Do Melkites believe in the Filioque?

[MichaelinMD]

I don;t know. I don’t know many Roman Catholics that do either. The usual stock answer is “two” but that is clearly wrong. That is a problem in and of itself.

“Clearly wrong”?? Why is it wrong? Are there fewer, as in 1 or 0? Or are there more? Since you don’t know how many there have been, how can you say that “the usual stock answer” is clearly wrong?

I know that as an Orthodox Christian you take issue with the whole notion of ex cathedra statements and, based on my knowledge and experience of Orthodoxy and Orthodox Christians who haunt the internet (“Netodox” ), no answer short of “there can be no such thing as ex cathedra statements because the Pope is not and cannot be infallible in any way, shape, or form and he does not have supremacy over the Church” (or some such thing) will ever satisfy.

 

[Wandile]

Where and when, exactly, did the Orthodox Church reject the Zoghby initiative? For that matter, where and when did the Roman church definitively reject it (as in, condemn it in an “ecumenical” council or by an “infallible” papal pronouncement? If you want to say that it has never been generally accepted by either the Orthodox or Roman episcopacie, that would be an accurate statement.

Both the Antiochian Orthodox and the CDF rejected the Synodal proposal on the grounds that the questions regarding sharing the same Faith hadn’t been universally settled yet. In other words, Communion can’t occur between two Particular Churches if the other Churches in their respective Communions haven’t settled matters yet.

Here is the letter sent to the Melkites by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith : orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/rome-and-the-zoghby-initiative-new-translation-of-the-1997-letter/

 

[twf]

Sorry, but the meaning of “the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son, equally” is pretty plain to me, and doesn’t change with either an “eastern” or a “western” interpretation. Likewise with “Papal definitions made ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals are irreformable and binding on the Church in and of themselves and not by consent of the Church”.

Latins, including recent popes, have explained the proper understanding of the Flioque, and many Orthodox have now acknowledged that properly understood it is not contrary to the Orthodox faith…but some individuals, such as yourself, have apparently decided that Latins don’t understand their own faith and thus choose to continue to promote their own interpretation, as an outsider, over and above the official Latin clarifications. See, for example, this clarification from Blessed (soon to be Saint) Pope John Paul II: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html.

Florence:

“The Latins state that by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son they do not mean to exclude that the Father is the source and the principle of all divinity, that is, of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor do they wish to deny that the Son learned from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; nor do they hold that there are two principles or two spirations. Rather they assert that one only is the principle and one only the spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have asserted up to now” (cf. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Bologna 1973, p. 526).

The Father is the source of the Holy Spirit. The monarchy of the Father is a dogma of the Catholic Church. There have been many lengthy threads on this forum discussing this issue - a quick search will yield many results.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Expatreprocedit
Sorry, but the meaning of “the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son, equally” is pretty plain to me, and doesn’t change with either an “eastern” or a “western” interpretation. Likewise with “Papal definitions made ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals are irreformable and binding on the Church in and of themselves and not by consent of the Church”.

Latins, including recent popes, have explained the proper understanding of the Flioque, and many Orthodox have now acknowledged that properly understood it is not contrary to the Orthodox faith…but some individuals, such as yourself, have apparently decided that Latins don’t understand their own faith and thus choose to continue to promote their own interpretation, as an outsider, over and above the official Latin clarifications. See, for example, this clarification from Blessed (soon to be Saint) Pope John Paul II: vatican.va/holy_father/jo…9901107en.html.

You are confusing the Filioque clause itself with the dogmatic definitions defending it by Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence. I along with many Orthdoox believe the Clause itself is capable of an orthodox understanding. But the language I quoted, that the Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son, is not reconciliable with the monarchy of the Father and therefore not capable of an orthodox understanding, and I challenge you to present any Orthodox authority defending that language. This language remains “on the books” as dogmatic teaching and must be dealth with forthrightly. I am very glad that recent statements by the Roman magisterium have reemphsized the monarchy of the Father. Simply repudiate the language I quoted from the western post-schism councils and that will be the end of the poblem.

