G
Ghoti
Guest
Or at least approved of afterward. Had he disagreed with it, he would have spoken up.
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
A follow-up question: Are you basing this on statement at the “Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary” website? (“He [Cerularius] encouraged attacks on the Latin practices by the Studite monks, and he seems to have condoned Chancellor Nicephorus who burst open Latin tabernacles and trampled on the hosts!”)
Come to think of it, I believe one of the Anne of Green Gables sequels (maybe Rainbow Valley) had a woman who was “born before the flood”. freesmileys.org/smileys/shocked034.gif
Blessings,
Peter.
J
jimmy
Guest
No, I have never been to that site.
P
Peter_J
Guest
J
jimmy
Guest
I am not sure where I read it. It has been so long since I read about the issues but I do recall reading it. Eastern Orthodox will recognize that it occured so you don’t have to worry about it simply being the west fabricating an incident that is completely false.Oh, OK
So then … what are you basing it on?
-Peter.
I just checked out the site you mentioned. I am not a hard liner conservative western Catholic. I hold to my Maronite tradition and I have my own problems with the hard line conservative western perspective. I am somewhere between east and west. I don’t like the feneeite perspective. There is no reason for me to read anti eastern writings like what might be on that sight.
C
Claudius
Guest
For one, History books and impartial, objective evidence tells the story as I have retold it. Now, of course, I was not there and you can only trust so much to be accurate in a history book but if we take a look at what is actually written on the excommunication document (which I admit to not have read YET) we will know for what reason because it should state as much. Now, if I am wrong in what I have written then I will appologize and certainly learn from the experiance, but I have never met a Byzantine on the internet willing to offer to me the same terms. I have know plety in real life and they are some of the best people I know. I would never hold them guilty of the crime of this one guy and we can get along fine and pray together for the eventual visible reunion of our Churches for indeed a kind of invisible reunion seems to have already taken place.
The next point, that the Filioque has yet to be solved: Yes it has been solved. It has been solved 8 times. Not once, not twice, 8 times. The Bishops would go along with the Filioque but then several generations later would reject it again. It was solved before the Schism of 1054 happened, it was solved just after the 1054 schism, then solved again and again and again. It basically comes to the point now where the Filioque is a non issue. It is only brought up by Greek theologians as something (anything) to be out of communion with Rome. The real reason behind it is hate of Rome and needing something (anything) to justify it.
When we look as the Filioque, we realize that yes indeed it is a Latin translation of a phrase that began in the East. You are correct in saying that the phrase was never part of the CREED in the East but it was and still is as a matter of fact a common saying in the East. The saying is that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son. My Greek is not so good as to be able to render that into Greek at this moment or find it in Greek sources without some effort but if you ask any Greek theologian if they agree with this statement and they will have to say YES.
Now, another thing to realize is that the verb used in the Greek Creed and the verb used in the Latin Creed do not mean the same thing. The Greek Creed uses a word that means to ORIGINATE from. Now, if we used a Latin verb that means Originate, then Filioque wouldn’t make any sense. The Latin verb means to COME from. In this case, the Filioque does in fact make a lot of sense. If we change the verb in the Latin Creed from procedit to (maybe) oriatur then I would have no problem taking the Filioque out of the creed and indeed good grammar would almost demand it. The problem is that no verb in Latin means the exact same thing as the Greek verb used. They all carry a slight difference in conotasion that could be objected to. This may or may not have been a reason for using a different verb to get around the issue. They used a verb that was common for translating another common Eastern phrase that was not part of the Creed but that would not be objected to by theologians in both East and West.
C
Claudius
Guest
The next thing to remember is that Fillioque is a CLAUSE. This is one of the most obvious things since it is call the “Filioque Clause” but it is one of the things that so few people understand. Grammatically speaking, the word Filio is not governed by the preposition “ex”. Now, it is possible to force yourself to read it another way and say that Filio is governed by the preposition ex but that is not the normal way the Church uses this clause and goes against the idiom of Latin that is used in the Church. It is “possible” the same way that saying “I’m on my way” in English may actually refer to a person standing on a road that they own but that is not what it normally means. The clue that Filio is not governed by ex is the use of the enclitic “que”. In Latin there are suttle differences in how the meaning of a sentence comes together depending on if you use the word “et” or the enclitic “que”. Most people, when making a translation of the Creed translate it WORD FOR WORD and leave out the great depth of meaning that perhaps goes beyond the words present. The word Filio is in the ABLATIVE case. In Latin the Ablative case has many uses and one is the use of means or manner. These do not require a preposition. A better translation of the Latin “ex Patre Filioque” could be “from the Father and by means of the Son”.
When we put this together with the information that we have about the verb, which in Latin or Greek would cause no problem theologically if it means Comes from instead of Originates from, then it wouldn’t even matter if Filio were governed by Ex or not, it still makes sense and is theoligically sound.
Now, I don’t blame Byzantines for not wanting to just accept this. We all want to be sure about our faith because we want to take it seriously and give all due honor and respect to God. However, the information is out there conserning the Filioque and every time the Catholics and the Byzantines actually sit down to look it over they are able to come to agreement on it and have done so 8 time so far.
