Do Eastern Catholics accept the filioque?

[JMJ_coder]

1. 
   *]Had they voted placet and accepted the decrees, they would have ipso-facto renounced Protestantism.

1. 
   True.
   

   1. *]Had they voted placet and then later refused to accept the decrees, they would have reverted to Protestantism and would have again been in heresy (or at least in schism).

   1. 
      True.
      

      1. 
         *]Had they voted non placet and refused to endorse the decrees in the first place (i.e. at the time), they would have been in heresy (or at least in schism) same as they if they had not attended and voted.

      1. 
         Half-true. At almost all the Councils there have been those who have not voted for the decrees. The only issue would be once the Council approves the decrees and canons and then those who didn’t vote for them refuses to assent to them.

 

[malphono]

JMJ_coder:

malphono:

1. Had they voted non placet and refused to endorse the decrees in the first place (i.e. at the time), they would have been in heresy (or at least in schism) same as they if they had not attended and voted.

Half-true. At almost all the Councils there have been those who have not voted for the decrees. The only issue would be once the Council approves the decrees and canons and then those who didn’t vote for them refuses to assent to them.

That’s where I was going. My intent in this scenario was that they voted non placet and ultimately rejected the decrees.

 

[Clarky]

The Greeks and the Latins, during the sixth session (July 6, 1439) Council of Florence, were able to sign this common definition:

“In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the approval of this sacred and universal Council of Florence, we establish that this truth of faith must be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus all must profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally of (the Father and the Son), that he has his existence and his subsistent being from the Father and the Son together, and that he proceeds eternally from the one and from the other as from a single principle and from a single spiration.”

There is an additional clarification to which St. Thomas had devoted an article of the Summa (Ultrum Spiritus Sanctus Procedat a Patre Per Filium).

“We declare,” said the Council, "what the holy Doctors and Fathers stated that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son tends to make understandable and means that the Son too, like the Father, is the cause, as the Greeks say, and the principle, as the Latins say, of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit.

And since all that the Father has he has given to the Son in his generation, with the exception of being Father, this very procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son the Son himself has eternally from the Father, from whom he has been eternally generated."

At the conclusion of the council, the reunion of the Eastern and Western Church was (joyfully proclaimed). This joyful reunion was not to last long, however.

The military aid that the east hoped to gain from the west (the east was struggling with the conquering Turks) never materialized and the eastern monks rejected the decisions of the council.

The eastern Church has always maintained that the insertion of the word filioque into the creed was illegal. However, the Apostle’s Creed (the ‘Creed of Creeds) was never endorsed or accepted by any council or synod(and this creed is universally recognized, although it is used less in the east.

Many creeds were only approved by local councils (or synods), and most were in use in the churches before approval.

Further, the Nicene creed itself was in use hundreds of years (and had undergone changes) before being recognized by a truly ecumenical council (the Council of Chalcedon, 451).

Even so, while the east accuses the west of changing the creed approved by the Council of Chalcedon, they themselves changed the creed at the second Council of Nicaea by adding (through the Son).

After the Council of Florence the West continued to profess that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son,” while the East continued to hold to the original formula of the Council of Constantinople.

Although this change never took hold in the eastern churches.

Doctrinally, I believe that the teaching of the Bible is best summarized by Augustine:

“The Son, is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally and (by [the Father’s] gift and with no lapse of time) commonly from both”.

Further, I claim that the word (filioque) was lawfully inserted into the creed by the Council of Florence, (a truly ecumenical council) that reunited the East and the West (if only for a short time).

That the eastern monks rejected the decisions of the council is not relevant, it only demonstrates their disrespect for authority.

Also, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father.

Secondly, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost.

But since the time of the Second Vatican Council a fruitful ecumenical dialogue has been developing.

It seems to have led to the conclusion that the formula (Filioque) does not constitute an essential obstacle to the dialogue itself and to its development, which all hope for and pray for to the Holy Spirit.

Union is still possible on the “Filioque” issue through the recognition that the formulas “and the Son” and “through the Son” mean the same thing so long as future members of the Orthodox Church do not use this as an excuse like Photius did AD 882.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

As for the Protestants, even at Trent they could not have been more than observers. The participants in an Oecumenical Council are bishops (and by that I mean bishops having true Apostolic succession). Kind of leaves the Protestants out.

