Debating the filioque

[LionHeart777]

Father Morris,

This from the Catholic Encyclopedia appears to me to back up what I said in my last post:

"Can a council depose the pope?

This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:

ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)

ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).

In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience."

Source: Wilhelm, Joseph. “General Councils.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 21 Oct. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi again Father Morris,

If I may attempt to help here:

1.) I think some of what I wrote in the other thread we spoke in is relevant here:

“As far as the first 7 Councils and the Papacy go, I will quote what Pope St. Nicholas wrote in reply to the emperor Michael III: ‘These privileges [of the Roman See] have been established by the mouth of Jesus Christ itself. It is not Councils which have granted them. They have only honoured and preserved them. . . .’ (Scott, Herbert S., ‘The Eastern Churches and the Papacy’, Sheed & Ward, London: 1928. Pg. 327.) …From reading your response as well, I get the impression (and if it is a mistaken one I apologize) that you have the idea that unless Ecumenical Council grants authority, it doesn’t exist. We Catholics don’t hold to that because we believe that the Papacy and all of its authority were bestowed on St. Peter and to his successors in the Roman Pontiffs by Jesus Christ (not that there is a separate level of Holy Orders for the Pope.) I’m sure that you really don’t hold to the notion either that unless Ecumenical Council grants authority, it doesn’t exist; for to do so would be to deny that the clergy had any authority before the First Ecumenical Council.”

As far as pointing to various Canons from the first 7 Ecumenical Councils (and we disagree that there are only 7 or 8), there may be bits & pieces there, but again, we believe that the privileges of the Roman See. I don’t say this to debate the matter, only to answer the question, although my answer is most likely imperfect in explaining the catholic view.

I RESPOND; In the city in which I live there are dozens of different churches all claiming divine sanction. Thus I cannot accept claims like those of of Pope Nicholas I unless they can be shown to be true through the Holy Scriptures or the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Councils are the voice of the Church. If the ancient Church believed in the claims of the papacy the canons of the Ecumenical Councils would reflect that belief. They do not. In fact the exact opposite it true. The Ecumenical councils assumed authority over the Bishop of Rome as I have shown numerous times. Therefore recognition of the supreme authority of the Pope is not a doctrine of the ancient undivided Church. Just because Nicholas I claimed supreme authority in the Church does not make it true. At the Council of Constantinople of 869 the papal legates made that claim and the council rejected it. Rome recognizes the Council of Constantinople of 869 as the 8th Ecumenical Council. In 1415, the Council of Constance which dealt with the Great Schism within the Western Church and is recognized as the 15th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholic Church decreed:
“Legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.”

2.) In order to remove “a corrupt” or “immoral” Pope, I believe the Catholic view would be (an d someone please correct me if I am wrong) that there is nothing in neither the Canons nor in the Natural Law to remove such a Pope; we leave the fixing to God.

As far as the hypothetical of a Pope who was a manifest heretic, to quote the “Catholic Encyclopedia”, “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.” Source: Wilhelm, Joseph. “Heresy.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 21 Oct. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm.

What the author is expressing here is an acceptable Catholic theologoumenon (someone correct me if I’m wrong). St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, considered 5 Theological opinions in response to the hypothetical situation of a heretical Pope. One of these opinions was:

“…the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: ‘He would not be able to retain the episcopate, and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’ (De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30)"

Source: fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html

However, I don not believe that this was St. Robert’s personal opinion, as explained here:

itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2008/01/st-robert-bellarmine-and-impossibility.html

I RESPOND: Which body has the authority to decide if a Pope is an heretic? As far as I can see the Roman Catholic Church has no system to remove an heretical or corrupt Pope. In the Orthodox Church the Holy Synod of the autocephalous Church has authority to remove a bad Primate. Our system is better because we have protection that Roman Catholics do not have from a incompetent, corrupt, or heretical Primate.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

I RESPOND: Which body has the authority to decide if a Pope is an heretic? As far as I can see the Roman Catholic Church has no system to remove an heretical or corrupt Pope. In the Orthodox Church the Holy Synod of the autocephalous Church has authority to remove a bad Primate. Our system is better because we have protection that Roman Catholics do not have from a incompetent, corrupt, or heretical Primate.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I agree with you, Father. Many Catholics on this forum believe that if the pope decided something unorthodox or immoral, then we must blindly obey him because he is infallible (of course, many do not accept/understand the fact that he is only infallible during very, very rare circumstances). There have been evil popes in the past and, especially this day and age, we need a better system that spells out how to remove an evil pope. We also need to restore all rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs.