Florence:

Quote:
“The Latins state that by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son they do not mean to exclude that the Father is the source and the principle of all divinity, that is, of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor do they wish to deny that the Son learned from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; nor do they hold that there are two principles or two spirations. Rather they assert that one only is the principle and one only the spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have asserted up to now” (cf. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Bologna 1973, p. 526).

The actual decree of Florence makes clear that the “one principle” of the Holy Spirit is NOT the Father alone, but the Father and the Son TOGETHER. In so stating Florence, like Lyons II, is dogmatizing what Anselm of Canterbury and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote. That theology** is the problem, and must be disavowed.

The Father is the source of the Holy Spirit. The monarchy of the Father is a dogma of the Catholic Church.

If it is a such a dogma, then it conflicts with the conciliar statements I have cited.

There have been many lengthy threads on this forum discussing this issue - a quick search will yield many results.

I know, I have read them. None of them deal with the language I have cited.**

 

[Vico]

The Catechism shows that the Monarchy of the Father is “that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, 79 is the first origin of the Spirit”.248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. 77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, 78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, 79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. 80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

77 ⇒ Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.
78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.
79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
80 Cf. Council of Lyons II(1274): DS 850.

 

[MichaelinMD]

It seems to me (and I’d happily be proven wrong about this) that for those who just really do not want reunion of the OC with the CC (or vice versa ), the filioque will always be interpreted in such a manner as to be used as an effective roadblock for such reunion. This despite the fact that many Orthodox no longer see it as an issue…or so I’ve heard. Just sayin’…

 

[Expatreprocedit]

“Clearly wrong”?? Why is it wrong? Are there fewer, as in 1 or 0? Or are there more? Since you don’t know how many there have been, how can you say that “the usual stock answer” is clearly wrong?

I know that as an Orthodox Christian you take issue with the whole notion of ex cathedra statements and, based on my knowledge and experience of Orthodoxy and Orthodox Christians who haunt the internet (“Netodox” ), no answer short of “there can be no such thing as ex cathedra statements because the Pope is not and cannot be infallible in any way, shape, or form and he does not have supremacy over the Church” (or some such thing) will ever satisfy.

I said “clearly wrong” because there are many papal pronouncements over the centuries, made “from the throne of Peter” and matters of faith and morals, and which were clearly intended to bind the Church. More than simply the proclamations of the IC and the Assumption, which are the two usually cited. For example, I would think Catholics would want to cite the Tome of Leo to the Council of Chalcedon as an example of an ex cathedra statement. There is the concluding statement of the bull Unam Sanctam, which begins “We therefore procliam, define and pronounce…” (the “we” being Pope Boniface VIII, clearly in his capacity as “supreme pontiff”). If you read the “Relatio” of Bishop Gasser written shortly after the defintion of papal infallibility at Vatican I, which is often cited by Catholic epologists, inlcuding on this forum, as a kind of quasi-official explanation of the decree, he writes therein that there had been “thousands” of dogmatic papal pronouncements up to his time. That seems like rhetorical hyperbole, but clearly he is stating there has been more than two.

Really, would you argue that this supposedly indispensable charism of the Bishop of Rome lay dormant until 1854?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

It seems to me (and I’d happily be proven wrong about this) that for those who just really do not want reunion of the OC with the CC (or vice versa ), the filioque will always be interpreted in such a manner as to be used as an effective roadblock for such reunion. This despite the fact that many Orthodox no longer see it as an issue…or so I’ve heard. Just sayin’…

Well, I hope you weren’t responding to my post, because I went into detail about distinguishing between the Clause itself and the theology and dogmas that grew up around it. I didn’t pull those definitions out of nowhere, they came from the magisterium of your church. I went into detail about the problems Orthodox have with those dogmas. I’m sure there are some Orthodox who are determined that a reunion never happen, but that doesn’t describe me. As a matter of fact, and you can choose to believe me or not, I am somewhat consumed with the idea of reunion and resolving theological issues between our churches. Have a blessed Easter.

 

[Tomdstone]

This came up in a recent discussion on the non-Catholic religions board.

Yes, the Filioque is defined as doctrine by the Council of Florence and therefore must be believed by all Catholics - whether or not it is said in the creed.