One of the recent meetings between the Catholic Bishops and the Byzantine Bishops has produced a document stating that the Greek version of the Creed, using the Greek verb should be used to make translations of the Creed, and that perhaps even the long ago established Latin version should be amended. This statement did not question the theology of the Filioque, which everyone was able to agree was sound, but called for greater faithfullness to the original Creed written in Greek which is certainly fair. If we also consider the amount of scandal brought about over the Fillioque in the continued visible disunity of the Church that might be enough to put it aside for the sake of peace. However, the theology surrounding the Filioque, whenever it is looked at honestly by either Catholics or Byzantines, always comes back to the fact that the Filioque is true and correct orthodox faith.
When we put this together with the information that we have about the verb, which in Latin or Greek would cause no problem theologically if it means Comes from instead of Originates from, then it wouldn’t even matter if Filio were governed by Ex or not, it still makes sense and is theoligically sound.
Now, I don’t blame Byzantines for not wanting to just accept this. We all want to be sure about our faith because we want to take it seriously and give all due honor and respect to God. However, the information is out there conserning the Filioque and every time the Catholics and the Byzantines actually sit down to look it over they are able to come to agreement on it and have done so 8 time so far.
One of the recent meetings between the Catholic Bishops and the Byzantine Bishops has produced a document stating that the Greek version of the Creed, using the Greek verb should be used to make translations of the Creed, and that perhaps even the long ago established Latin version should be amended. This statement did not question the theology of the Filioque, which everyone was able to agree was sound, but called for greater faithfullness to the original Creed written in Greek which is certainly fair. If we also consider the amount of scandal brought about over the Fillioque in the continued visible disunity of the Church that might be enough to put it aside for the sake of peace. However, the theology surrounding the Filioque, whenever it is looked at honestly by either Catholics or Byzantines, always comes back to the fact that the Filioque is true and correct orthodox faith.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi again. I spent some time last night researching this on the internet. I hit a number of dead ends, but one thing that seems pretty clear is that this incident was one of the accusations made by Cardinal Humbert.
On the other hand, I’m not quite prepared to take your word that the Orthodox agree that the event actually happened. (I hope you won’t be insulted by that. Maybe if we had been friends for more than a few days.
) Granted, we can rest assured that the Orthodox aren’t going to say “Oh that’s just something Catholics made up in the 20th century” or what-not (the text of the Bull of Excommunication is available to both sides – even if it’s surprisingly hard to find online). But mightn’t they say something along the lines of “That’s a lie that Catholics have been telling about us right along, all the way back to Cardinal Humbert”?Consider, for example, The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware. Far from stipulating that the charges were all true, he explicitly states that more than one of them were false: “among other ill-founded charges in this document, Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the filioque from the Creed!”
He doesn’t list the charges contained in the bull, other than that one, but a few sentences earlier he says this: “Among the practices to which Michael and his supporters particularly objected was the Latin use of “azymes” or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, an issue which had not figured in the dispute of the ninth century. In 1053, however, Cerularius took up a more conciliatory attitude and wrote to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore the Pope’s name to the Diptychs.” Bear in mind that 1053 is the year the trampling incident is said to have occurred. So either Bishop Kallistos is deliberately misleading his readers, or he believes the trampling charge to be false (even apart from the question of whether Michael ordered it).
God bless,
Peter.
P.S. In case anyone who’s reading this is planning on responding to point out that Orthodox denying something doesn’t change the underlying truth of the matter, let me save you the trouble by saying that I’m already quite aware of that. I’m just responding to Jimmy’s statement about what the Orthodox admit to.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Yeah, that site didn’t make a very favorable impression on me either. freesmileys.org/smileys/angry006.gif
That’s cool that you’re Maronite. I’ve been to a Maronite parish a handful of times, but not on a regular basis b/c it’s too far a drive.
J
jimmy
Guest
To say that the filioque is solved and the Greeks only bring it up as an excuse to be out of communion with Rome is to be ignorant of the eastern view of the Trinity. Read Metr. Zizioulas’ theology. He is one of the most ecumenically minded Greeks. His explanation of Trinitarian theology goes completely against that of the west. He does not assert an eternal and essential procession of the Son. Neither does any Greek.
I am not sure where you are getting the number eight from. I would like to see where this is coming from. If it is true it still doesn’t mean anything. All it means is that certain bishops may have come to an agreement but obviously it didn’t mean too much because it didn’t last longer than a generation.
From the Father through the Son is not necessarily the same as from the Father and the Son. The west says that the Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son. The east says the procession through the Son is only energetic. Ekporousis - the term in the Greek creed - is a term that is only used of the procession from the Father in the east. It is never applied to the Son, so no, it can’t be said to be a translation from the Greek.
It is a much more complex issue than you think. You mention Greek bishops agreeing that the filioque is orthodox. I can hardly believe that since Metr. Zizioulas, a Greek bishop, does not think it is orthodox. Here is an article by the Metr.
I will not deal with the Latin yet until I can get to my Latin books but right now I will say I disagree with your interpration. From my recollection, there is absolutely no difference between et and que and Patri and filio hold equivalent places within the sentence.