 

[Richca]

Dear brother Richca,

St. Thomas Aquinas is not a Magisterial source, nor does the CCC state that the Son is a Source or Origin of the Holy Spirit (though it does say that the HS proceeds from the Father and the Son).

Here is what the Official Clarification (promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory) on filioque states:

The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Fathernor the fact that he is the sole origin (ἀρχὴ, αἰτία) of the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit. The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit. Against Arianism, which was still virulent in the West, its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one Monarchy of the Father.

We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioqueon the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi Marduk,
I’m not sure how binding the document you cite above (THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT) is on all the faithful or on the Church itself. Apparently, it was printed in the "L’Osservatore Romano in 1995. You cannot even access it on the vatican website unless you order a copy of it if I’m not mistaken.

I think the document in question should be understood in the light of the teaching of the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Pope John Paul II in a General Audience, Nov. 7, 1990, on the The Spirit and the Filioque Debate said " this conciliar text (Council of Florence) is still a useful basis for dialogue and agreement between the Eastern and Western brethren."

That the Father is the sole source or origin of the Holy Spirit ( this appears to be one of the interpretations of the greek word for proceed used in the nicene-constantinopolitan creed) appears to be in contradiction with the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son. The statement that the Father is the sole source or origin of the Holy Spirit cited in the document cannot mean that He spirates the Holy Spirit alone. This is not acceptable to the Catholic faith. We believe that the Father and Son together spirate the Holy Spirit. The only sense I see in which we can say that the Father is the sole source or origin of the Holy Spirit is that the Father indeed is the sole source or origin of the spirative power as well as of the divine substance that He communicates to the Son and Holy Spirit.
I think the Council of Florence explained quite well that the latin and greek traditions concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are not at all contradictory but complementary if they are understood correctly.

The Council says (session 6, Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence) “The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son.” This is a very important point. For we cannot contemplate the Father without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. And all that the Father has belongs to the Son. The Father and Son are one in everything except paternity and filiation and they are inseperable.
The Council continues "but because it seemed to them (the greeks) that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.

…"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

…And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son…"

The 4th Lateran Council expressed the Trinity very simply in these words:
“The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the holy Spirit proceeding”

 

[Richca]

The Father alone is the source of the Holy Spirit. The Father is the first origin of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ from eternity.

Hello Zekariya,
It appears to me that if the Father alone is the source of the Holy Spirit, then it follows that the Father alone spirates the Holy Spirit. This is not acceptable according to Catholic faith. We believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son. The Father and Son together spirate the Holy Spirit.

St Athanasius the Great of Alexandria says “David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit.” (On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A).

And St Hilary of Poitiers " Concerning the Holy Spirit…it is not necessary to speak of Him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, His sources" ( The Trinity).

The Holy Spirit does not have two sources but one source, the Father.
The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source

 

[frjohnmorris]

I do not understand why the Roman Catholic Church is content to go beyond the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures as expressed in John 15:26. “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. All the philosophical language only confuses the issue. Ultimately the Trinity is a mystery that we cannot understand with our limited human understanding. The Western doctrine relies far too much on human reason and philosophy. That is why Lossky and other Orthodox theologians find in the filioque the major difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology. The West tries to understand and define too much and does not have sufficient respect for the mystery of God. During this discussion, I have read several contradicting explanations of the meaning of the filioque doctrine, all based on human reason. There is a simple and sound solution to this disagreement, stick to the teaching of words of Jesus Christ in John 15:26, the only Biblical text that speaks directly of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and respect the authority of the Ecumenical Councils by using the Creed written and ratified by them.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[SyroMalankara]

I do not understand why the Roman Catholic Church is content to go beyond the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures as expressed in John 15:26. “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;”

Father, please see it from their side:
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me.”