This is simply not the case. Non-bishops - including hermits, priests, and the like - did participate in early Councils. Luther himself WAS invited to Trent and promised safe passage…

 

[bobzills]

Union is still possible on the “Filioque” issue through the recognition that the formulas “and the Son” and “through the Son” mean the same thing so long as future members of the Orthodox Church do not use this as an excuse like Photius did AD 882.

If “and the Son” and “through the Son” are the same thing, why does the Latin Church so strongly resist changing the “filoque” to “per filium”? If the Roman Church really wants reunion and sees no difference between the two, why does it refuse a simple compromise on this issue?

 

[mardukm]

If “and the Son” and “through the Son” are the same thing, why does the Latin Church so strongly resist changing the “filoque” to “per filium”? If the Roman Church really wants reunion and sees no difference between the two, why does it refuse a simple compromise on this issue?

If you understand why Easterns and Orientals do not want to deprive ourselves of our Traditions, then you should automatically understand why the Latins would not want to do so. The key to unity is understanding, not forcing our particular Traditions on another. Your double standard will not find any support from me.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

This is simply not the case. Non-bishops - including hermits, priests, and the like - did participate in early Councils. Luther himself WAS invited to Trent and promised safe passage…

But they didn’t vote. Their have always been non-Bishops participating in one manner or another. Saint Athanasius participated in the First Council of Nicea as an assistant to the Patriach of Alexandria (Alexander, I think) – he was only a Deacon at the time. Our current Pontiff, Benedict XVI, was a theological consultant at the Second Vatican Council – he was Fr. Ratzinger back then.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JMJ_Coder,

But they didn’t vote. Their have always been non-Bishops participating in one manner or another. Saint Athanasius participated in the First Council of Nicea as an assistant to the Patriach of Alexandria (Alexander, I think) – he was only a Deacon at the time. Our current Pontiff, Benedict XVI, was a theological consultant at the Second Vatican Council – he was Fr. Ratzinger back then.

I THINK that Vatican I was the first time since the Council of Lyons that ONLY bishops were allowed to have a vote in the deliberations. This was specifically a matter that was discussed for the preparation of the First Vatican Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

If “and the Son” and “through the Son” are the same thing, why does the Latin Church so strongly resist changing the “filoque” to “per filium”? If the Roman Church really wants reunion and sees no difference between the two, why does it refuse a simple compromise on this issue?

To add to Mardukm’s response, I would also point out that doing so wouldn’t even solve the problem. The most hardened opponents of the filioque reject any participation of the Son in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit (a point of view that is very out of touch with Patristic theology), so per filium is just as objectionable to them.

It’s much more sensible, IMO, to take the approach that Rome has: settle the question of whether or not it’s heresy before making any more changes to the Latin Creed. To do otherwise would be both imprudent and worthless in terms of fostering reunion.

As for Rome’s sincerity, it has already demonstrated it by allowing both the original Creed and the filioque within the Catholic Communion. If it was truly believed by Rome that there was a difference between the two meanings, only the filioque would be allowed.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Clarky]

If “and the Son” and “through the Son” are the same thing, why does the Latin Church so strongly resist changing the “filoque” to “per filium”? If the Roman Church really wants reunion and sees no difference between the two, why does it refuse a simple compromise on this issue?

Because the Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word (Filioque).

It was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an (EXCUSE) for throwing off all dependence on Rome.

Also, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Ghosty]

but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

Don’t forget that “double procession” is a very problematic expression, and prone to dangerous misinterpretation. It can easily be read to mean “two processions”, which is heretical.

Better to stick with other terms, I think. A theological term that is so easily misunderstood fails in its purpose of clarifying the Faith, and instead obscures it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Because the Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word (Filioque).

It was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an (EXCUSE) for throwing off all dependence on Rome.

Also, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

The Greeks have never been dependant on Rome. The papal doctrines are a western development. The east never viewed itself as subordinate to Rome. Otherwise there would have never been a monophysite schism or a Nestorian schism or the Great Schism.

