![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Benedict XVI and Bartholomew I: together the Creed in Greek
Today during the Mass for the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, Benedict XVI and Bartholomew I recited the Creed together in Greek.
This is interesting for several reasons.
First, for so long it has been nearly obligatory to have the whole congregation sing the Creed alternating with the Sistine Chapel "Choir".
Apparently it isn’t so obligatory as we thought that the whole congregation recite the Creed.
Second, the text of the Creed is that the 381 Council of Constantinople, and thus it is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed:
08-06-29 Benedict and Bartholomew recite the Creed in Greek [1:36m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadThe Patriarch and the Pope both use the singular "I believe", rather than "We believe" of the conciliar formula. The conciliar form of the Creed was a group document, that needed a plural form. The liturgical form is a personal declaration made together with everyone else gathered.
This brings the third point: It did not contain the so-called "Filioque" clause. This is why they could recite it together easily. The Filioque clause has been a source of division from the time when the Latin Church and the Greek Church were talking past each, with a lack of comprehension on both sides of the theology of the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the Father and the Son. Now that there is greater comprehension about this relationship and what each side means when they talk about the Holy Spirit, there is far less reason to stress the differences that historically surround the Filioque clause.
Thus, the fourth point is notice how well the Holy Father reads the Greek text.
Fifth, could your local priest, seminary instructor, or bishop do the same, even with the Creed in Latin?
Did I see homoousion (transliterated), which had been a source of trouble? Syn patri kai to uio symproskynoumenon – close to filioque but not quite?
Comment by Tom in NY — 29 June 2008 @ 4:17 pmRegards.
Filioque clause
Comment by Dob — 29 June 2008 @ 4:27 pmCan someone explain what the big deal is here. Some people paint this as a really big issue. Maybe it is but I cannot for the life of me understand why it should be. I would be grateful for some sensible input on the subject.
The Holy Father is trying to use the Greek pronunciation of Greek (!), but keeps slipping back into the classical pronunciation. Full marks for his fluency – he is faster than the Patriarch! Patriarch is better at accenting the words, however, and has a more virile voice, as is common with eastern priests. Ever notice how the western priest is naturally a tenor, the eastern priest a bass?
Comment by Patrick — 29 June 2008 @ 4:36 pmI like this better than Assisi ecumenism!
Comment by Tom in Quebec — 29 June 2008 @ 4:40 pmIt is both a doctrinal issue and a politeness issue, Dob. Doctrinally, it appears that the Holy Spirit has a dual procession from both the Father and the Son. Also, it seems that the Holy Spirit has God the Son as a source of existence as well as God the Father. More appropriately, it should say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, less confusing. When the filioque clause was inserted into the creed, it was done without consultation of any Eastern bishop. That is why it has to do with respect. The Eastern bishops felt they were brushed aside and that their opinion did not matter. This was a catalyst for the East-West schism of 1054.
Comment by Cory — 29 June 2008 @ 4:45 pmFr Z : Fifth: could your local priest, seminary instructor, or bishop do the same,even with the Creed in Latin?
*
!
Comment by pipesmoker — 29 June 2008 @ 4:47 pmNot in Greek from memory
Oh, yes, this is far better than Assisi ecumenism! Thank you for posting this audio file; I think that this will be edifying to share with some protestants.
Comment by Iosephus — 29 June 2008 @ 4:52 pmI once heard somewhere that the equivalent of “filioque” has never been inserted into the Greek creed by the Catholic Church, but only in the Latin version (and then into the various vernacular languages.) Is that true?
Viva il papa!
Comment by Francesco — 29 June 2008 @ 4:54 pm. . . “a lack of comprehension on both sides
of the theology of the Holy Spirit and
His relationship to the Father and the Son.”
. . . “now that there is greater comprehension.”
Do you mean to say the Catholic Church had an imperfect
Comment by AP — 29 June 2008 @ 4:55 pmunderstanding of this doctrine & taught imperfectly
for 2000 years until our present time?
Sounds that way to me, Father.
Fr. Z,
I believe the problem of “I believe” vs “We believe” is not the problem of the Council but rather the former members of ICEL. The books still say “Credo”. Perhaps before the end of the century we too shall have the opportunity to say “I believe” in English!
Whether they say it out loud or not I firmly believe that the members of the congregation, who are Catholic/Orthodx/Christian, should at least say it silently. In my opinion it is a testimony that we are part of the Faith and thus can be admitted to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Even if not in full communion.
Comment by Larry — 29 June 2008 @ 5:00 pmAP,
MAybe I am mistaken, but does not the Catholic Church openly allow that the Church may understand a doctrine imperfectly and but to understand greater understanding and clarification over time. This of course does NOT mean that doctrine imperfectly understood is incorrect or contradictory.
Comment by vox borealis — 29 June 2008 @ 5:03 pmExcellent post, Fr. Z. This is going on my Facebook profile. Bravo ecumenism! Forget the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox clergy who do not like it.
