Keep the Filioque

[podkarpatska]

Speaking as a Latinist,

I thought you were a high school teacher who also tutors kids in well Latin for kids.

I'm a Ph.D.

Umm so what?

It means that he has studied a field that perhaps you have not.

I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.

[Peter J]

As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?

[Mor Ephrem]

Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz

[podkarpatska]

Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz

LOUDER:I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.

[podkarpatska]

Perhaps our forum administrator could adopt a variant of this old legal maxim as the official OC .net  saying:

 “These are my final words on advocacy. If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.”

[Cyrillic]

And you know he understands this how? Because he has a degree?

You don't get a Classics degree when you buy a six-pack beer. You need to master two languages not many people know. Such a degree gives a certain weight to his posts when we're talking about Latin. And yes, a PhD in Latin does make you an authority on the subject.

[dzheremi]

While there has perhaps been a certain amount of politicization of the degree-granting process (same with other parts of academia, e.g., tenure), it's still a lot of work to get a degree, and the facts of a given language do not change according to modern fashions or politics (in a general sense, of course; new words may be coined or new constructions accepted, but particularly as concerns extinct languages, we can trust the written record as it is studied in classics programs, since these mechanisms of change have been in some sense suspended since there are no longer native speakers to drive innovation), so I would still trust a Latin Ph.D. to speak of things in his or her field. The fact that others might have some other opinion on the matter don't mean much in the grand scheme of things, in the same way that I might have an opinion on something outside of my field, but I defer to those with more knowledge and experience in that area to correct my impressions as necessary. We can't have worthwhile conversations if there is no authority placed in the process by which people may become experts in a given field just because others who haven't done the work to be so recognized might not understand why such things are important in the first place. There are many things I likewise don't understand, but to say "so what?" to them in response to the observations of people who do understand them only confirms my own ignorance, not that their observations don't matter.

[Shiny]

Umm so what?

I think that response could be made to pretty much anything that anyone might post.

We'd all be bald with the type of hair splitting.

I could be completely wrong though

[Mor Ephrem]

I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 

[Cyrillic]

As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin...

Procedens or something like that would be the best way to translate ἐκπορευόμενον. Especially if you look to the classical usages of those two words.

[Shiny]

I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 

Could careless, couldn't don't really know Mor but I think you get my point.

Have had geez what is that past particle or something?

I sure am not a master of my native tongue

[ialmisry]

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.

Happens all the time in the Latin text of the Summa theologiae. "Being" and "existence" are routinely applied to God and creatures in an analogical manner.

To repeat Scandamarius' point, in the same sentence?

[ialmisry]

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.  

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.

Happens all the time in the Latin text of the Summa theologiae. "Being" and "existence" are routinely applied to God and creatures in an analogical manner.

Speaking as a languagist, it happens all the time in every language. You really don't have to argue with these people.

outside of double entendre, no it doesn't happen in any language.  And since double entendre depends on the verb acting on two objects of the same preposition the same way, it doesn't happen there either.

[Mor Ephrem]

Could careless, couldn't don't really know Mor but I think you get my point.

Have had geez what is that past particle or something?

I sure am not a master of my native tongue

I really don't care, I'm just having a little bit of fun with you.  

Whether it is "could" or "couldn't", what you wanted to say was "care less", not "careless", as in "That was a careless error."    

[ialmisry]

Not sure what's so lowly about being a high school teacher. Of the many dozens (hundreds?) of books I've read by modern Orthodox authors, possibly the one I found most helpful was by a high school teacher (Panayiotis Nellas). But pardon me for taking things even further astray 

I have to agree.  My high school students once asked me why I didn't stick with real students.  The top track kids were convinced that I had screwed up for the CIA and was doing penance in the CPS HS system.

[Peter J]

I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 

Could careless

I wouldn't say "Could careless" if you're trying to avoid a visit from the grammar police. 

P.S. For Mor, "I could care less" makes sense if you're being sarcastic and really mean that you couldn't care less ... but that's a little convoluted for my taste. 

[Cyrillic]

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).   Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!

Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.

Happens all the time in the Latin text of the Summa theologiae. "Being" and "existence" are routinely applied to God and creatures in an analogical manner.

The Latin of Thomas Aquinas never was of the same purity as that of Cicero, or any of ancients for that matter. That's why scamandrius asked for evidence from the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae or L&S

The (medieval) Latin word for "being" - "ens", for example, was unknown in Antiquity.

[Apotheoun]

As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?