It’s not that they [the Latins] see it as going beyond Scripture, but that it clarifies any ambiguity with the same Scripture you quote.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, please see it from their side:
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me.”

It’s not that they [the Latins] see it as going beyond Scripture, but that it clarifies any ambiguity with the same Scripture you quote.

I see no ambiguity in the Biblical text. As I have written some explanations of the filioque by some people during this discussion are acceptable to Orthodox theology. However, some explanations are not. Therefore, it is the filioque that introduces ambiguity into a rather simple matter. I see this because Roman Catholicism has issued several different and contradictory interpretations of what they mean by “and the Son.” This is evident because of the contradictory interpretations by different people who have participated in this discussion. One quote from a Western council or a Pope contradicts another quote from another Western council and a different Pope.
In their effort to combat Arianism and proclaim that the Son is of one essence with the Father, the Council of Toledo and the Frankish theologians neglected to affirm the equality of the Son with the Father and the Son, by implying that the Holy Spirit is inferior to the Father and the Son.
The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by or through the Son is clear and unambiguous. It also affirms the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the original Greek text of the Creed. The filioque only confuses the matter.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[SyroMalankara]

I see no ambiguity in the Biblical text. As I have written some explanations of the filioque by some people during this discussion are acceptable to Orthodox theology. However, some explanations are not. Therefore, it is the filioque that introduces ambiguity into a rather simple matter. I see this because Roman Catholicism has issued several different and contradictory interpretations of what they mean by “and the Son.” This is evident because of the contradictory interpretations by different people who have participated in this discussion. One quote from a Western council or a Pope contradicts another quote from another Western council and a different Pope.
In their effort to combat Arianism and proclaim that the Son is of one essence with the Father, the Council of Toledo and the Frankish theologians neglected to affirm the equality of the Son with the Father and the Son, by implying that the Holy Spirit is inferior to the Father and the Son.
The statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by or through the Son is clear and unambiguous. It also affirms the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the original Greek text of the Creed. The filioque only confuses the matter.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Maybe it does in your context in this age, but during the various heresies being combated in the Western Roman empire, it made much sense - at least from 300s to post-Protestantism.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Maybe it does in your context in this age, but during the various heresies being combated in the Western Roman empire, it made much sense - at least from 300s to post-Protestantism.

The message of the Bible is eternal. Besides the 1 and 2 Ecumenical Councils condemned Arianism without the filioque. All they had to do at Toledo was to appeal to the first two Ecumenical Councils and the On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius to refute Arianism. Adding the filioque only added confusion as well as exceeding the authority of a local council which has no canonical right to change the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

Continuation of the Above

The east didn’t object first with Photius, of course… they first rejected it under Monothelitism. But then they forgot about it until Photius? Very interesting theory.

I RESPOND: It is not theory, it is based on solid historical evidence.

Your opinion on ‘solid historical evidence’ is really that they forgot? Or do you not count Maximus the Confessor as a Greek Father?

Why did those Greek monks speak Latin?

I RESPOND Apparently at least one of them knew enough Latin that they knew that the Western monks had changed the Creed.

Ah so conjecture to go with hearsay! Wonderful!

This was not an age when even highly literate theologians frequently learned other languages. There simply wasn’t much need. It does remind me of the letters of submissions of the Greek Bishops that were obtained by the Papal Legates to the 4th Council of Constantinople. Someone robbed and despoiled them on their return trip, but they had already transferred some of their effects

I RESPOND: The Greek Bishops never signed letter submitting to the Pope. The exact opposite is true the Papal Legates demanded that the Council of 869 recognize the authority of the Pope to proclaim the doctrine of the Church and the Greeks refused, arguing instead that such power belonged only to the 5 Patriarchs acting together.

Simply repeating the same thing over and over again doesn’t make it true. The Bishops attending, mostly Ignatians were required to sign before admittance to the 4th Council on Constantinople of 869 the Libellus per the Formula established at the end of the schism of Acasius. Many/most of Photius’ partisans refused to sign, of course, which is one reason the official attendance was relatively low. Photius himself, of course, was required to appear.

