A papal protestor I can respect
Whenever the pope arrives somewhere, it seems like every possible protester comes out of the woodwork – atheists, women priests supporters, etc. I remember having a debate with a fundamentalist Christian in Denver back in 1993 when Pope John Paul II was there for World Youth Day. Most of these protesters are hard to take seriously, because none of them seem to take the Church’s teachings seriously. But there was one papal protester in London this past weekend that I can respect (even if I don’t agree with him):
It’s not every day you see Latin on a placard protesting the Pope. When the anti-papal crowd of several thousand atheists, radical feminists and gay activists gathered in London this weekend, most of the banners were pretty simple: stuff like “Nope to the Pope” and “Papa Don’t Preach.”
But later in the afternoon, on the edges of the papal motorcade, and amidst a number of cheering fans of Benedict, there was a poster raised demanding, “DROP THE FILIOQUE.”
What? You have to know a little bit of Latin, and a lot of theology and history to get that one.
It wasn’t really a poster; it more like Magic Marker theology on a pizza box. And a young man named Toby Guise was happy to explain where, in his opinion, the Catholic Church had gone wrong.
“Filioque” means “And the Son,” and refers to a centuries-old debate between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as the Orthodox believe, or from the Father and the Son, which is the Catholic teaching.
That’s tough stuff, material for smart folks debating in a graduate school seminar. Perhaps it’s too bad the Pope didn’t see the pizza box; he would have been amused.
And in his former career as a professor and not a pontiff, he probably would have liked to talk to the young man holding it up.
H/t: Eirenikon
LOL This is great! I wonder whether Benedict would be enticed and excited to talk with the man if he saw his sign. It would be a break from the juvenile, untenable signs and claims made by most protesters.
Really? It sounds like you would be willing to award a Ph.D. to anyone who recognized, “Remember the Maine!”
According to John Allen, another protestor carried a sign that read “Down With This Sort of Thing.”
I’m sorry but I must disagree. Perhaps I should respect Arius just as much? It seems to me that whether one is in favor of masses being celebrated only in Latin or whether one personally are in favor of women priests, WE must both respect (read: love) each of these (whether fond or not of their culture and views), AND we must humbly submit to the church’s teachings and guidance. Anything else is simply divisive.
For Love of Christ,
Bob
Bob,
I’m not sure if I follow your comment, but surely you are not comparing this protester to Arius, are you? Whether to retain the filioque in the creed is not a doctrine of the faith (notice that the protester doesn’t say the filioque is heretical, he just says to drop it from the creed), whereas denying the divinity of Christ, as Arius did, is at the heart of our faith.
Considering the Catholic Church allows the Creed to be recited without the filioque in Eastern Catholic churches and JPII himself celebrated at Masses in which the filioque was not included in the Creed, I think arguing that it should be dropped does not make one a heretic.
Again, I don’t agree with him (I think the filioque should be retained in the Western rites), but his “protest” is much more respectable than most papal protesters and is a legitimate area in which one can disagree with the pope.
I am an Eastern (Chaldean)Catholic and we recite the Creed with the filioque. Christian Theology believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the un-generated Father. However, the generated Son(Jesus)has the same ousia (nature/substance)and will of the Father. He is equal to Father in everything, except in the order of the Trinity. Therefore the Spirit also proceeds from the Son. Jesus, Himself, clearly gives the Holy Spirit to the apostles in a post-resurrection scene in the closing of John’s Gospel as follows: “And when he said this he breathed on them,and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.” (Jn 20:22)
The filioque problem was not the dividing problem between the East and West, but has grown to a sticking point. I personally believe that this could and should be a matter of tradition. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers are not wrong by stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Latin Rite and some Eastern Catholics are not wrong by stating from the Father and the Son. This would be a great matter that could be solved with a uniting ecumenical council with both Eastern and Western bishops working together in Christ’s one Holy Church!
But it was already solved by a uniting ecumenical council, the council of Florence. The council fathers, both East and West agreed on the Filioque, but when the Eastern Fathers went home, the rabble rousers (like the monks of Mt Athos)would have none of it, and unity vanished again. We must return to the deliberations of that wise council, but before anything else, we must pray for humility and the grace needed to bring us back together
Filioque actually means “and from the Son” – don’t forget the ‘from.’ But, of course, just because Obama is no Hitler doesn’t mean I want him raising my kids. To deny that the Holy Spirit is also from the Son is heresy. To leave it for ecumenical sensitivity (but not deny its truth) is another thing. The Nicene Creed is great, it’s just not as specific and therefore informative without the filioque. St. Augustine is the genius who thought the doctrine embodied by the ‘filioque’ was essential. He coudn’t be more right.
Yes, this young fella’s placard was less aggravating than others one customarily sees. This doesn’t mean that it’s not a sin to tell the Holy Roman Pontiff what to do… Judging from the picture, the young man doesn’t apepar to be full of hate (like so many others), but just because it’s not a great sin doesn’t mean it a good.
What is the theological importance of the “filioque.” What are the theological implications of dropping the “filioque”? I am having a hard time appreciating the importance of this debate.
Grateful for you insights!
The greek word for “proceeds” emphasises “origin”. The latin word for “proceeds” emphasises “communion”. So it makes sense to drop the filioque for the byzantine churches who use greek and retain the filioque for the roman churches who use latin. Two different languages, two different meanings.
Richard, how in thw world do you get the idea that procedere emphasizes commumion? This horrible oversimplification does nothing to address the question; you are trying to say that there is no real grounds for distinction, a patently false position.
I believe that Matt may have been influenced in his statement by section 248 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states:
“248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.”
It would appear that the Church’s teaching is that, with or without the filoque, that the Nicene Creed says the same thing. Otherwise how could the Nicene Creed in the Ukranian Catholic Rite liturgy (for example) omit the filoque from the Nicene Creed and the Latin Rite include it? We are the same Church and profess the same belief, and if the filoque actually affected the meaning of the Creed we would all have to use it. But we don’t, so….
Colin,
This doesn’t mean that it’s not a sin to tell the Holy Roman Pontiff what to do.
Thank God that St. Paul and St. Catherine of Sienna didn’t think that!
As Richard alludes to, it’s really quite tough to take the filioque controversy at face value. We believe in one God in three persons. Speculation over the internal life of the trinity is one thing, but the notion of the Church dividing over whether God proceeds from God and God or just from God seems implausible. I tend to be suspicious, therefore, that the substance of the argument was a front for a more basic argument about the process: the authority of the Rome vis-à-vis the councils. Could the Pope modify a creed adopted by a council? That is an argument of some meaning that could plausibly still divide well-meaning Christians today.
I always thought that the phrase “from the Father through the Son” was more precise than “from the Father and the Son.”
Are not both correct? If so, how about “ex Patre per Filium”? There is a problem, however, in balance. We recite :Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto….” We do not use “de Spiritu Sancto Patreque.” I would love comments, since I am not a theologian.
I am grateful to Don for supplying the quotation from the C.C.C., but I find this part of the penultimate sentence quoted curious in the extreme: “the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as ‘the principle without principle’, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.” Why is “the eternal order” taken as implying “also [...]“? As “first origin” He is ‘Spirator of the only Spirit’: why could one not equally (un)convincingly argue ‘he is, with the Spirit, the single prnciple from which the Son Filiates’? I do not know that anyone has ever argued such a thing, but I do not see that what is stated here makes any more certain sense. Why is this “legitamtely and with good reason”? Is this stating meant to be the “good reason”? If not, upon what “good reason” is this prima facie so unconvincing statement made? How are two Persons a “single principle” when only One of them is “the principle without principle”?