to concoct my own personal interpretations and expect everyone else to follow suit, however benign or well-meaning my motives might be.
Alright, I'm being hyperbolic but you get my drift.
Sure and there's a heck of a lot more Orthodox parishes should be doing in that regard.
As for catechesis it's generally piss-poor across most Orthodox parishes with some honourable exceptions.
For what it's worth, this is what I understand to be the ordinary, straightforward Western view (with filioque). It also happens to be the view of my own church and a great many others.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, one God. The Three Persons are coequal in majesty, in power, in the omnis, and so forth. None of them is subordinate to the rest. Being one, they are basically indistinguishable from one another EXCEPT in terms of relationship. That is, you can't tell the Father from the Son except by the single relational difference--that the Father IS Father (divine paternity) and the Son is begotten by him (divine filiation). This is a statement about origin, yes--but we have to remember that God is not in time, and there never was a point where the Father, the Son, or the Spirit did not already exist. So those who take filiation in a too-human sense are out of bounds.
It's also not a statement about the Son (Christ, Jesus, Immanuel, whatever you want to call him) being somehow subordinate in nature to the Father. They are coequal. If the Son deliberately sets out to glorify the Father above himself, that's a very proper and sonly thing to do, but has to be kept in perspective with the fact that the Father glorifies the Son. (Also we get into a spot of difficulty as regards Jesus' human nature, which is created and most definitely subordinate to the Father by virtue of that fact.)
You can make parallel statements about the Spirit. He is not separate from the Father or the Son--they are one God. Nor is he subordinate simply because he takes his origin from either the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, depending on where you come down on the controversy. It is the Spirit's position, his relationships with the other two Persons, that allows us to identify any "difference" at all. And nobody contests the fact that he proceeds from the Father (some call this "spiration," which is a reference to breathing out). Half the Christian church believes he proceeds also from the Son in the same way (this is what lies behind the Filioque clause). Finding Scriptural backing for either position is the hard thing, as God doesn't ever set out to give us a nice little technical treatise on his own interworkings anywhere. Thus it would be a good idea for us all to stay humble and be charitable with one another.
What follows is a partial explanation of why I lean toward the idea that the Filioque is in fact true, and the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The first is because if the Spirit takes his sole origin from the Father, just as the Son does, how exactly is there any difference between Son and Spirit? It's not as if begetting/filiation and spiration/procession are different processes that can be observed by us. As far as I can make out, they are labels based on Scriptural passages that more or less label a mystery rather than seeking to explain it. And so with the Orthodox view, one is left with the Father as the sole origin of both the Son and the Spirit, but no real clarity on how you tell the Spirit from the Son--or how they relate to one another. I mean, is this divine siblinghood or what? Are they two of a kind in a way that leaves the Father as a single different one? In the Western view, the double procession/spiration/origin of the Spirit from the Father AND the Son means that there is never any confusion about who is who. Each person in the Trinity has a relationship "position" that is unique to himself, and that we can use to identify who we're talking about, which is kind of handy.
But in itself, the above is not enough to make the Filioque true. There are other indications. The first is the fact that the Spirit gets called "the Spirit of Jesus" or "the Spirit of Christ" all over the place. It's such a marked emphasis that it leads me to think the relationship between them goes much further than simply divine co-origin in the Father (siblinghood). It looks like origin to me.
Then there are the human analogies--things in the created world that appear to be modeled after the divine Trinity. The creative experience of a writer is one (see Dorothy L. Sayers, The Mind of the Maker, if you'd like to see this worked out in wonderful and convincing detail. It's pretty awesome. There are other analogies that the theologians use, but this is the one I know the best, because I'm a writer. (And on the question of analogies--what we mean here is not simply "It matches, so the doctrine must be true." Here "analogies" is a more technical word and means more or less "created objects or situations that God deliberately made to reflect the Trinity in some fashion," and therefore the "mini-trinities" can be used as a source of possible information about the real, divine Trinity.