Nicea 325 didn’t mention procession at all. It was simply Kai eis to Hagion Pneuma. Constantinople 381 was not immediately agreed upon by the entire Church and both Creeds were side by side (by Churches in Communion with each other) until Chalcedon 451. Even then, there was more evolution on Christology in the Creed and BOTH the Symbol of 325 (which also has Deum de Deo it!) and the Symbol of 381 were read. Constantinople 680 also added to the Creed.

I RESPOND: The First Council of Constantinople was an Ecumenical Council. It had the authority to add to the Creed. Rome recognizes the First Council of Constantinople of 318 as the 2nd Ecumenical Council. Its decrees were also ratified by the remaining 5 Ecumenical Councils which Rome also recognizes.

Photius simply didn’t understand the Latin history of filioque nor it’s context, nor the distinction between ekporeuomenon and procedit and was looking for nits to pick to rile up others against the Rome that ruled against his usurpation of St Ignatius. Why did he not raise any objection to Deum de Deo as with filioque when his other 5 arguments are so ridiculous as to barely merit mention from the rest of the Orthodox and even Cerularius forgot about filioque?

I RESPOND: St. Photius did not usurp the patriarchate from Ignatius. He became patriarch after Ignatius was removed because he alienated many people by adopting a rigorous policy towards the former iconoclasts. Ignatius had been uncanonically selected in the first place by being appointed by Empress Theodore instead of going through the usual election process.

Curious. So was either Patriarchate of Ignatius valid in your opinion? What about that of Stephen?

It may very well be that St. Photius did not fully understand the theology being expressed by the filioque, but he knew that the Latin missionaries in Bulgaria had no right to change the Creed approved by the Ecumenical Councils. Pope Leo III in 809 had declared the addition of the filioque unlawful. It was not added to the Creed in Rome until 1014. St. Photius was completely correct to object to the alteration of the Creed by the West. Adding Deum de Deo had no theological significance, but the filioque certainly did and is subject to being interpreted in an heretical way.

If he was being consistent why wouldn’t both merit mention? What Council gave him the discretion to arbitrarily choose to object in the theological significance from one and ignore it in the other? Thought you said it was any addition or alteration… Deum de Deo has no significance as added to the Symbol of 381? Does it have significance in the Symbol of 325?

I think that statement resolves the doctrinal problem.
However, I still believe that the West acted improperly by unilaterally changing the words

Indeed, but you just can’t let it go without picking the old nit. Why do you have to qualify it?

Cardinal Humbert should have been disciplined for exceeding his authority. Instead, Rome chose to accept his decision to excommunicate the entire Eastern Orthodox Church.

That’s a falsehood. the Orthodoxy of the Church of Constantinople and the Emperor was expressly admitted while it was Cerularius himself who was excommunicated along with a few other individuals. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem continued to commemorate the Pope in his diptychs in fact and thought that Cerularius was being unnecessarily antagonistic and reproached him for his lies.

 

[Richca]

Father, please see it from their side:
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me.”

It’s not that they [the Latins] see it as going beyond Scripture, but that it clarifies any ambiguity with the same Scripture you quote.

Hello SyroMalankara,
You hit the nail on the head

Blessings and peace, Richca

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I do not understand why the Roman Catholic Church is content to go beyond the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures as expressed in John 15:26. “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. All the philosophical language only confuses the issue. Ultimately the Trinity is a mystery that we cannot understand with our limited human understanding. The Western doctrine relies far too much on human reason and philosophy. That is why Lossky and other Orthodox theologians find in the filioque the major difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology. The West tries to understand and define too much and does not have sufficient respect for the mystery of God. During this discussion, I have read several contradicting explanations of the meaning of the filioque doctrine, all based on human reason. There is a simple and sound solution to this disagreement, stick to the teaching of words of Jesus Christ in John 15:26, the only Biblical text that speaks directly of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and respect the authority of the Ecumenical Councils by using the Creed written and ratified by them.

I don’t entirely agree, Father. John 15:26 is ambiguous because it does not deny the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. I gave the example earlier of John 1:1 which states that the Word was in the beginning with God, but does not mention the Holy Spirit. You provided Genesis 1:2 as a prooftext for the coexistence of the Father an the Holy Spirit, but this is inadequate. Read according to the letter, Genesis 1:2 only proves that the Holy Spirit was with the Father on the first day, not from eternity. On the other hand, if this were a valid prooftext, it would only confirm my point. If Genesis 1:2, which is unclear, is a prooftext for this question, Revelation 22:1, which is clearer, should be a valid prooftext for the Filioque. At the very least, this should demonstrate the principle that the failure of Scripture to assert a fact in some place where it would be appropriate does not constitute a denial.

