Filioque

Filioque ni neno la Kilatini lenye maana ya "na (kwa) Mwana".

Linapatikana katika Kanuni ya Imani inayotumiwa na Wakatoliki hasa katika ibada ya siku ya Jumapili mwishoni mwa liturujia ya Neno kama itikio la kukubali Neno la Mungu lililotangazwa.

Neno hilo liko mwanzoni mwa sehemu ya tatu ya Nasadiki, ambayo inakiri imani kwa Roho Mtakatifu:

"Nasadiki kwa Roho Mtakatifu, Bwana mleta uzima:
atokaye kwa Baba na Mwana.
Anayeabudiwa na kutukuzwa, pamoja na Baba na Mwana:
aliyenena kwa vinywa vya manabii."

Neno hilo ni maarufu kutokana na suala la teolojia lililojitokeza baada ya baadhi ya makanisa ya Kilatini kuliongeza (mwishoni mwa karne ya 6) katika Kanuni ya Imani ya Nisea-Konstantinopoli iliyoanza kutumika katikati ya Misa. 

Bila makubaliano ya kimataifa, neno hilo liliingizwa katika hiyo fomula rasmi ambayo ilipitishwa na Mtaguso wa kwanza wa Nisea (325)Readings in the History of Christian Theology by William Carl Placher 1988 ISBN 0-664-24057-7 pages 52–53 ikakamilishwa na Mtaguso wa kwanza wa Konstantinopoli (381) ili kubainisha imani sahihi ya Kanisa Katoliki dhidi ya uzushi, hasa wa Ario na wafuasi wake. 

Ndiyo sababu neno Filioque lilipingwa na Makanisa ya Kiorthodoksi kama upotoshaji wa imani juu ya mahusiano kati ya nafsi tatu za Mungu.Canon VIIKwa mtazamo tofauti, taz. Excursus on the Words πίστιν ἑτέραν

Suala hilo lilichangia sana farakano la miaka 1000 hivi kati ya Ukristo wa Mashariki na Ukristo wa Magharibi kwa sababu lilihusu kiini chenyewe cha imani, yaani fumbo la Utatu Mtakatifu.

Baada ya ekumeni kustawi katika karne ya 20, idara husika ya Kanisa Katoliki huko Vatikano iliweka wazi mwaka 1995 kwamba, kama maneno ya Kigiriki καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ("na kwa Mwana") yangeongezwa kwa ἐκπορεύομαι yangekuwa ya kizushi kwelihttp://biblehub.com/greek/1607.htmSt. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39 in sancta lumina, in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by J.P. Migne, vol. 36, D’Ambroise, Paris 1858, XII, PG 36, 348 B: Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς τὸ πνεῦμα, προϊὸν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς, οὐχ ὑϊκῶς δὲ, οὐδὲ γὰρ γεννητῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐκπορευτῶς [The Holy Spirit is truly Spirit, going from (προϊὸν, a word that can correspond to the Latin procedens) the Father, not as a Son (οὐχ ὑϊκῶς) nor indeed as begotten (γεννητῶς) but as originating (ἐκπορευτῶς)].St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 31 on the Holy Spirit, in Patrologia Graeca, ed. by J.P. Migne, vol. 36, D’Ambroise, Paris 1858, X, PG 36, 141 C: Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται· ὃ καθ’ ὅσον μὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπορεύεται, οὐ κτίσμα· καθ’ ὅσον δὲ οὐ γεννητόν, οὐχ υἱός· καθ’ ὅσον δὲ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον θεός: [The Holy Spirit, ‘who has his origin in the Father’ [John 15:26], who inasmuch as he has his origin in him, is not a creature. Inasmuch as he is not begotten, he is not the Son; inasmuch as he is the middle of the Unbegotten and the Begotten, he is God]. lakini neno Filioque si la kizushi likiongezwa kwa neno la Kilatini procedit kwa kuwa hilo si sawa na ἐκπόρευμαιPontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit  and same document on another siteSuch as St. Gregory of Nazianzen, as seen in the passage from Oratio 39 cited above. 

Ni kwamba neno la Kigiriki ἐκπόρευμαι lina maana ya kuvuviwa, nalo linaeleza namna gani Roho Mtakatifu anatokana na Baba, tofauti na ile ya Mwana ambayo ni ya kuzaliwa. Kumbe neno la Kilatini procedit lina maana ya kufuata, kuandamana na, nalo linaeleza kwamba Roho Mtakatifu si nafsi ya kwanza; basi Wakristo waliotumia lugha hiyo waliona afadhali kuweka wazi kwamba si nafsi ya pili pia, bali ya tatu, baada ya Baba na Mwana. 