I would translate the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit - i.e., the section with the alteration to the Latin that I made in an earlier post - as follows:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
Who goes out from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.

[JoeS2]

 

[LBK]

Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz

LOUDER:I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.

I'll add my voice to that! It sums up much of what happens here ... 

[ialmisry]

Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz

LOUDER:I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.

I'll add my voice to that! It sums up much of what happens here ... 

[Father H]

Speaking as a Latinist,

I thought you were a high school teacher who also tutors kids in well Latin for kids.

I'm a Ph.D.

Umm so what?

That makes him an expert in the subject, that's "so what."  If people go to school for a decade, that does not make them an expert on everything.  However, if people go to school for a decade on a particular subject, that does make them an expert on that subject. 

[Father H]

As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?

I would translate the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit - i.e., the section with the alteration to the Latin that I made in an earlier post - as follows:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
Who goes out from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.

Your whole presentation is interesting.  Let me chew on it a bit. 

[Romaios]

As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?

I would translate the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit - i.e., the section with the alteration to the Latin that I made in an earlier post - as follows:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
Who goes out from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.

Egredi is even more ambiguous than procedere. I don't think it was used much in philosophical contexts. It's too pedestrian for lofty theology IMO. So is "go out" in English. Qui ex Patre procedit was good enough for Pope Leo III - the Latin Creed should remain the way he sealed it at St. Peter's.

[Cavaradossi]

As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?

I would translate the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit - i.e., the section with the alteration to the Latin that I made in an earlier post - as follows:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
Who goes out from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.

Egredi is even more ambiguous than procedere. I don't think it was used much in philosophical contexts. It's too pedestrian for lofty theology IMO. So is "go out" in English. Qui ex Patre procedit was good enough for Pope Leo III - the Latin Creed should remain the way he sealed it at St. Peter's.

The same was true of θέλημα too, if I recall. We can always appropriate "pedestrian" words for lofty theology, even if they formerly were not used in philosophical contexts.

[Romaios]

The same was true of θέλημα too, if I recall. We can always appropriate "pedestrian" words for lofty theology, even if they formerly were not used in philosophical contexts.

Theological language is already solidified in Latin. It's a millenary Christian tradition. You just can't be as linguistically creative as if you were translating the Creed in Swahili for the first time.

θέλημα is at least as old as the Lord's prayer in Greek.

[Apotheoun]

As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?

I would translate the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit - i.e., the section with the alteration to the Latin that I made in an earlier post - as follows:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
Who goes out from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.

Egredi is even more ambiguous than procedere. I don't think it was used much in philosophical contexts. It's too pedestrian for lofty theology IMO. So is "go out" in English. Qui ex Patre procedit was good enough for Pope Leo III - the Latin Creed should remain the way he sealed it at St. Peter's.

My reason for choosing that word is precisely because it has not been used much, and so we can assign a technical meaning to it, while allowing the more common Latin word translated as procession to be used to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, because it is already heavily associated in the West with a procession from the Father and (but better - through) the Son. I am not saying that my proposal is perfect, but I think it would be helpful to get the Latins to translate the two primary Greek words used in talking about the Spirit with two Latin words, instead of just one.

[Romaios]

My reason for choosing that word is precisely because it has not been used much, and so we can assign a technical meaning to it, while allowing the more common Latin word translated as procession to be used to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, because it is already heavily associated in the West with a procession from the Father and (but better - through) the Son. I am not saying that my proposal is perfect, but I think it would be helpful to get the Latins to translate the two primary Greek words used in talking about the Spirit with two Latin words, instead of just one.

If a word like procedit has been traditionally used to translate the Greek ekporeuomenon, it assumes its meaning in virtue of this very equivalence. For instance, Hebrew kavod (from a root which means "heavy" ~ might/weight) was equivalated with Greek doxa ("opinion, reputation") and Latin claritas ("brightness") or gloria ("renown" < *gnoria). Thus the Greek and Latin words inherited all the semantic connotations of the biblical kavod, even if originally they might have had different meanings.

Otherwise, there are even weirder correspondences between Latin and Greek: substantia is calqued after Gk. hypostasis, but it is used to translate ousia ("essence"), even though these concepts are used contradistinctively in trinitarian theology.   

[Apotheoun]

My reason for choosing that word is precisely because it has not been used much, and so we can assign a technical meaning to it, while allowing the more common Latin word translated as procession to be used to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, because it is already heavily associated in the West with a procession from the Father and (but better - through) the Son. I am not saying that my proposal is perfect, but I think it would be helpful to get the Latins to translate the two primary Greek words used in talking about the Spirit with two Latin words, instead of just one.

