At the Pallium Mass, Pope Benedict XVI and Ecumenical Patriarch Batholomew I recited together together the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed - sans filioque - in Greek.
How should we interpret this move?
There are a number of ways of interpreting this. First, at one level it is nothing new. Pope John Paul II did this on a number of occasions.
But Pope Benedict XVI in my observation tends to be rather more deliberate in the statements he makes with these sort of gestures.
Secondly, a commenter has pointed out to me that it is quite common to omit the filioque when the Creed is said in Greek, even in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Perhaps, but it still seems to me that standing with someone and reciting the Creed strongly implies that we actually believe the same things.
Is there a theological issue around the filioque?
The reality is that the Orthodox have in the past regarded the Catholic position on the filioque as heretical, and from the Catholic side, the filioque has been defined as dogma.
There is a lot of history behind the filioque ("And the son'). It wasn't part of the Creed as it was formulated at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
It was added to the Creed in the West informally at first, in various dioceses to counter heresy. It then became standard in the West.
Part of the reason the misunderstanding arose is that its theological basis was developed by St Augustine, whose works were virtually unknown in the East before the schism (and largely rejected as heretical afterwards). It is noteworthy then, that the Patriarch explicitly mentioned St Augustine in his homily at Vespers.
Among Western apologists, it has become fashionable over the last few years to argue that the Western addition represented expediency only, and so could readily be removed in response to Eastern objections (which are partly about the authority to change a Creed mandated by an Ecumenical Council).
The trouble is, the filioque does have a theological history in the West, and is important to the way we explain the Trinity. There have been many - ultimately unsuccessful - attempts to resolve the issue through theological discussions between East and West from the twelfth century onwards.
There are however some plausible arguments to the effect that the two positions were only apparently contradictory, and are capable of reconciliation if one correctly understood the differing theological perspectives of the two sides. Some good minds have long devoted themselves to trying to build a case to persuade both sides on this with greater and lesser degrees of success (with more success on the Western side than the Eastern at least up until now as far as I can gather). I've seen reports that the Pope is in this camp.
So how should we understand the Pope’s gesture?
A commenter on the New Liturgical Movement blog, Colman, speaking from an Orthodox perspective, captures a reaction to this move that I suspect will be that of many, namely that this was not a prudent move:
"The developments at the Vatican and within the Latin Church in general are truly wonderful.
The generosity of the Pope to the EP is a remarkable effort of hospitality.
However, I wish that such premature events should not take place. We are not one. As most of the Latin's on the list think the Orthodox left the Church sometime ago.
The Orthodox, of whom I am one, likewise think the Latins left the Church in schism or heresy sometime ago.
Until the matter is cleared up, perhaps the EP could avoid giving such scandal to the bulk of the Orthodox by avoiding participation in liturgical events by those we consider heterodox.
These acts don't further unity but rather consternation with the bulk of the Orthodox Churches. Also, the eastern touch could be provided by any number of uniate clergy.
I love and am grateful for the desire for unity but until there is unity why act like there is?"
There are two alternatives though, that we should consider. One approach is to argue that the statement is effectively that each side respects the others position and now views them as not being inconsistent.
The Pope has argued in the past that the Orthodox might be able to be reconciled to the Church on the basis that they would not have to explicitly accept any defined dogmas post-1054 (just not reject them as heretical).
In a sense this is akin to the approach many traditionalists take, sticking with earlier formulations of the Church's teaching in the face of more recent formulations...so if it is good enough for traditionalists, why not as a means of taking another step forward in reconciling the Orthodox!
The second possibility is to argue that they are making a statement that filioque is not really a substantive point of theological dispute between the Church and the Orthodox any more.
Whichever way you interpret it, it is interesting that the Patriarch proclaimed the Year of St Paul for his Church as well. This all seems to me to hint at the possibility that significant progress is being made. Seems like our prayers for unity should also be focusing on the Orthodox at the moment!