If the filioque is believed, then why deliberately refuse to say it in the creed said at every Mass in the Eastern Churches? If the Church is one, should not the Church have one creed and not two? Presently there are two different creeds and Cardinal Humberto left a bull of excommunication for Cerularius on several grounds including that he would not include the filioque in his creed. Cerularius, in turn, then excommunicated the Romans citing several issues including that they included the filioque in their creed. However, today the Eastern Catholic Churches say the creed without the filioque, whereas the western Church says the creed with the filioque. Why have two creeds in one Church? Why not have one creed said at all Masses in the ONE, holy, apostolic, catholic Church?

 

[Wandile]

If the filioque is believed, then why deliberately refuse to say it in the creed said at every Mass in the Eastern Churches? If the Church is one, should not the Church have one creed and not two? Presently there are two different creeds and Cardinal Humberto left a bull of excommunication for Cerularius on several grounds including that he would not include the filioque in his creed. Cerularius, in turn, then excommunicated the Romans citing several issues including that they included the filioque in their creed. However, today the Eastern Catholic Churches say the creed without the filioque, whereas the western Church says the creed with the filioque. Why have two creeds in one Church? Why not have one creed said at all Masses in the ONE, holy, apostolic, catholic Church?

Because including the filioque in the Greek creed would be heretical

 

[Aramis]

If the filioque is believed, then why deliberately refuse to say it in the creed said at every Mass in the Eastern Churches? If the Church is one, should not the Church have one creed and not two? Presently there are two different creeds and Cardinal Humberto left a bull of excommunication for Cerularius on several grounds including that he would not include the filioque in his creed. Cerularius, in turn, then excommunicated the Romans citing several issues including that they included the filioque in their creed. However, today the Eastern Catholic Churches say the creed without the filioque, whereas the western Church says the creed with the filioque. Why have two creeds in one Church? Why not have one creed said at all Masses in the ONE, holy, apostolic, catholic Church?

there are at least 4 creeds in use in the Catholic Communion.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (in greek and slavonic)
The Roman Credo (differing becuase of procedit not being a good translation of ekporousis)
The Mozarabic Credo (different wording of the filioque)
The Apostles’ Creed

The church teaches and Rome believes that the various creeds in use teach the same truths and faith, despite the different wordings.

And, as noted by others, in the Greek Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the filioque is heresy, because the term ekporousis means flowing from origin. It’s also heretical to add it in Slavonic.

The Mozarabic Credo is the same as the Roman except for the filioque - it uses et filios rather than filoque - a difference in case, but not in meaning.

 

[MichaelinMD]

Well, I hope you weren’t responding to my post, because I went into detail about distinguishing between the Clause itself and the theology and dogmas that grew up around it. I didn’t pull those definitions out of nowhere, they came from the magisterium of your church. I went into detail about the problems Orthodox have with those dogmas. I’m sure there are some Orthodox who are determined that a reunion never happen, but that doesn’t describe me. As a matter of fact, and you can choose to believe me or not, I am somewhat consumed with the idea of reunion and resolving theological issues between our churches. Have a blessed Easter.

If I had been responding to your post specifically, I would have quoted you, as I did earlier. I am very glad to hear that you are all in favor of reunion and resolving the theological issues, real and not-so-real, between our churches!!

There are numerous Orthodox who echo that sentiment, but with the caveat that said reunion occur only if the Catholic Church repents of its “heresy” and “schism”, dumps everything the Orthodox dislike about it and basically “converts” back to Orthodoxy. In other words, reunion on OUR (Orthodox only) terms–you know, “my (Orthodox) way or the highway”. I haven’t gotten that that is your position, mind you, but I also haven’t gotten that it isn’t . The filioque, it seems to me, is now really the least of our worries–except for those who choose to make it otherwise.

May you, too, have a wonderful and most blessed Pascha!!

In Christ,
MinM

 

[mkoopman]

If I had been responding to your post specifically, I would have quoted you, as I did earlier. I am very glad to hear that you are all in favor of reunion and resolving the theological issues, real and not-so-real, between our churches!!