Further, it is not clear that this is even relevant to the Filioque. How do we know that by procession St. John is referring to the Holy Spirit’s eternal origin in the first place? Maybe this is only referring to his “economic procession.” Moreover, perhaps “sending” in this verse is a synonym for procession.

I also provided an additional verse, Revelation 22:1, which speaks explicitly of the Holy Spirit’s procession (εκπορευσις, not προιεναι). It is really begging the question to assert that one is speaking of the εκπορευσις under consideration in the Filioque and the other is not.

Finally, there is no room for a Greek critique of Latin theology on the grounds that it defines too much, not in regards to the Filioque. In denying the Filioque, the Greeks have rejected one definition and substituted an equally developed though different definition. Greeks throw around ousias and hypostases like candy and have produced detailed accounts of varying manners of procession and the inner life life of the Trinity that far exceed anything clearly stated in Scripture. It is almost like the Lutherans who cry that transubstantiation defines too much of the mysteries of God, then turn around and formulate the most convoluted eucharistic doctrine of anybody.

I agree with you most of all that attempting to box God into these definitions is probably a futile exercise. These questions have to be approached with the greatest humility, and anyone should hesitate before casting the charge of heresy at someone whose statements do not seem to fit at first glance. This is especially so when people do not give precise definitions of and distinctions between terms like procession, spiration, sending, origin, cause, source etc. I hope there is a way to reconcile East and West without conceding that either tradition (exemplified by fathers such St. Augustine or St. John Damascene) fell into heresy for millennia.

Father, could you indulge me further and explain your doctrine of the Son sending the Spirit or point me to where you have earlier, at least as it pertains to the issue of the Filioque. It this sending eternal or from some point in time?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zekariya,

I agree with you, Father. Many Catholics on this forum believe that if the pope decided something unorthodox or immoral, then we must blindly obey him because he is infallible (of course, many do not accept/understand the fact that he is only infallible during very, very rare circumstances). There have been evil popes in the past and, especially this day and age, we need a better system that spells out how to remove an evil pope. We also need to restore all rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs.

I second your agreement with Father John.

From my studies of the issue, the way an evil Pope was removed in the past was to question the validity of his election, which was easy enough since it was usually the case that Cardinals were under the undue influence of secular rulers. An ancient canon rejects as invalid any actions under undue influence by the secular power. There are creative ways to prove the invalidity of a papal election. At least it is not altogether impossible to remove an evil Pope from office.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Richca,

I’m not sure how binding the document you cite above (THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT) is on all the faithful or on the Church itself. Apparently, it was printed in the "L’Osservatore Romano in 1995. You cannot even access it on the vatican website unless you order a copy of it if I’m not mistaken.

The L’Osservatore Romano is the OFFICIAL news agency of the Vatican. The document at issue was promulgated under the direct authority and request of HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, and produced by one of the papal curial offices - the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity. Unlike a lot of the actions of the curial offices (which often act semi-autonomously), this Clarification was made under the direct instruction of the Pope.

I think the document in question should be understood in the light of the teaching of the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Pope John Paul II in a General Audience, Nov. 7, 1990, on the The Spirit and the Filioque Debate said " this conciliar text (Council of Florence) is still a useful basis for dialogue and agreement between the Eastern and Western brethren."

The Official Clarification is already expressed in light of the teaching of the Council of Florence. As brother Zekariya had pointed out in a previous quote, the Council of Florrence assigned the term “Source” to the Father, not to the Son.

That the Father is the sole source or origin of the Holy Spirit ( this appears to be one of the interpretations of the greek word for proceed used in the nicene-constantinopolitan creed) appears to be in contradiction with the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son. The statement that the Father is the sole source or origin of the Holy Spirit cited in the document cannot mean that He spirates the Holy Spirit alone. This is not acceptable to the Catholic faith.