It is irrelevant whether the Greek deputies accepted it, they do not equal the Eastern Orthodox Church. The fact is that the Eastern Orthodox rejected the filioque.

The Greeks weren’t living in heresy. They were living according to the creed which was written by the council of Constantinople. If there was any change to the faith it happened in the west.

 

[Clarky]

Don’t forget that “double procession” is a very problematic expression, and prone to dangerous misinterpretation. It can easily be read to mean “two processions”, which is heretical.

Better to stick with other terms, I think. A theological term that is so easily misunderstood fails in its purpose of clarifying the Faith, and instead obscures it.

Peace and God bless!

In God all is eternal, beyond time. The origin of the Holy Spirit is therefore eternal, as is that of the Son within the Trinitarian mystery in which the three divine Persons are consubstantial.

Jesus says He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. That makes for consubstantiality of nature. Both are Divine. Both are God.

 

[Clarky]

The Greeks have never been dependant on Rome. The papal doctrines are a western development. The east never viewed itself as subordinate to Rome.

The Edict of Milan was drafted by Constantine Augustus of the WEST and Licinius Augustus of the EAST in AD 313. This document not only LEGALIZED the Christian Church, but all faiths within the Roman Empire.

In this DOCUMENT it states “Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the VICAR if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency.”

Now if Licinius Augustus of the EAST knew there was a VICAR in the Church, the EASTERN Bishops knew this as well.

Also, the Council of Chalcedon CLEARLY recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter, and the head of the Church.

The Council did have one problem. One of its canons, (Canon 28), had given Constantinople primacy in the East.

The Canon read:"…we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.

For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome…" (Canon 28, Chalcedon)

However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of “line item veto,” ordered it struck from the Council documents.

In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying …

"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness.

Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness."

Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.”

This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.

Also, In AD 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour (after the Bishop of Rome), because it is New Rome”.

And (all of the bishops present at this council were from the east).

The historical record easily bears this out, let alone sacred scripture. That Peter had primacy within the Church is indisputable.

 

[jimmy]

In this DOCUMENT it states “Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the VICAR if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency.”

Who says this is refering to Rome? Simply because you limit the term ‘vicar’ to the bishop of Rome does not mean that is how it was in the past. It would like refering to a statement of an early Christian who spoke of the ‘pope’. But the fact is that the title pope was applied to the patriarch of Alexandria. So you might see St. Jerome refer to St. Athanasius as Pope Athanasius. Similarly you might see later Christians refer to St. Clement of Alexandria as Pope Clement. Similarly the title vicar is not limited to the bishop of Rome.

Also, the Council of Chalcedon CLEARLY recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter, and the head of the Church.

No it didn’t.

The Canon read:"…we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.

For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome…" (Canon 28, Chalcedon)

Notice how that says that the perrogatives of Rome were given to it by a council. Also notice that Constantinople is given ‘equal priveleges’ as Rome.

However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of “line item veto,” ordered it struck from the Council documents.

In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying …

"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness.

Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness."

Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

Amazingly the east did not care what Leo or Anatolius said. The fact is that the east continued to accept the canon after then. Rome later accepted the canon in the thirteenth century so apparently Leo was wrong even by Roman standards.

I don’t know what the Greek historians say. You are going to have to quote them.

No one has ever denied Rome a primacy. But the fact is that primacy does not make the east dependant on Rome whether you like it or not. Primacy does not say that the pope has universal jurisdiction. Nor does it say that he has the charism of infallibility.

 

[jimmy]

Pope Benedict Himself speaks of the development of the doctrine of primacy in his book The Meaning and Mission of Theology so it would be foolish for you to deny its development. He specifically speaks of it in relation to the mendicant orders in the thirteenth century and seperation of Church and state around the same time.

 

[Clarky]

The oldest canon law admitted only three bishops as having what was called patriarchal rights; the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.

The successor of St. Peter as a matter of course held the highest place and combined in his own person all dignities.

He was not only bishop, but metropolitan, primate, and patriarch; Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, and first of the patriarchs.

As soon as a hierarchy was organized among bishops, the chief authority and dignity were retained by the Bishop of Rome.

As (Bishop of Rome) he is the diocesan bishop of that diocese only; as (metropolitan) he governs the Roman Province; as (primate) he governs the Italian bishops; as (patriarch) he rules only the West.

