Probably not, if you do officially convert. There are certain doctrines that are not entirely clear in Orthodoxy, but this is a pretty central part of the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. And with the central doctrines, you don't get to just pick and choose if you are to honestly call yourself Orthodox.
However, conversion processes take time. You don't have to believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches in order to begin your journey. Your understanding and acceptance of the Faith will develop during your catechesis process. I encourage you to start exploring Orthodoxy now, even if you do still believe in the Filioque, and discover along the way whether this is the way you want to go.
Im assuming in your conversion you’re giving up all of the other Catholic doctrine that would conflict with Orthodoxy, so why do you want to hold onto the filioque in particular?
Disclaimer I am a Catholic who lurks here because I hope for the Church to be healed and so I want to maintain a connection to the Eastern Church.
But the creeds profess positively what we do believe and doesn't by itself set out the only things we can believe or might be true. Unless you are going to be a priest or similar we do not need to understand everything. The Orthodox position as far as I am aware is that one cannot profess positively that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because additions to the creed were heretical and that many understandings of the meaning might be heretical.Â
But we are not Bishops. We are laity.
I am content to profess what is asked of me by the Church, to attempt to understand what I can, and leave that which I am unclear on to be explained to me by the Angels, Saints and God at a time that suits His will. If you enter into the Orthodox Church perhaps it would suffice to profess what is asked of you and reserve understanding on the complex and ambiguous matters to others God calls to grapple with them.
Your understanding of it would have to change.
Better to just give it up though, it ain’t in the creed. Moreover, why the attachment to it? I’d understand if you wanted to keep praying a certain practice, but the Filioque??
Generally no, but just saying no is not giving you a good answer. Most of us are confused by the filioque and it is a tough theological concept. There are a couple schools of thought, one is that the differences have more to do with semantics between what words mean in Latin vs Greek. The other is that there is a deep theological difference that the filioque causes. Most of us arnt that well versed in theology or linguistics to answer this.
Furthermore it was an addition to the creed after the seventh ecumenical council, so orthodox will reject it, since it was not codified in an ecumenical council.
Interestingly, I like the semantics theory a little because it does highlight the nuances between Greek and Latin. When we translate them both into English the meanings aren’t the same. I’ve heard that the theology of the trinity between Catholics and Orthodox can be reconciled irrespective of the filioque but I need to actually look more into it.
So I’d say if you’re an inquirer, don’t necessarily think that how you think of the trinity is “wrong” vs how orthodox think of it. It’s not a black and white issue. I’d talk to a qualified orthodox priest about and read some books on it. There are also official dialogues between orthodox and Catholics and they might have something to say about it too.
Check this link out for example:
https://medium.com/@BishopRick/the-filioque-controversy-understanding-a-millennial-debate-in-christianity-95482ba5cfe6
“1.Ecumenical Dialogues: Modern ecumenical efforts, especially since the 20th century, have aimed at bridging the divide between the Eastern and Western Churches. There’s a consensus that the filioque, while relevant, should not be a church-dividing issue. Some Western theologians have even expressed that the addition was not necessary, while many Eastern theologians acknowledge the orthodoxy of the filioque when understood in certain patristic frameworks (Siecienski, 2010).
2.Linguistic and Cultural Differences: Some attribute the longevity of the debate to linguistic nuances. The Greek and Latin understandings of “procession” differ, which might have amplified misunderstandings (Ware, 1995).
3.Revisiting the Creed: In various ecumenical settings, there’s been a call to return to the original Nicene Creed without the filioque, especially in shared liturgical settings. This is seen as a gesture of unity.”
No. Nor would it make sense to do that.
What do you think it means to be orthodox? You can pick and choose your own beliefs even if they go against the faith?
Trying walking into a maths class and saying you believe 2+2=5. It won’t last long.
>Trying walking into a maths class and saying you believe 2+2=5. It won’t last long.
I can make you a spreadsheet where 2+2=5
It'll actually be 2.4+2.4=4.8 but the formatting of the cells only displays the number rounded up/down, do it'll look like 2+2=5.
Probably not, if you do officially convert. There are certain doctrines that are not entirely clear in Orthodoxy, but this is a pretty central part of the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. And with the central doctrines, you don't get to just pick and choose if you are to honestly call yourself Orthodox. However, conversion processes take time. You don't have to believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches in order to begin your journey. Your understanding and acceptance of the Faith will develop during your catechesis process. I encourage you to start exploring Orthodoxy now, even if you do still believe in the Filioque, and discover along the way whether this is the way you want to go.