That is what the Council of Florence stated - it is the Father who is the Source, not the Son.

We believe that the Father and Son together spirate the Holy Spirit.

This is true, but ONLY the Father is the Source, not the Son.

The only sense I see in which we can say that the Father is the sole source or origin of the Holy Spirit is that the Father indeed is the sole source or origin of the spirative power as well as of the divine substance that He communicates to the Son and Holy Spirit.

This is in fact the only way it can be taken. That is why no magisterial dogmatic document of the Church ever refers to the Son as Source. Only the Father is Source. Not only was this explicit in the Council of Florence, but also the Second Council of Lyons (IIRC) placed under anathema anyone who stated that there is more than one Source of the Holy Spirit.

I think the Council of Florence explained quite well that the latin and greek traditions concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are not at all contradictory but complementary if they are understood correctly.

Agreed, but the language you have used contradicts the teaching of the Council of Florence, and of the other Councils (from both East and West) that speak of the Procession… For example, in your post to brother Zekariya, you referred to “the source or sources of the Holy Spirit.” This language was anathematized by the Second Council of Lyons (as well as some Eastern Orthodox Synods). The language is admittedly persistent in the Latin Tradition, but it is a language that does not depend on the authority of whole Councils, but rather of individual Latin Fathers, who made their statements before the definitions of the Councils. Should you not, as a Latin, give greater ear to the decisions of the Councils, rather than to individual Fathers?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[LionHeart777]

For anyone who may be interested too:

Here is an article entitled “The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement” which is from the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation if I’m not mistaken. It is from the website of the USCCB and is quite in depth including the history of the Filioque.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

 

[Peter_J]

Hi brother mardukm,
In the creed we recite every Sunday at Mass at least here in the latin rite we say, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

Richca, I don’t think there is any doubt, from a Catholic p.o.v., that “… who proceeds from the Father and the Son” is correct. (That’s not to say that I believe it should be in the creed: I believe we ought to say " … who proceeds from the Father", or better yet " … who proceeds eternally from the Father.")

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John,

Bless me, a sinner.

It may very well be that St. Photius did not fully understand the theology being expressed by the filioque,

It is for certain that St. Photius did not know Latin, so it is more than likely that he did not understand the linguistic nuances between the Greek and Latin theologies on the matter. Fortunately, St. Maximos took the time to inquire of the matter to the Latins before making any judgment, and St. Maximos should be taken as the preeminent model for everyone on this issue, not St. Photius. That said, Latins should recognize that St. Photius was thoroughly orthodox in his Trinitarian theology. His only mistake was in accusing Latins of teaching something that they never really taught (because he did not understand the theological presuppositions of the Latins, which was different from the Greeks).

but he knew that the Latin missionaries in Bulgaria had no right to change the Creed approved by the Ecumenical Councils.

It should be noted that the Latins did not change the Creed from their perspective. The Latin missionaries were merely proposing what was received according to their Tradition.

Pope Leo III in 809 had declared the addition of the filioque unlawful.

This is not true, Father. What happened was that Charlemagne requested that the Pope make the filioque a REQUIREMENT in the recitation of the Creed. The Pope did not make the addition of the filioque unlawful; his response was specifically that even though it was permissible, it cannot be made a requirement, contrary to Charlemagne’s request. He also exhorted the Carolingian court to refrain from using filioque in order to avoid scandal.

It was not added to the Creed in Rome until 1014.

This is not exactly true either, Father. What happened was that when the German King Henry II was crowned at Rome, he requested that the Creed with filioque be used during the Mass for his coronation, since that was the norm among the Germans. That is ALL that we know for certain occurred. Unfortunately, historians on both sides of the debate have introduced their own interpretations on the matter. Some claim that Henry II strongarmed the Pope into doing this. Some claim that the Pope made this a universal requirement. But in truth, the only evidence we have is that the Pope allowed it for the Mass of Henry II’s coronation that just happened to be at Rome. It is probably also true that many interpreted the event to mean the Pope was approving the use of filioque everywhere. But there is really no direct evidence for this.

St. Photius was completely correct to object to the alteration of the Creed by the West.