C
Claudius
Guest
Just a brief reading through the long, looooong, history of theological dicussions on this issue show over and over again that the Filioque has been solved. It has been solved with the agreement of both the Catholic Church and the Byzantines 8 times. I will take some time this weekend to get all the citations to show this to you.
Second, there is a phrase, still in use in the Byzantine churches, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. I will gather the citations for this also.
As I states in my earlier post, the verb used in the Latin Creed and the one in the Greek Creed do NOT mean the same thing. The verb in the Latin Creed is a mistranslation. Using the VERB in the Latin Creed the theology of the Holy Spirit coming from the Father through the Son, or from the Father and the Son are both 100% theologically correct as has been confirmed 8 times. This one I can prove with just logic. If I leave work and go home but stop at the store on the way home, according to the use of the Latin verb, then I proceed home from work and from the store, both at the same time because I am not stating which is first or second or anything. I am only stating that I am going home from work but also that I am going home from the store. It is my understanding that the Greek word does not work in this way and this fact has lead to such a disagreement. To claim that the Holy Spirit CAN NOT proceed from both the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son smacks in the face of how the verb works.
Now, it is admitted that perhaps a lot of people will misunderstand the Latin phrase that is used. We see a lot of mistranslations of it as simply From the Father and the Son because people are translating word for word without taking into account the deeper meaning. However, the Church, in order to put the question of the idiom used to rest, has stated with 100% authority that Filioque means From the Father through the Son in the Catholic Church.
Getting back to the isse of the verb, it has been suggested the Latin Creed be modified to use a verb that is closer in meaning to the actual Greek verb. If this is done, and has been pushed by many Bishops, then Filioque will cease to make logical or grammatical sense. In essence, it would have to be replaced by a preposition with an accusative or dropped all together. I would have no problem if this is done because it would be the Church being more faithful to the Creed the way it was originally written.
One final note, it is completely inaccurate that Patre and Filio are grammaticaly the same in the sentence. That could be true if Ex and que were not there but with these in place the style of Latin used in the Church as well as the autoritive statement on the meaing of the Filioque from the Church excludes this possibility, even though most people do not know Latin well enough to see it. With the Latin verb used, again, the incorrect reading would still be theologically sound, it just is not what the Church means with the sentence.
I really just have to call on the every day Byzantines to stop trying to bully the Catholic Church over this when it is a non issue. I do not mind you bringing it up but to act like it has not been solved is a shame. You just want to win and smear the Catholic Church which is just a silly attitude.
I will take some time this weekend to gather my sources and then I will be back. See you them.
P
Peter_J
Guest
On second thought, I don’t think this is really the thread for me.
God bless you all,
Peter.
God bless you all,
Peter.
V
Volodymyr_988
Guest
Photios could be considered one at one point, right?
I’m going to put on something to protect myself now.
I’m going to put on something to protect myself now.
J
jimmy
Guest
As I said, it might have been solved by a few bishops at a few times but it was nothing that was lastable. The filioque is not solved, otherwise it wouldn’t be debated. The Byzantines will specifically say it is only an energetic procession.
I am sure many of those eight times include the declarations of communion with the Melchites, the Ukranians, the Ruthenains, Russians and Romanian Catholics. If so, then it can hardly be said to have been solved. These were tiny minorities of the Eastern Orthodox population.
There is no disagreement with this. The problem is how we understand those terms ‘through’ and ‘from’. That is where the disagreement is. The Greeks will speak of it being only an energetic procession(check out apotheoun’s posts on the subject).
I am not a Byzantine: I am a Syriac (Maronite) Catholic. It has not been solved. Otherwise there would be agreement on the issue between Catholics and Orthodox, atleast with the ecumenically minded bishops like Metr. Zizioulas, but there is not.
P
Peter_J
Guest
If I may make so bold as to respond to my own question, I would suggest that Eastern Orthodox do not recognize that the incident occurred.
God bless,
Peter.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Because none of the Patriarchs ever held the power or authority that the Pope did, it seems unlikely that someone would want to be an Anti-Patriarch. If you are going to be a fake Church leader, why would you not attempt to be the head of the Church, the Pope or Bishop of Rome?
J
jimmy
Guest
The Orthodox who were on this forum before the changes were willing to admit to it.
L
lbdjohnson
Guest
The Maronites were never in schism with Rome. Maronites are a sui juris church, autonomous, but in Communion with Rome. Maronites never were in schism, so there is no Orthodox counterpart to the Maronite Church. We were not subject to the Patriarch at Constantinople. As I understand it, the Maronite Church selects a new Patriarch on the death of a Patriarch. While the Pope does not select/appoint our Patriarch, I believe that he has the power to reject an unworthy appoinment. At that point the new Patriarch petitions to remain in communion with Rome, but technically, he could decide not to remain in communion. This has, of course, never happened and would doubtless cause a schism if a new Patriarch decided not to continue communion with Rome.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
I’m assuming that you are Maronite Catholic? Yes the Maronite Church is Autonomous so it basically governs itself, however of course the Pope can always intercede if need be.
L
lbdjohnson
Guest
Yes, I am Maronite.
- Status