The crazy thing is that, if I mentioned “Filioque” to most of my fellow Catholic parishioners, they’d think I was referring to some new delicacy offered at the local Greek restaurant. They’d be amazed to learn that it’s a Church-dividing issue over which countless pixels are spilled (so to speak) daily on the Internet. They’d probably ask, quizzically, “Don’t those people have a life?” ;)

“Is it [the Filioquist controversy] not a false problem, which leads inevitably to a sterile war of words?” (Sergius Bulgakov)

Like Tim and yourself, I have to admit my ignorance and indifference to the controversy. I am likewise inclined to say that it is a matter impossible to know and so not worth fighting over when there are so many things that should be agreeable and are not put into practice.

The *real* scandal of the filioque in my understanding is that there is no scandal: the average Catholic or Orthodox (and certainly Protestant/evangelical) would have no strong feeling on the matter and even amongst those for whom there is an opinion I imagine that many of them have received categories of understanding and have not genuinely tried to test alternative understandings.

-JAK

@ NeoChalcedonian: I don’t think I’m saying that the filioque is a non-issue, and don’t mean to make light of the ecumenical conversations that have taken place about it. As my proposal for its removal suggests, I think the controversy can and ought to be resolved. My contention is with “theologians” who claim to know enough intimate details about the inner life of the Trinity to know that the Son had nothing at all to do with the procession of the Spirit. Seems a bit much. If I’ve led you to think that I’m shrugging off the entire debate, I apologize for my lack of clarity. I’ve always been a theological bull in the ecclesial china shop.

@ Sr. Macrina: While you reserve your judgment, I’m rather intent on testing the size of my mouth with my right foot with this post. (The weekend’s almost here, after all.) I’ve often wondered—here I go again—how much of the filioque controversy is an ecclesiological and/or a canonical point of contention rather than a strictly theological one. That is, for some Orthodox, the Latins changed things while they weren’t looking and then said, “That’s just the way it’s going to be from now on, so get with the program (or creed).” For this, the remedy, I think, is not theology but an apology.

But what I do think is an absolute scandal is that the Latin Church should unilaterally change a creed defined by an ecumenical council. Even if the filioque itself were theologically unobjectionable that would be cause enough for complaint and a good reason to return to the original creed.

Not to pick an argument but I do not see how this differs significantly from certain complex theological issues that separates Catholics & Protestants or other various ecclesial bodies from one another. I have questions about many of the fine points concerning the Reformation & Counter-Reformation debates, but I do not say that they are irrelevant *prior* to serious engagement of the issue. Both the Western & Eastern Church authorities have throughout the centuries produced dogmatic statements on the issue, naming it as important, so the weight of virtually the entire episcopate would seem to be against the assertion that it is all a non-issue.

Thanks for the quotation from St. Ephrem. It reminds me of a favorite passage from St. Gregory the Theologian’s Fifth Theological Oration (Or. 31.8):

“What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God.” (Tr. NPNF ii.7, p. 320.)

I hope the discussions on my blog do not constitute a prying into the mystery.

Peter

I’m not aware of the existence of a Catholic dogma of the filioque. As far as I can tell, what is required by the Catholic Church is that those who seek communion apply a generous hermeneutic and not call the filioque heretical. What is your understanding?

Your fellow bystander,
W.H.

When I attend Eastern mass at a Ukrainian Catholic Church, we do not say the filioque of course. Yet as I understand it, according to Orthodox to Catholic convert James Likoudis, the Eastern Churches which are received into communion may retain the original creed in praxis, but must assent to the Catholic dogma of the filioque.

The problems I see with removing it would be 1. Sending the wrong message to Catholics & 2. I don’t think it would actually help in unifying the Church. If there were some large scale agreement between East & West contingent upon removing the Filioque from the creed, that would probably be workable so long as the dogma was still assented to. The Catholic Church cannot rescind the dogma though.