If a word like procedit has been traditionally used to translate the Greek ekporeuomenon, it assumes its meaning in virtue of this very equivalence. For instance, Hebrew kavod (from a root which means "heavy" ~ might/weight) was equivalated with Greek doxa ("opinion, reputation") and Latin claritas ("brightness") or gloria ("renown" < *gnoria). Thus the Greek and Latin words inherited all the semantic connotations of the biblical kavod, even if originally they might have had different meanings.

Otherwise, there are even weirder correspondences between Latin and Greek: substantia is calqued after Gk. hypostasis, but it is used to translate ousia ("essence"), even though these concepts are used contradistinctively in trinitarian theology.   

The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associated for so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion. Quite frankly I do not really care what Latin words are used, so long as two different Latin words are used to translated προϊέναι and ἐκπορευόμενον. My approach was to try and change the Latin word associated with ἐκπορευόμενον because it would help to facilitate the break with the Latin Church's use of the filioque in the creed. In other words, if a new Latin word were used in the creed to speak of the Spirit's existential origin from the Father the filioque could be more easily dropped. But again I really do not care what words are used so long as two Latin words are used to translate the two Greek words that are normally associated with the Spirit's eternal origin from the Father alone and His progression through the Son.

[Romaios]

The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.

[Wandile]

The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.

Pope St.Leo III of Rome told Bl. Charlemagne (January 28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque. But Pope St. Leo III--who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed and the nuances of ἐκπορευόμενον vs. προείναι--openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in ... :

"the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..."
This manifestly concerns the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.

The Latin reads, "Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens."

[Apotheoun]

The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.

I guess there is no solution. God bless.

[Romaios]

The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.

I guess there is no solution. God bless.

The solution is simple: to excise the addition, without any other alteration.

[ialmisry]

The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.

Pope St.Leo III of Rome told Bl. Charlemagne (January 28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque. But Pope St. Leo III--who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed and the nuances of ἐκπορευόμενον vs. προείναι--openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in ... :

"the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..."
This manifestly concerns the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.

The Latin reads, "Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens."

Pope Leo III didn't omit the filioque; he refused to insert it.

Missing this point points out someone has missed the point.

[ialmisry]

My reason for choosing that word is precisely because it has not been used much, and so we can assign a technical meaning to it, while allowing the more common Latin word translated as procession to be used to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, because it is already heavily associated in the West with a procession from the Father and (but better - through) the Son. I am not saying that my proposal is perfect, but I think it would be helpful to get the Latins to translate the two primary Greek words used in talking about the Spirit with two Latin words, instead of just one.

If a word like procedit has been traditionally used to translate the Greek ekporeuomenon, it assumes its meaning in virtue of this very equivalence. For instance, Hebrew kavod (from a root which means "heavy" ~ might/weight) was equivalated with Greek doxa ("opinion, reputation") and Latin claritas ("brightness") or gloria ("renown" < *gnoria). Thus the Greek and Latin words inherited all the semantic connotations of the biblical kavod, even if originally they might have had different meanings.

Otherwise, there are even weirder correspondences between Latin and Greek: substantia is calqued after Gk. hypostasis, but it is used to translate ousia ("essence"), even though these concepts are used contradistinctively in trinitarian theology.   

The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associated for so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion. Quite frankly I do not really care what Latin words are used, so long as two different Latin words are used to translated προϊέναι and ἐκπορευόμενον. My approach was to try and change the Latin word associated with ἐκπορευόμενον because it would help to facilitate the break with the Latin Church's use of the filioque in the creed. In other words, if a new Latin word were used in the creed to speak of the Spirit's existential origin from the Father the filioque could be more easily dropped. But again I really do not care what words are used so long as two Latin words are used to translate the two Greek words that are normally associated with the Spirit's eternal origin from the Father alone and His progression through the Son.

you both have hit on the problem.

[Apotheoun]

The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.

I guess there is no solution. God bless.

The solution is simple: to excise the addition, without any other alteration.

Even if the Roman Church dropped the filioque from the creed the Latins would continue to believe in the double procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle, because they would continue to translate the Greek terms ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι with only one Latin word, and so a false equivalence would continue to exists between the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, and His progression through the Son. Now - of course - if all you care about is the removal of the filioque from the creed it follows that you would be able to consider yourself the winner through its removal, but if you actually want the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to believe the same thing about the Spirit's origin solely from the Father and His progression through the Son you would actually be the loser, because the Latins would continue to believe that ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι mean the same thing.