There is also the fact that Christ, on earth and after his ascension, sends the Spirit to his people. The idea behind this observation is that it makes more sense for him to be doing this in his incarnate life if in fact the Spirit takes his origin from the Son (and the Father, naturally) within the Trinity. This is a weaker argument, because God is infinitely courteous and loving, and if the Orthodox view of the Spirit's procession is correct, the Spirit would still certainly consent to be sent by Jesus anywhere the Trinity-in-Unity chose. I mean, he's not going to say "no" regardless of the facts about his procession.
This is as far as I've gotten with my investigations into Trinitarian inter-relations. It very quickly becomes too high for me, and my head starts to spin. Then, too, I have this urge to keep saying, "Show it to me in the Scriptures." Those who appeal to this saint or that do me no good, whether Western or Eastern. I want something more solid than that. And while we do get some data in the Scriptures, it's far from being the super-clear diagram with footnotes that some people talk as if they had.
The standard and riskily reductionist response to 'show me in the scriptures' from an Orthodox perspective would of course be, 'where do you think the scriptures came from in the first place?'
We can't disaggregate scripture from Tradition. Yes, scripture is primary but the interpretative framework comes within Holy Tradition and is worked out in community - as I outlined above.
Which is why we all need to talk to one another even though on both sides at times there can be a 'la la la we're not listening' response. There can be a lot of that on my side of the fence. To give Rome its due it seems to be doing less of that these days and many of our lovely Protestant brothers and sisters are exemplary in ecumenical dialogue and exploration.
As you'd expect, the Orthodox would say that they have answers to thr particular points you raise, 'Ah! We've thought of that one ...'
But I'm no expert and would need to mug up on all this a lot more, and get a head-spin in the process.
I know things aren't as clear cut as those with entrenched positions would like them to be.
I certainly don't like the polemical tone and reductionism of some Orthodox push-back on what we see as 'Western' innovations. 'The nefarious and delinquent West introduced the filioque clause without consulting the rest of us and subordinated the Holy Spirit. Everything has gone to Hell in a hand-cart ever since and that's why I have bunions, why my cat is incontinent and why my tomatoes didn't do very well this year ...'
Has anyone had (or will have) any positive experiences of this year's Week of Prayer for Christian Unity? Or, indeed, negative ones?
Or, more generally, of ecumenical "successes" or "failures" in their area?
Or does ecumenism simply Not Happen?
To which it can be objected, of course, that 'I and the Fathervare one' so this potential confusion need not arise.
A standard Orthodox analogy would be the sun. The Son may be the rays of the sun as it were and the Holy Spirit the heat, but only the sun itself is the source. Yes, I know, like all analogies it has flaws and limitations.
Whatever the case, the Orthodox believe that the Persons of the Holy and Undivided Trinity are equally engaged and involved in all divine actions. So it is legitimate to talk of 'The Spirit of Christ' - without diminishing the monarchical source/origin of the eternal Father who 'begets' the Son and from whom the Spirit eternally proceeds.
An Anglican friend who sings with our choir with the blessing of our parish priest although he has no current intention of becoming Orthodox, suggests that if the filioque clause had been framed as 'and through the Logos' then difficulties could have been avoided.
I'm not convinced he's right about that but it's an interesting suggestion.
One of the many difficulties of course is that the way the filioque was introduced, without consultation and conciliar debate, has muddied the waters and introduced a 'political' element.
Humans being humans - and men being men - we could say this was tragically unfortunate but perhaps inevitable. I've seen it suggested that if women had been present at the great Councils then all these things could have been resolved amicably.
Although given that @Lamb Chopped is a woman yet persists in ... no, no, I am joking of course. I'm sure if Lamb Chopped has been at one or other of the early Councils she would have made an outstanding contribution as I'm sure she does within her own church circles today.
Coming back to the OP and pursuing the 'organic' rather than institutional unity theme, I was struck during my time in local/regional politics by times when councillors of very different persuasions 'clicked' and found common ground on a range of issues.
The same applies, I think in churchy circles of whatever stripe.
There's a story about an Orthodox bishop who was assigned a place near the RCs at an ecumenical conference. He asked the organisers to move him nearer to the Pentecostals as, 'we both emphasise the Person and work of the Holy Spirit.'