I have studied the Mystagogy, and I am not aware that St. Photius objected to the alteration of the Creed on merely textual grounds. He objected not to the alteration of the Creed, but to (what he thought was) the alteration of the [n]Faith of the Creed that the text represented. The same can be said of St. Mark of Ephesus. I seriously believe this argument based on the alteration of the mere text is a thoroughly modern invention by EO polemics. The Eastern Fathers were not concerned with the text so much as with the Faith proposed by the text. This legalistic focus on the mere text is a novel invention of polemicists. I am not saying that you are guilty of this legalistic focus by your statement above. My foregoing comment is for those who might understand your comment as such.

Having said that, I feel obliged to comment that I do not believe removing filioque from the Creed of the Latins will solve any problems unless the Easterns first understand the orthodox theological presuppositions of the Westerns for adding filioque (and with that understanding, realize that the addition did not change the Faith of the Creed), with a simultaneous acknowledgement from the Westerns of the orthodox Eastern concerns about what they perceive to be the theological dangers of the addition (and with that understanding, perhaps on their own initiative will remove filioque from their Creed)

Adding Deum de Deo had no theological significance, but the filioque certainly did and is subject to being interpreted in an heretical way.

This is a very important point you bring up, Father. Would you agree, then, that if an Eastern understands the theological presuppositions of the Westerns for adding filioque (i.e., not as a statement that doubts the Monarchy of the Father, but merely a statement about the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father), then the problem can be resolved without insisting that the Latins remove filioque for reunion to occur (i.e., it’s removal should depend on a free decision of the bishops of the Latin Patriarchate, not because it was forced upon them as a condition of reunion)?

I have yet to receive an answer to two questions that I have asked during this discussion.

1. Show me any canon from one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils that can be used to justify the modern claims of the papacy, especially the claim of universal jurisdiction, outside the authority of an Ecumenical Council and the right to infallibly proclaim the doctrine of the Church.

This issue does not seem relevant to the thread. I would invite you to present the matter at Byzcath.org.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Richca]

Hi Richca,

I found this explanation by Mark Bonocore to be helpful:

Source: catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx

LionHeart, thank you, good post

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dearest Fr. John,

Bless me, a sinner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frjohnmorris
It may very well be that St. Photius did not fully understand the theology being expressed by the filioque,
It is for certain that St. Photius did not know Latin, so it is more than likely that he did not understand the linguistic nuances between the Greek and Latin theologies on the matter. Fortunately, St. Maximos took the time to inquire of the matter to the Latins before making any judgment, and St. Maximos should be taken as the preeminent model for everyone on this issue, not St. Photius. That said, Latins should recognize that St. Photius was thoroughly orthodox in his Trinitarian theology. His only mistake was in accusing Latins of teaching something that they never really taught (because he did not understand the theological presuppositions of the Latins, which was different from the Greeks).
I RESPOND: You may have a point, but to be honest with you, I do not find a consistent teaching on the subject from the quotes cited in this discussion. Some of them are in complete agreement that the filioque is simply another way to way “through the Son” or “sent by the Son.” That we can accept. Other times some of the quotes seem to state that the Father and the Son are both the origin of the Spirit. That we cannot accept. Therefore there a definition of the filioque that Orthodox can accept as a legitimate statement of the teaching of the Church, but there is also a definition of the meaning of the filioque that we cannot accept. However, the text of the Creed is an altogether different issue. I am very uncomfortable with Augustine’s psychological explanation of the Trinity that defines the Holy Spirit as the Love between the Father and the Son because it seems to make the Holy Spirit an unequal member of the Holy Trinity and also is an effort to understand the mystery of the Trinity through human reason. That is why many Orthodox theologians say that the Trinity of the filioque is the Trinity of the philosophers.

Quote:
but he knew that the Latin missionaries in Bulgaria had no right to change the Creed approved by the Ecumenical Councils.
It should be noted that the Latins did not change the Creed from their perspective. The Latin missionaries were merely proposing what was received according to their Tradition.
I RESPOND: That may very well be but the Latin missionaries criticized the Eastern missionaries because they did not use the filioque in their version of the Creed and strongly protested married priests. Whether they realized it or not they were actually criticizing the Easterners because they had not changed the Creed.

To be continued