Itikio la Waorthodoksi kwa maelezo hayo linaweza kutia tumaini la uelewano kwa siku zijazo, huku majadiliano yakiendelea.Kamati ya pamoja ilitamka mwaka 2003 kwamba suala hilo halitoshi tena kudai farakano lidumu.The Filioque was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, in June 2002. In October 2003, the Consultation issued an agreed statement, The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?, which provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. The recommendations include:

That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the Filioque is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, which would impede full reconciliation and full communion. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate

Kwa kuwa maneno yaliingizwa bila makubaliano na hayafai kuongezwa katika Kigiriki, Papa Yohane Paulo II na Papa Benedikto XVI walitumia kanuni ya imani ya Nisea-Kostantinopoli bila nyongeza walipoungana na Patriarki Dimitri I na Patriarki Bartholomayo I katika kukiri imani hadharani pamoja.

 Tanbihi 

Marejeo
"Filioque", article in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 614.
David Bradshaw.  Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 214–220.
Laurent Cleenewerck.  His Broken Body: Understanding and healing the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Washington, DC: Euclid University Press, 2008, pp. 321–347.
Joseph P. Farrell.  God, History, & Dialectic: The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes and Their Cultural Consequences. Bound edition 1997. Electronic edition 2008.
Joseph P. Farrell translator The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photius Publisher: Holy Cross Orthodox Press Language: English ISBN 978-0-916586-88-1
John St. H. Gibaut, "The Cursus Honorum and the Western Case Against Photius", Logos 37 (1996), 35–73.
Elizabeth Teresa Groppe.  Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. See esp. pp. 75–79, for a summary of Congar's work on the Filioque. Congar is widely considered the most important Roman Catholic ecclesiologist of the twentieth century. He was influential in the composition of several Vatican II documents. Most important of all, he was instrumental in the association in the West of pneumatology and ecclesiology, a new development.
David Guretzki.Karl Barth on the Filioque . Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7546-6704-9. A close examination of Karl Barth's defense of the filioque and why his position is closer to an Eastern perspective than has typically been assumed.
Richard Haugh.  Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975.
Joseph Jungmann, S.J.  Pastoral Liturgy. London: Challoner, 1962. See "Christ our God", pp. 38–48.
James Likoudis.  Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism. New Rochelle, New York: 1992. An apologetic response to polemical attacks. A useful book for its inclusion of important texts and documents; see especially citations and works by Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Demetrios Kydones, Nikos A. Nissiotis, and Alexis Stawrowsky. The select bibliography is excellent. The author demonstrates that the Filioque dispute is only understood as part of a dispute over papal primacy and cannot be dealt with apart from ecclesiology.
Bruce D. Marshall, "'Ex Occidente Lux?' Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology", Modern Theology 20:1 (January 2004), 23–50. Reconsideration of the views of Aquinas, especially on deification and grace, as well as his Orthodox critics. The author suggests that Aquinas may have a more accurate perspective than his critics, on the systematic questions of theology that relate to the Filioque dispute.
John Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology. New York: Fordham University Press, 1979, pp. 91–94.
Aristeides Papadakis.  Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283–1289). New York: Fordham University Press, 1983.
Aristeides Papadakis. The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994, pp. 232–238 and 379–408.
Duncan Reid.  Energies of the Spirit: Trinitarian Models in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.
A. Edward Siecienski.  The Use of Maximus the Confessor's Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439). Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.
A. Edward Siecienski. The Filioque. History of a Doctrinal Controversy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Malon H. Smith, III.  And Taking Bread: Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054. Paris: Beauschesne, 1978. This work is still valuable for understanding cultural and theological estrangement of East and West by the turn of the millennium. Now, it is evident that neither side understood the other; both Greek and Latin antagonists assumed their own practices were normative and authentic.
Timothy Kallistos Ware.  The Orthodox Church. New edition. London: Penguin, 1993, pp. 52–61.
Timothy [Kallistos] Ware. The Orthodox Way. Revised edition. Crestwood, New York: 1995, pp. 89–104.
[World Council of Churches] /Conseil Oecuménique des Eglises.  La théologie du Saint-Esprit dans le dialogue œcuménique Document # 103 [Faith and Order]/Foi et Constitution. Paris: Centurion, 1981.
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit 
Sergius Bulgakov. The Comforter. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (June 2004) ISBN 978-0-8028-2112-6

Viungo vya nje
 full-length article at OrthodoxAnswers.org 

 Joint North American Orthodox-Catholic Statement 

Category:Teolojia
Category:Historia ya Ukristo
Jamii:Roho Mtakatifu
Jamii:Utatu Mtakatifu