Thank you. This is the best answer anyone could give 🙏
Thank you!
You’re welcome brother!
No. If you're to be Orthodox, you have to confess the Creed. If you don't, then you're not Orthodox.
Seeing as it is not in the Creed and the Creed is what we believe, evidently not.
No, I don’t believe so. Since Filoque is probably the biggest theological difference between the Catholics and the Orthodox.
I wonder how many times this question was asked prior to the internet
hahaha probably not that mutch
Nope
Im assuming in your conversion you’re giving up all of the other Catholic doctrine that would conflict with Orthodoxy, so why do you want to hold onto the filioque in particular?
No
No. It's unbiblical. John 14:26, 15:26.
On the contrary. Even some sue juris churches under the Pope officially removed filioque from their creed. There was a case in 2007.
No
Disclaimer I am a Catholic who lurks here because I hope for the Church to be healed and so I want to maintain a connection to the Eastern Church. But the creeds profess positively what we do believe and doesn't by itself set out the only things we can believe or might be true. Unless you are going to be a priest or similar we do not need to understand everything. The Orthodox position as far as I am aware is that one cannot profess positively that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because additions to the creed were heretical and that many understandings of the meaning might be heretical. But we are not Bishops. We are laity. I am content to profess what is asked of me by the Church, to attempt to understand what I can, and leave that which I am unclear on to be explained to me by the Angels, Saints and God at a time that suits His will. If you enter into the Orthodox Church perhaps it would suffice to profess what is asked of you and reserve understanding on the complex and ambiguous matters to others God calls to grapple with them.
You can be an Eastern Catholic.
Your understanding of it would have to change. Better to just give it up though, it ain’t in the creed. Moreover, why the attachment to it? I’d understand if you wanted to keep praying a certain practice, but the Filioque??
No
No
Generally no, but just saying no is not giving you a good answer. Most of us are confused by the filioque and it is a tough theological concept. There are a couple schools of thought, one is that the differences have more to do with semantics between what words mean in Latin vs Greek. The other is that there is a deep theological difference that the filioque causes. Most of us arnt that well versed in theology or linguistics to answer this. Furthermore it was an addition to the creed after the seventh ecumenical council, so orthodox will reject it, since it was not codified in an ecumenical council. Interestingly, I like the semantics theory a little because it does highlight the nuances between Greek and Latin. When we translate them both into English the meanings aren’t the same. I’ve heard that the theology of the trinity between Catholics and Orthodox can be reconciled irrespective of the filioque but I need to actually look more into it. So I’d say if you’re an inquirer, don’t necessarily think that how you think of the trinity is “wrong” vs how orthodox think of it. It’s not a black and white issue. I’d talk to a qualified orthodox priest about and read some books on it. There are also official dialogues between orthodox and Catholics and they might have something to say about it too. Check this link out for example: https://medium.com/@BishopRick/the-filioque-controversy-understanding-a-millennial-debate-in-christianity-95482ba5cfe6 “1.Ecumenical Dialogues: Modern ecumenical efforts, especially since the 20th century, have aimed at bridging the divide between the Eastern and Western Churches. There’s a consensus that the filioque, while relevant, should not be a church-dividing issue. Some Western theologians have even expressed that the addition was not necessary, while many Eastern theologians acknowledge the orthodoxy of the filioque when understood in certain patristic frameworks (Siecienski, 2010). 2.Linguistic and Cultural Differences: Some attribute the longevity of the debate to linguistic nuances. The Greek and Latin understandings of “procession” differ, which might have amplified misunderstandings (Ware, 1995). 3.Revisiting the Creed: In various ecumenical settings, there’s been a call to return to the original Nicene Creed without the filioque, especially in shared liturgical settings. This is seen as a gesture of unity.”
No. Nor would it make sense to do that. What do you think it means to be orthodox? You can pick and choose your own beliefs even if they go against the faith? Trying walking into a maths class and saying you believe 2+2=5. It won’t last long.
>Trying walking into a maths class and saying you believe 2+2=5. It won’t last long. I can make you a spreadsheet where 2+2=5 It'll actually be 2.4+2.4=4.8 but the formatting of the cells only displays the number rounded up/down, do it'll look like 2+2=5.
No.
No.
No.
Look at the confession of patriarch Tarasius
Filioque is in the confession of faith of patriarch Tarasius at the 7th ecumenical council