On 22 June 2003 I attended Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, where the celebrant was Kevin J. Farrell, Auxiliary Bishop of Washington. When reciting the profession of faith, I noticed that the celebrant was silent while the Filioque was spoken by the congregation. In other words, while the congregation said,
the celebrant said,
The celebrant resumed his recitation with the next sentence in the creed.
I was under the impression that the Western church had long ago accepted the doctrine of dual procession, and it was no longer a point of contention among western theologians. Thus my experience at Mass last Sunday leads to some general questions, assuming the omission of the Filioque was intentional on the part of the auxiliary bishop.
Has Kevin Farrell publicly stated a personal objection to the doctrine of dual procession?
Have any contemporary bishops in the Catholic Church voiced objections to the doctrine of dual procession?
If the answer to 2 is yes, just how common is this position among Catholic clergy?
Has any Catholic priest or bishop been excommunicated for denying the doctrine of dual procession? Or is unorthodox[sup]1[/sup] belief in this matter more readily tolerated than on other, more central, doctrines?
Footnotes:
From the Eastern Orthodox point of view, it is the Catholic interpretation that is unorthodox. Perhaps a better term would be heretical, but that would conjure up unsavory images of the Inquisition, which is not where I wanted to go with this thread.
I was not at that mass, but I could envision a scenario in which Bishop Farrell took a breath or someone near amore ac studio coughed or had a baby cry obscuring the phrase.
Regardless, I have never heard any RCC priest or theologian make a point of addressing the issue–particularly in reference to “those Orthodox had it right.”
The filioque is a dead, dead, dead issue for Latin rite clergy. For a bishop (even if he is auxiliary) to take such a public dissent would be so controversial, that it would be well known. Only a cleric with ties or great sympathy for the Orthodox churches would do such a thing, and, as far as I’ve been able to research, Farrell has no contacts with Orthodoxy.
Now some clerics do not say the ‘men’ in ‘for us men,’ or they change ‘became man’ into ‘became flesh.’ While motivated by the feminist agenda, the changes are, in fact, a more accurate translation.