Now for how the East shouldnt point fingers…
This is information a friend from somewhere else, has found.
**QUOTE **
Session 6 of the Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) declared that:
“No one must produce or compose any other creed than (para, proeter, “beyond” - “contrary to”?) the Nicene’ … and …'Anyone who should propose any such to pagans, Jews, or heretics, who wished to be converted, should be deposed if a bishop or cleric, or anathematized if a layman.”
The Eastern Orthodox take this decree very seriously - in a legalistic sense. Given that they recognize no authority greater than an Ecumenical Council, and given that they do not recognize the Pope’s authority to override such canonical laws, they see Filioque as a direct violation of what Ephesus taught; and, in doing this, they of course fail to consider the context of Ephesus’ teaching, which was directed to its own day and age, with the intention of preserving the dogmatic nature of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and not to re-open the question of a Creed every time there is an Ecumenical Council.
Now…in response to this, we Catholics of course cite the fact that **Christ gave the Church, and the Pope in particular, the authority to BOTH “bind” AND “loosen,” and so what was “bound” by Ephesus may, according to Apostolic belief, be “loosen” later on **…if, as in a case like this, it is merely a canonical measure and not a matter of dogmatic truth. And, if the EO’s wish to be honest, they themselves have violated the canonical decrees of Ecumenical Councils quite often throughout their history.
For example: Canons 6 & 7 of the Council of Nicaea itself read:
CANON 6:
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these, since that is the custom of the Bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and the other provinces, *let the churches retain their privileges.”
CANON 7:
”Since custom and ancient Tradition have obtained that the Bishop of Aelia (i.e., Jerusalem) be honored, let him have the succession of honor, *saving however the domestic right of the metropolis" Caesarea].”
Now…please notice how, in Canon 7 above, it says how the Bishop of Jerusalem (known at the time as “Aelia”), unlike the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (the three Petrine patriarchs) is NOT to be a metropolitan or a patriarch, but merely has a "succession of honor."
Rather, the see of Caesarea Maritima (“Caesarea by the Sea”) should continue to be metropolitan OVER Jerusalem …which was the case since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
And, according to Nicaea, this status quo should remain in place. Indeed, as it says in Canon 6, all the churches (that is, the patriarchates and metropolitanates) should "retain their privileges."
** But if, as with the decree of the Council of Ephesus which forbade any additions to the Creed, this teaching of Nicaea must be taken seriously and be held in force for all time … Why, then, did the Council of Chalcedon (in 451) violate Canons 6 & 7 of Nicaea by proclaming Jerusalem to be a patriarchal see unto itself, thereby violating the Traditional privileges of both Caesarea (as Jerusalem’s metropolitan) AND Antioch (as Jerusalem’s patriarchate)?
Why did this same Council of Chalcedon also try to make Constantinople into a patriarchate (it wasn’t one before), and to give it primacy in the East, thereby unseating Alexandria as the Traditional “Second See” (after Rome) and primate in the East? Doesn’t this too violate Canon 6 of Nicaea?
What’s more, why did the Council of Ephesus itself - the very Council which declared that we could not make amendments to the Creed - violate Canon 6 of Nicaea by taking the island diocese of Cyprus away from the patriarchate of Antioch (which had jurisdiction over Cyprus since Apostolic times: Acts 13:1-4; Acts 15:36-39), making it a self-governing (“autocephalus”) diocese instead.
Eastern Orthodox have no answer for any of this. Rather, they can only criticize when Rome appears to violate the canons of Ecumenical Councils.
When their own Byzantine traditions do so, then “obedience to counciliar authority” is suddenly not so important. For, in Eastern Orthodoxy, Jerusalem and Constantinople are still patriarchs to this day.
Constantinople (not Alexandria) is still primate among them. …And Cyprus is still an autocephalus church, independent of any Orthodox patriarch. …And ALL THIS is inviolation of Canons 6 & 7 of Nicaea.
So, the simple question for an Eastern Orthodox who objects to Filioque on canonical grounds is: Why does Rome have to adhere to the strict letter of the Ecumenical canons when they do not?
/QUOTE