Now, I'm not suggesting that the RC's don't - and for all I know the story might be apocryphal. It's not yet been ratified through Holy Tradition at an Ecumenical Council ... 😉
My take these days is that the controversy about the filioque clause was (and still is) mostly about the politics. Going back to the first millennium, it looks like a major split was coming, regardless, and the filioque clause provided a useful definitive (and widely-practised) expression of a fundamental difference. In that regard, the theology sits, at best, alongside the issues of orthodoxy, legitimacy and especially authority in its significance.
Pomona's posts remind me of my own experiences, starting from an early age. Once you're old enough to start thinking about the words we regularly recite in church services, the Creed takes shape as a theological statement of what we believe. After a few years, as I learned more of the history of why we say it, the political angle became rather more evident. I didn't find this detracted from the theological statement. When I said the Creed, I was usually thinking both about the theology and the history, the politics of the theology. In some ways, this made it more real - what we believe and confess is located in a solid and believable historical context.
At the same time, working towards church unity was an important aspect of our faith, in the CofE churches which I attended as I grew up. The thing that was much harder to come to terms with wasn't that people in different churches believed different things - after all, if we all believed the same things, we wouldn't need different churches (or, more realistically, quite as many of them). The thing that was much harder to come to terms with was that some churches behaved as though not believing the same things was sufficient reason for opposing church unity. Looking back, I think the reason for my difficulty was because it calls into question so many of the fundamentals of Jesus' message regarding the Church.
ETA: PLEASE STOP DOING THIS!
The local Methodist Church opened their worship area for an hour or two for reflection, with prayer stations. This was yesterday, at the same time as their weekly coffee morning in the adjacent hall which is very well attended, thus making it easy for anyone to drop in. On Sunday they are holding an ecumenical service at 3pm, specifically to pray for Christian unity.
I will try harder in future.
I agree with your points about the political machinations becoming part and parcel of the whole thing and not necessarily distracting from the theology - nor the genuineness or authenticity of the faith involved.
I s'pose I think of it rather like a tree. If nails are hammered in or barbed wire becomes embedded in the bark the tree continues to grow around them and the resulting whorls and lumps and bumps become part of its 'character'.
Again, like all analogies we shouldn't push this too far. The intrusion of some foreign bodies can prove fatal to the most robust and resilient tree.
But if the gates of Hell shall not prevail then we can have hope that some of the lumps, bumps and disagreements can be ironed out over time whichever the 'final' outcome.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if the 'West' had brought the filioque clause to an Ecumenical Council and either convinced their 'Eastern' brethren to accept it by presenting a case based on scripture and Tradition, or else agreed to drop it if convinced otherwise.
But that didn't happen and we have to deal with it.
Although I suspect that divergence between the 'Latin West' and the 'Greek East' may very well have happened anyway.
That process was well underway before 1054.
I think it is possible to exaggerate the differences in 'mindset' between Eastern and Western Christianity but they are there. We' all inevitably judge or assess other Christian expressions from the stand-point of our own traditions- or Tradition.
Much of 'Western' Christianity looks increasingly odd to me these days although I'm fully aware that what we Orthodox get up to looks pretty strange to everyone else.
At the risk of sounding as if I'm defending my poor taste ribbing and jests, I like to think that I reserve most 'judgement' firmly own particular neck of the Christian woods.
It probably looks from my posts that I fail miserably at that as I do in much else. Must try harder.
Before I do so I need some time to reflect on how to do that without cracking silly jokes of making light of things too much.
Just.stop.doing.it is a good place to start.
I've just spotted @Baptist Trainfan's post. Well, I did suggest a new thread on the filioque and perhaps someone should have done so before now to avoid clogging up this thread. Perhaps I should have done so.
The topic is pertinent insofar as it was one of the stated reasons for the grievous split between Western and Eastern Christianity but perhaps deserved a separate thread to discuss the ins and outs and the Kerygmatic dimension.
I agree with Baptist Trainfan that it's probably run it's course on this particular thread.
Several Shipmates have made suggestions about closer interaction between Christian believers of whatever flavour given that some form of institutional or structural unity doesn't look likely anytime soon and I'd thoroughly endorse those sort of common-ground joint initiatives.