…

In Christ,
MinM

This real and not-so-real concern is neatly diagnosed in the form of Church as Blessed Mother. Consider the accepted understanding of Marian doctrine in preceding any doctrinal statements of The Magisterium. Such an understanding of matters of Faith presents both the “eastern” and “western” perspectives of a Kingdom people in a real matter from both The Spirit and the Queen of Heaven. Are not the mysteries of Our God unfathomable?

Then the issue points distinctly at Christ as True God and True Man through Mary as Theotokos. The antithesis would be to deny the Incarnation, as do other religions.

 

[Peter_J]

Is there a prize for the right answer? (I’ll say…two—ex cathedra statements, that is.)

I don;t know. I don’t know many Roman Catholics that do either. The usual stock answer is “two” but that is clearly wrong. That is a problem in and of itself.

Hi again, and sorry for the slow reply (I haven’t checked this thread in a couple days).

So it would appear (reading your posts at face value, and separately) that you each have some kind of power of knowing how many ex cathedra statements there have been (which I confess would be a very handy power to have) . But since you contradict each other, I’m forced to conclude that one of you really does not have that power, at least not infallibly.

On a side note, I was just thinking about a statement I heard recently from my country’s president. I don’t want to quote it and drag politics into the discussion, but I was just thinking that if I were to make a comparable statement about the Orthodox it would be: “Whatever we may disagree on, I think something we can all agree on is that it is high time the Orthodox come into communion with Rome.”

:emoticon indicating that this post is not to be taken seriously :

 

[MichaelinMD]

Hi again, and sorry for the slow reply (I haven’t checked this thread in a couple days).

So it would appear (reading your posts at face value, and separately) that you each have some kind of power of knowing how many ex cathedra statements there have been (which I confess would be a very handy power to have) . But since you contradict each other, I’m forced to conclude that one of you really does not have that power, at least not infallibly.

On a side note, I was just thinking about a statement I heard recently from my country’s president. I don’t want to quote it and drag politics into the discussion, but I was just thinking that if I were to make a comparable statement about the Orthodox it would be: “Whatever we may disagree on, I think something we can all agree on is that it is high time the Orthodox come into communion with Rome.”

:emoticon indicating that this post is not to be taken seriously :

LOL!! Nice one, PeterJ–especially your last sentence.

Just for the record, I claim no power, infallible or otherwise. I possess extremely limited knowledge, and I have a tendency to contradict others–especially Orthodox making claims about ex cathedra statements . And…I do admit that I say that whilst sitting-----in a chair.

A wonderful and blessed Pascha to you!!

 

[twf]

For the record, I think all serious Catholic theologians agree that there have been more than two “ex cathedra” statements. As our Orthodox brother noted, the Tome of Leo should be included among them…and there are others. The “two statements” claim is more a average Joe Catholic in the pews myth as far as I know. In the end it is immaterial. Our faith isn’t limited to papal decrees. Nor is it based on papal decrees. Papal decrees, like those of Councils, simply serve to clarify what the Church already knew. If a particular doctrine is in question, we can check to see if it has been previously ruled on by Council or Pope, but otherwise, why does it matter how many times the Pope has exercised the Church’s infallibility?

As Catholics we also believe that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. This means that the collective and consistent teaching of the bishops, down through the centuries and in every place, is infallible. How many “infallible statements” have been issued by the Ordinary Magisterium? Well none, as it is simply the consistent teaching of the bishops, not any particular iteration or statement, that carries the assurance of infallibility in this case. But I am no less free to dissent from the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. Take birth control. What dogmatic decree from which pope or which council has decreed that artificial birth control is sinful? None. There is no such dogmatic decree. Yet I know it is sinful and I would endanger my soul by thinking otherwise by virtue of the fact that it is a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium…what the bishops have always taught throughout the history of Church. (Before someone speaks up, Pope Paul VI clarified the consistent teaching of the Church in Humanae Vitae, but he did not define a dogma). At the end of the day, the number of papal ex cathedra decrees isn’t that important to me…as the body of faith to which I must adhere is much, much, much larger than that.

There must be thousands of “infallible truths” to which I as a Catholic adhere…very few of them have been defined by papal “ex cathedra” statements.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

To come into this conversation WAY late (as always, LOL)-----

We are allowed to omit the filioque from our Liturgy but as has been pointed out here, we are to agree with all of it.