God bless.

[Cyrillic]

How many Roman Catholics speak Latin as their first language? So why try to find a Latin word to precisely cover ekporeuomai?

[Apotheoun]

How many Roman Catholics speak Latin as their first language? So why try to find a Latin word to precisely cover ekporeuomai?

For the Roman Church only the Latin text is held to be truly authoritative, which is why all the vernacular language texts of the creed used within the Roman Church's liturgy are made from the Latin text. It follows that it you alter the Latin text you can change the vernacular translations that come from it.

[Romaios]

Now - of course - if all you care about is the removal of the filioque from the creed it follows that you would be able to consider yourself the winner through its removal, but if you actually want the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to believe the same thing about the Spirit's origin solely from the Father and His progression through the Son you would actually be the loser, because the Latins would continue to believe that ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι mean the same thing.

No, you see I personally have no stake in this. It's the Latins that need the truth to make them free from heresy.

It's the Roman Magisterium's business to recant all the dubious teachings about double procession, from Blessed Augustine onwards, as well as the 40+ treatises Contra errores Graecorum authored by Latin theologians such as the Angelic Doctor.   

[Apotheoun]

The goal of my proposal was to help the Roman Church to distinguish between ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι. I did not claim that my proposal was perfect, but I thought it would help the Roman Church to come to grips with a distinction that it presently does not make because it would require that the Latins translate those two Greek words with two different Latin words, instead of only one Latin word. Based upon some of the responses here it has become evident to me that some Orthodox Christians do not really care what the Latins actually believe as long as they simply remove the filioque from the creed. That probably - over the course of time - is something that can be achieved (i.e., the removal of the filioque), but it would be a hollow victory as long as the Latins continue to believe that ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι mean the same thing, because as long as that is the case it follows that they will continue to believe that the Spirit is caused by the Son in the same way that He is caused by the Father.

[Apotheoun]

Now - of course - if all you care about is the removal of the filioque from the creed it follows that you would be able to consider yourself the winner through its removal, but if you actually want the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to believe the same thing about the Spirit's origin solely from the Father and His progression through the Son you would actually be the loser, because the Latins would continue to believe that ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι mean the same thing.

No, you see I personally have no stake in this. It's the Latins that need the truth to make them free from heresy.

It's the Roman Magisterium's business to recant all the dubious teachings about double procession, from Blessed Augustine onwards, as well as the 40+ treatises Contra errores Graecorum authored by Latin theologians such as the Angelic Doctor.   

I see. So you would rather that the disagreement on this issue persist, and have a false peace by the simple removal of the filioque from the creed. I - on the other hand - would prefer to help the Latins to come to see the light by proposing a positive solution to an ongoing issue of division. I am sure the Latins will prefer your position because they can remove the filioque while continuing to believe it in, and you would be none the wiser. God bless.

[Cyrillic]

Actually, the definition of Florence has to go as well.

[Romaios]

How many Roman Catholics speak Latin as their first language? So why try to find a Latin word to precisely cover ekporeuomai?

In Romanian, the Orthodox confess that the Holy Spirit is "Domnul de viață făcătorul, Care din Tatăl purcede” (< Lat. procedit). The RCs use the same word, but add the filioque: "Domnul de viață dătătorul, Care de la Tatăl și de la Fiul purcede”. I suppose it's the same for all English speaking Orthodox who use the same word of Latin origin ("proceed" from procedere) to proclaim their Orthodox faith. 

[Apotheoun]

Actually, the definition of Florence has to go as well.

Yes, it does, because it claims that the Son causes the Holy Spirit's subsistent being. My proposal to translate things in a new way is simply intended to help the Latins come to terms with the two distinct realities conveyed by the Greek words ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι. As you can see from my proposed Latin text for the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit the filioque is still removed, because it has no place in that section of the creed. It was my hope that by giving the Latins a technical term - distinct from procedit - to stand for the Spirit's eternal origin from the Father alone, that they could more easily come to grips with the nuances of meaning found in the Greek words used by the Church Fathers to speak of the Spirit's origin and His progression.

[Mor Ephrem]

Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz

LOUDER:I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.

I'll add my voice to that! It sums up much of what happens here ...  

I've played that game!

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Keep the Filioque