As (pope) he is the visible head of the whole Church; no Christian is outside his papal jurisdiction. To Christians in the East he is supreme pontiff, not patriarch.

However, there was always a closer relation between Western bishops and the pope than between him and their Eastern bishops.

In AD 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour (after the Bishop of Rome), because it is New Rome”.

Chalcedon in AD 451 established Constantinople as a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Asia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place (after) Rome. Pope Leo I (440-61) refused to admit this canon, which was made in the absence of his legates; for centuries Rome still refused to give the second place to Constantinople.

It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (AD 1215) that the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was allowed this place; in 1439 the Council of Florence gave it to the Greek patriarch.

Nevertheless in the East the emperor’s wish was powerful enough to obtain recognition for his patriarch; from Chalcedon we must count Constantinople as practically, if not legally, the second patriarchate.

So we have the (new) order of the five patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. To the Eastern bishops it became an essential element of the constitution of the Church.

 

[jimmy]

The term pope wasn’t applied to the bishop of Rome until the fifth century. You are reading the modern perspective back into the fathers.

As you mentioned the patriarch of Constantinople recieved the priveleges of the 28th canon regardless of whether Leo supported it or not.

 

[Clarky]

The term pope wasn’t applied to the bishop of Rome until the fifth century. You are reading the modern perspective back into the fathers.

There are early records that before Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome they together chose Linus as Peter’s successor.

He ruled the Church for about eleven years from 67. For the next twelve years Cletus was pope and then Clement from 90 to 100.

Also, there is an abundance of material to show that Peter ordained Clement TO REPLACE LINUS as bishop of the Roman Church after Peter’s martyrdom in 67 A.D.

The list of bishops of Rome in the (Ante-Nicene Fathers) show that Clement was a bishop from 68-71 A.D. His first item of business as bishop was to inform James of Peter’s death.

A man is pope because the Church recognizes him as bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.

Once universal agreement was reached after the Western Schism as to whom the Church recognized as bishop of Rome, that person’s position as pope was clear.

The pope is in the Bible- Father. The early bishops were called Father (papa in Italian).

The word Pope'' doesn't appear in the Bible, but then neither do the words Trinity,’’ Incarnation,'' Ascension’’ and ``Bible’’ appear in the Bible. But, they are referred to by other names.

The Bible, is referred to as Scripture.'' The Pope, which means head bishop of the Church, is referred to as the rock’’ of the Church, or as the ``shepherd’’ of the Church.

Christ used that terminology when He appointed the Apostle Peter the first head bishop of His Church, saying: ``Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.’’ (Matt. 16:17-19).

There shall be one fold and one shepherd.'' (John 10:16). Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep.’’ (John 21:15-17). The words rock'' and shepherd’’ must apply to Peter, and they must distinguish him as the head Apostle.

The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfillment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21.

Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock, the sheep and the lambs alike, in the charge of Peter the Apostle.

The term employed in 21:16, “Be the shepherd (poimaine) of my sheep” indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule.

It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): “Thou shalt rule (poimaneis) them with a rod of iron”.

In the second century St. Hegessipus compiled a list of Popes to the time of Anicetus (eleventh Pope) which contained the name of St. Peter as first.

Early in the third century the historian Caius wrote that Pope Victor was ``the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter.’’

In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian related that Cornelius (twenty-first Pope) ``mounted the lofty summit of the priesthood, the place of Peter.’’

Even Protestant historians have attested to Peter’s role as first Bishop of Rome, first Pope of the Catholic Church.

 

[jimmy]

There are early records that before Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome they together chose Linus as Peter’s successor.

I am aware of what Irenaeus said. But from what I recall it does not speak of Linus as the successor of Peter. It simply speaks of Peter and Paul appointing Linus. Ancient sources also speak of Peter as bishop of Antioch and Antioch continues to claim succession from Peter.

Regarding Cyprian, it would be a mistake to think that he viewed the bishop of Rome as he is viewed now. He considered all bishops to be equal. This can be seen in the fact that in response to Pope Stephen who said that heretics should not be rebaptized he held two councils that specifically said otherwise.