From what I understand.
Comments welcome-------even this late.

 

[Tomdstone]

To come into this conversation WAY late (as always, LOL)-----

We are allowed to omit the filioque from our Liturgy but as has been pointed out here, we are to agree with all of it.

From what I understand.
Comments welcome-------even this late.

You have to agree with the filioque but you say the creed without it. How does that make sense if the creed is a statement of what you believe. If you believe in the filioque, why not include it in the creed? Do you say that Orthodox are then heretics since they definitely and absolutely reject belief in the filioque? I thought that Melkites believed what the Eastern Ortthodox believed. Wasn’t there a statement to that effect some time ago?

 

[Wandile]

You have to agree with the filioque but you say the creed without it. How does that make sense if the creed is a statement of what you believe. If you believe in the filioque, why not include it in the creed? Do you say that Orthodox are then heretics since they definitely and absolutely reject belief in the filioque? I thought that Melkites believed what the Eastern Ortthodox believed. Wasn’t there a statement to that effect some time ago?

It because the Greek creed uses the term “ekporeuesthai” which denotes ultimate origin. So the filioque recited in Greek would be heretical as the ultimate origin of the trinity is the father, not the father and the son. The Latin word procedit is a general term which encompasses various types origins as is present in Latin and western philosophy and theology. Thus the creed in Latin can accommodate the hypostatic procession of the spirit from the father and the son as from one principle. Within that principle , ultimate origin in the father.

As the agreed statement dorm the North American Catholic-Orthodox dialogue committee put it :

The Filioque controversy is, at its not basic level, a controversy over words. As a number of recent authors have pointed out, part of the theological disagreement between our communions seems to be rooted in subtle but significant differences in the way key terms have been used to refer to the Spirit’s divine origin. The original text of the Creed of 381, in speaking of the Holy Spirit, characterizes him in terms of John 15.26, as the one “who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father”: probably influenced by the usage of Gregory the Theologian (Or. 31.8), the Council chose to restrict itself to the Johannine language, slightly altering the Gospel text (changing to pneuma…ho para tou Patros ekporeuetai to: to pneuma to hagion… to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon) in order to emphasize that the “coming forth” of the Spirit begins “within” the Father’s own eternal hypostatic role as source of the divine Being, and so is best spoken of as a kind of “movement out of (ek)” him. The underlying connotation of ekporeuesthai (“proceed,” “issue forth”) and its related noun, ekporeusis (“procession”), seems to have been that of a “passage outwards” from within some point of origin. Since the time of the Cappadocian Fathers, at least, Greek theology almost always restricts the theological use of this term to the coming-forth of the Spirit from the Father, giving it the status of a technical term for the relationship of those two divine persons. In contrast, other Greek words, such as proienai, “go forward,” are frequently used by the Eastern Fathers to refer to the Spirit’s saving “mis*sion” in history from the Father and the risen Lord.

The Latin word procedere, on the other hand, with its related noun processio, suggests simply “movement forwards,” without the added implication of the starting-point of that movement; thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms, including proienai, and is explicitly taken by Thomas Aquinas to be a general term denoting “origin of any kind” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 36, a.2), including – in a Trinitarian context - the Son’s generation as well as the breathing-forth of the Spirit and his mission in time. As a result, both the primordial origin of the Spirit in the eternal Father and his “coming forth” from the risen Lord tend to be designated, in Latin, by the same word, procedere, while Greek theology normally uses two dif**ferent terms. Although the difference between the Greek and the Latin traditions of understanding the eternal origin of the Spirit is more than simply a verbal one, much of the original concern in the Greek Church over the insertion of the word Filioque into the Latin translation of the Creed of 381 may well have been due – as Maximus the Confessor explained (Letter to Marinus: PG 91.133-136) - to a misunder*standing on both sides of the different ranges of meaning implied in the Greek and Latin terms for “procession”.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

 

[Peter_J]

we are to agree with all of it.

You have to agree with the filioque
…

Depends what you mean by “have to”. Like OrdinaryMelkite said, “we are to agree with” the Filioque, but when you say “have to” you’re presumably meaning that we would get excommunicated if we don’t, or something along those lines.