Comment by Atlanta — 29 June 2008 @ 5:09 pmIs the Holy Father telling us that the doctrinal issue over the filioque doesn’t really exist, or is he modelling the idea that earlier formulations of the Magisterium can always be used, even if overtaken by later ones?
The first position is certainly arguable (although it would be nice to have the case spelt out given that this has been a matter of formal theological disputes between East and West for centuries). The second is a view the Pope has I think suggested before as a possible basis for reconciliation between East and West (and has some relevance to Latin rite traditionalists as well!).
It will be interesting to see how this plays out!
Comment by australiaincognita — 29 June 2008 @ 5:15 pmDear Fr Zuhlsdorf,
Comment by Fr Protodeacon David Kennedy — 29 June 2008 @ 5:34 pmThanks for your comments in regards to the “filioque” – what you say makes sense. We so often fail to understand one another because we are not listening with care, we are failing to mirror back to the sender what the sender really said, we are only too interested in making our own points and proving that “we” are right and the other is wrong. This approach does not work very well, as the history of Catholic and Orthodox relations has shown. Hopefully, we are a little more ready to listen now, and make a concerted attempt to understand. Pope Benedict gives us an excellent example of listening and understanding.
Fr. Protodeacon: I am glad for your comment.
It seems to me that from our far better informed perspective, ironically the fruit of bickering and division – which has always historically driven clarifications – we can start putting aside things that no longer need to be a problem and start focusing on the things that matter.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 29 June 2008 @ 5:46 pmIs the Filioque – a dogma of the Catholic Church and a such inspired by the Holy Ghost – a thing that can be put aside, a thing “that no longer need to be a problem”, a thing that does not matter, if you write, that we should start focusing in the things that matter?! Isn’t rejecting a dogma of the Church heresy? Doesn’t that concern one’s salvation? Does that not matter?
Comment by Filioque — 29 June 2008 @ 5:52 pmAP: Do you mean to say the Catholic Church had an imperfect understanding of this doctrine & taught imperfectly for 2000 years until our present time? Sounds that way to me, Father.
Are you hoping to find something to pick on? If so, you can always find a phrase that sounds wrong.
In fact, that is partly what caused the split between the Greeks and the Latins.
What I am saying that the the perfect comprehension was between the Latins and the Greeks. They talked past each other – as I said above. They weren’t understanding each other properly – as I explained above.
And, by the way, the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son remains a mystery, imperfectly understood. We work toward a more perfect understanding through faith, our reason striving under the light of grace and authority.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 29 June 2008 @ 5:54 pm[...] 29, 2008 by Eirenikon Editor Listen to Pope Benedict XVI and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew recite the Nicene-Constantinopolitan [...]
Pingback by Pistevo eis ena Theon « Eirenikon — 29 June 2008 @ 5:57 pm@ Father Z.: The Church, Councils, great Saints and doctores Ecclesia made quite clear and distinct statements about the “mystery” of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son!
Comment by Filioque — 29 June 2008 @ 6:01 pmThere is also a question of vocabulary and grammar in the Latin translation of the Greek original of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Greek verb for “to proceed” used in the original version of the Creed can only mean to proceed from ONE source, i.e., the phrase can only be translated as “...proceeds from the Father” The verb in the Latin translation (and in the English translation) is not that specific, and thus, does not pose a grammatical problem when the “filioque” clause is added. My source for this is my NT Greek professor (and no, it wasn’t “Baptist” Greek, either ;-))
Comment by Iakovos — 29 June 2008 @ 6:08 pmFiloque: quite clear and distinct statements about the “mystery” of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son
Clear statements does not mean that the relationship is now no longer a mystery.
It is a mystery. We can understand some things about it, but not everything.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 29 June 2008 @ 6:13 pmAll: It would be good to have some discussion here about the history of the Filioque dispute and then later get into what it all means.
That could be helpful to a lot of readers.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 29 June 2008 @ 6:15 pm“Fifth, could you local priest, seminary instructor, or bishop do the same, even with the Creed in Latin?”
Sadly, I have not met a priest or seminarian who could…...........but I’ve managed to learn it and am able to recite it from memory.
Comment by J. Wong — 29 June 2008 @ 6:15 pmFather,
Could you please take a moment to explain what the role of the Patriarch at this Mass means? Is he concelebrating (that sin’t possible at this point is it?)? Is he an observer? Is this a prodromos (to use a good Greek word) of an announcement of reunification? And what would need to happen between the two sisters to have reunification?
Thanks and God bless. You are a Godsend in this traditional desert we ironically call Maryland.
Comment by reinhart10 — 29 June 2008 @ 6:17 pm@Father Z.: Ok, that seems quite reasonable to me. I have a suggestion: Wouldn’t be the filioque a very interesting topic for a podcazt? I would really love to listen to you speaking about it. by the way: I LOVE your padcazt!
Comment by Filioque — 29 June 2008 @ 6:17 pmI’ll have to look up references later, but I was reading (for a discussion with protestants on Orthodox and Catholic relations) about the creed issue last week, and the requirement for reconciliation. Since 1895 (article in Catholic Encyclopedia on EO) the Church has been progressively more open.