Dear Steve,
OK, my tone was unfair, I apologise.
I’ve read the stuff as you’ve indicated.
As for bias - there is no such thing as someone who is without bias.
The Greek bishops who went to Florence with their Emperor’s orders to achieve church unity for the purpose of obtaining Western military aid against the impending Turkish invasion weren’t, one could venture to guess, interested primarily in theological arguments and ecclesial harmony. They weren’t. There was also a Latinizing party among them (just as there is among the Russian Orthodox bishops today), but that could hardly be said to speak for the entire Orthodox Church.
When you say, “Look at this section of that council” and the like, we should remember that history, if I may say so, doesn’t interpret itself. History is about a (hopefully) accurate reporting of events. But the events themselves need to be interpreted. And we interpret events on the basis of what we already believe, our culture etc. So when you say that I or someone else has a bias (and I’m not upset that you say this!), I reply that we all have our biases in interpreting history. It cannot be otherwise.
So unless we agree that we are talking about our individual interpretations of events, we aren’t going to get very far in our discussion here. Florence was not the final word on the Triadological issue that, I will say, continues to severely divide East and West. In fact, it was only the final word for Catholics because it was a Latin interpretation of Eastern Triadology (yes, replete with all kinds of references to scripture and the Fathers), and one that Eastern Catholics accepted.
The point is that once Eastern Catholics accepted that “Through the Son” equals “From the Son,” then what prevented them from just inserting the Filioque and be done with it? The answer is - nothing and many of them soon did, which is why Florence and Lyons before it were no real way to address the Triadologies of East and West.
We need to return to the drawing board and do a study of Eastern Triadology as the East itself represents it and try to see it from “their” perspective, which is what I’m trying to do (thus, the charge of “bias” - again I’m not upset - because you and I look at things through a Western Catholic perspective.} It is wrong of both of us to do that and to interpret Florence as anything more than what it was - a Latin Council setting up Latin a priori’s for a common Triadology that was doomed to failure as such from the beginning.
Why was this so? Rather than accusing the Orthodox with stubbornness etc., why don’t we look at what their teachers say in a dispassionate way to assess where the points of union really are, what is lacking and why the Filioque poses such a problem, not only as a theologoumenon, but also theologically (and it is not only because of the implied notion in the Filioque that there are two Origins for the Spirit i.e. a linguistic issue). Otherwise, we are reduced to name-calling of sorts, telling the Orthodox they have an authority problem, and the Orthodox telling us etc. etc.
Let’s remember that papal authority for the Orthodox (as well as for Catholics) depends on orthodoxy of faith. If the Orthodox believe (and have believed) that Rome fell into a serious Triadological error (and there can be no more central dogma/doctrine/teaching in Christianity than on the Trinity), Rome is definitely “out” and in schism/heresy. That is how serious and important this question is. Catholics sometimes appear to think this is a matter of semantics - we can be reassured that it is most certainly not.
And let’s make no mistake here - upon a hoped for reunion of Churches, both sides will undoubtedly see the other as “returning to the Truth.” We Catholics may think we have a monopoly on Truth. But there are those Orthodox who are likewise willing to even die for it (and who have, at the hands of Catholics e.g. Athanasius of Brest, the Martyrs of Zographou on Mt Athos etc.).
So, lest I be accused of being biased against anything, let me say that I personally accept Florence, I accept that the two Triadologies amount to the same thing (although I believe the Filioque should be dropped by your Particular Church since it is a Latin expression only and does not belong in the Symbol of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed which was intended for the entire Church while local theologies, while legitimate, have no place in it).
And I believe that we need to understand Orthodox Triadology on its own terms, without a “zero sum” conclusion being drawn whenever the issues surrounding Florence, Lyons or the other “unias” are brought up. Rome has effectively rejected “unionism” as a legitimate form of church unity and apologizes for them to the Orthodox regularly, as we know. That would also appear to suggest that Florence, Lyons and the individual acts of union are now in a precarious state with respect to the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.
The really “nice” thing about the Catholic “development of doctrine” is that things from the past can be recast, reinterpreted as events that can always have greater contemporary understanding brought to bear on them. Traditional RC’s do reject this when it comes to items in Vatican II et alia they don’t like. But in doing so, they also reject a significant character of the Western theological tradition which, if I may be so bold, is strong in its ability to be flexible.
As Fr. John Meyendorff once quoted an Orthodox teacher, “Do not argue with the Latins over the Petrine Primacy - such a primacy is good for the Church. Only ask him if the pope confesses the faith of Peter (i.e. the Symbol of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) and, if so, then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter.”
Enough from me for one day.
Dominus Tecum!
Alex