Bring them on.
We need to keep talking to and loving one another.
Joint initiatives are to be welcomed.
This sounds like a positive - if small - step forward, and it is to be hoped that your local C of E church joins in once their vacancy is filled.
I'm not quite sure, however, that praying for 'Christian unity' is what's wanted - praying for 'Christian co-operation' (and your Methodists are doing that already!) is perhaps a better term.
Full marks to them, though, and I hope the service is well-attended.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father through the Son, . . . .
That understanding makes sense to me.
Count me as having no experiences at all of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, this year or ever in my 65 years.
Ecumenism definitely happens successfully here.
and how they conduct their worship. I used to attend regularly the worship services of other Christians but don't do so much now. This is not because I don't think it is a good idea I just don't find the time as I suppose that I am more involved with my own church community and on average attend a number of different churches of the one denomination in the course of a week.
As far as I know there are no special services for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity in our local area but on the whole relationships are good between the different church communities. Within 5 minutes' walk from my house there is one RC parish church, two RC chapels,two Church of Scotland parish churches,one Scottish episcopal church, one United Reform church,one Elim Pentecostal church,one very evangelical church,one Baptist church and one Community of Brethren which advertises regular 'servicios en espanol'
So it is quite a selection !
A friend of mine, a Yorkshire Methodist, went to tea with some very Protestant folk in Glasgow about 50 years ago. They asked him what church he went to. "I don't go to the church, I go to the chapel", he replied. They nearly threw him out of the house for that, but probably ended up having a good laugh at the misunderstanding!
A catholic chapel is usually attached to something else, a monastery, convent, school, big house etc and it's focus is that community. Whereas a church is free standing as a thing in the street and open to all.
Coming originally from Glasgow I understand the meaning in that city. Many years ago I met in Normandy a Glasgow man who was interested in war memorials from WW2.
I told him about a newly built church in St Valéry en Caux which had wonderful windows recalling the sacrifices made in WW2. He told me however that he wouldn't be able to visit it as 'that church will be a chapel'.
In the past only the state sponsored CofE or CofI centres of worship were allowed to call themselves 'churches' others were called 'chapels'
St Martin of Tours is well know for having given half of his cloak to a beggar. The part of his cloak/cape which he didn't give away became later a 'holy relic' .The small part of the cape was called the 'capella' and eventually placed in a special shrine in Worms. From this shrine the word started to be used as a word to denote a place of religious worship which was not a parish church and which usually had a special relic or statue.
I don’t recall reading anything like that from Orthodox sources, but I may have done. It wouldn't surprise me though if some Orthodox bishops and theologians held that particular view.
It would make sense.
Coming back to the OP, relations between the churches where I am are pretty cordial although the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity hasn't really featured too prominently in that.
I'm not sure it's any great loss though as Christians from the various churches around here tend to interact pretty well anyway.
I was thinking about the points raised about rural parishes: As well as the "merging" of parishes into benefices, there is a more recent "merging" of parish shares (the financial contribution to the diocese). In some dioceses, parishes within a benefice are now expected to agree amongst themselves how much each of them should contribute to the pot.
It occurs to me that, when it comes to unity, nothing concentrates the mind like discussing who's going to pay, even more so than expectations of the proportion of a minister's time that individual parishes in a benefice "deserve".
The imagined ideal of church unity has had to cope with the reality of spreading shared resources ever more thinly.
The two churches share a Family Worker who runs Messy Church at the Methodists midweek monthly, and Pancakes and Praise Monthly on Sunday. She also goes into the village school which is CofE.
A couple of Methodists are bellringers at the Anglican church.
Such practical co-operation and collaboration is worth more than any written documents or statements of belief.
In a rural context, it's interesting that in many parts of the UK village Methodists used to attend services at both the parish church and the Methodist chapel for many years after the Methodists ceded from the Anglicans.
I'm involved with an ecumenical publication and a particular ecumenical fellowship/society.
The feeling within both is that formal/institutional unity and declarations are dead in the water but we can all work together at grass-roots levels.