Eastern Catholics and Dogma

  • Thread starter Thread starter Billmccallister
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Think you need to read your Catechism.

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

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. 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”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, 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. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

You should also read The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?, An Agreed Statement of the, North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC, October 25, 2003.
 
JackQ said:
I’m a Latin Catholic, and I most definitely do NOT want you out of the Church. I think those who criticize the way the Eastern Catholics approach our religion are no more than a vocal, but extremely small minority.

Having said that, what do the Eastern Catholics do with the Council of Florence and its declaration that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?
Click to expand...
We Eastern Catholics recognize 7 Ecumenical Councils…Florance is not 1 of them.
 
ByzCath said:
You should also read The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?, An Agreed Statement of the, North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC, October 25, 2003.
Click to expand...
How would these recommendations actually work. And is this document infallible? Is a declaration of an ecumenical Council infallible? For example, the document recommends:
“that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.”
It seems like the Council of Lyons would be infallible or not. If it were infallible, how would a Pope overturn a declaration of the Council without contradicting infallibility? Or perhaps ecumenical councils are not infallible after all?
 
sidbrown said:
How would these recommendations actually work. And is this document infallible? Is a declaration of an ecumenical Council infallible? For example, the document recommends:
“that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.”
It seems like the Council of Lyons would be infallible or not. If it were infallible, how would a Pope overturn a declaration of the Council without contradicting infallibility? Or perhaps ecumenical councils are not infallible after all?
Click to expand...
Lyons is NOT an Ecumenical council Sid…get it yet? 🤷
 
sidbrown said:
How would these recommendations actually work. And is this document infallible? Is a declaration of an ecumenical Council infallible? For example, the document recommends:
“that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.”
It seems like the Council of Lyons would be infallible or not. If it were infallible, how would a Pope overturn a declaration of the Council without contradicting infallibility? Or perhaps ecumenical councils are not infallible after all?
Click to expand...
Right here, the actual Constitutions from the Second Council of Lyon.
  1. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith
  2. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.
For me, this seems to be denying the double procession idea.
 
ByzCath said:
Right here, the actual Constitutions from the Second Council of Lyon.
  1. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith
  2. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.
For me, this seems to be denying the double procession idea.
Click to expand...
Right, it does deny the double procession.
But is it not a problem since it says “the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son,…” Doesn’t the East object to this?
 
ciero said:
Lyons is NOT an Ecumenical council Sid…get it yet? 🤷
Click to expand...
No kidding?
Then you do not accept the listing given by the following:
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/Ecumenical_Councils.htm

questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=2981138
This last book has the following:
IMPRIMI POTEST: Placidus Stooper, O.S.B.
Abbas de Buckfast
NIHIL OBSTAT: Adrianus van Vliet, S.T.D.
Censor Deputatus
IMPRIMATUR: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vic. Gen.
Westmonasterii, die 31a Octobris, 1959
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that
a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No
implication is contained therein that those who have granted
the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents,
opinions or statements expressed.
 
sidbrown said:
Right, it does deny the double procession.
But is it not a problem since it says “the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son,…” Doesn’t the East object to this?
Click to expand...
According to Latin theological constructs, the statement you gave simply means the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. With that understanding, what objection can be put forth?

Btw, Many Easterns believe in an eternal energetic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, following the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas and the Synod of Blacharnae. There are also some Easterns (primarily Orthodox) who deny this.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
What does the nihil obstat and imprimatur from a local Latin bishop have to do with the Eastern or Oriental Churches?
sidbrown said:
No kidding?
Then you do not accept the listing given by the following:
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/Ecumenical_Councils.htm

questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=2981138
This last book has the following:
IMPRIMI POTEST: Placidus Stooper, O.S.B.
Abbas de Buckfast
NIHIL OBSTAT: Adrianus van Vliet, S.T.D.
Censor Deputatus
IMPRIMATUR: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vic. Gen.
Westmonasterii, die 31a Octobris, 1959
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that
a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No
implication is contained therein that those who have granted
the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents,
opinions or statements expressed.
Click to expand...
 
sidbrown said:
"The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, ** not from the Son……** the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445).”
Click to expand...
To put a different emphasis on his statement, the error would be to state that the Holy Ghost DOES NOT proceed from the Son - the Easterns do not explicitly state this in their creed.

To put it another way, it would be true to say that I am the son of Charles and Ann, but equally true to say that I am the son of Charles. It would only be an error to presume from the latter statement that I am not also the son of Ann.

The differences of language between Latin and Greek are apparently of significance here, but I am insufficiently versed in either to be able to explain how.

(a reference that nobody outside the UK will get: if you see Sid, tell him)
 
mardukm said:
What does the nihil obstat and imprimatur from a local Latin bishop have to do with the Eastern or Oriental Churches?
Click to expand...
All it means is that those sources are free of error. Take from that what you will. Just because something comes from the West, doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant.
 
Biedrik said:
All it means is that those sources are free of error. Take from that what you will. Just because something comes from the West, doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The point is that what a Latin local Ordinary says is not binding on Eastern Churches who are not under them. Its like saying, if a Latin Bishop says everyone in the state of New York should receive Communion kneeling, should Eastern Catholics in New York receive kneeling? Mind you that many Bishops aren’t even that well versed with Eastern Christianity. They may have taken some subjects on it in seminary but if it never became an interest to them or if it never became part of their ministry or work in the Church, they wouldn’t have devoted a lot of time learning and understanding it. I had a priest who is an academic and is such an expert on many topic on Roman Catholicism, but I know more about Eastern Christianity than he does. Mainly because it was never part of his ministry, so he never devoted the time to learn about it. But he is in constant study of other Roman Catholic topics. He is an expert homilist and great teacher.
 
ciero said:
We Eastern Catholics recognize 7 Ecumenical Councils…Florance is not 1 of them.
Click to expand...
Interesting. And nobody on the Western side (I mean with authority, not someone who posts here) ever insisted that you accept Florence?
 
ciero said:
Lyons is NOT an Ecumenical council Sid…get it yet? 🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t. Over here on the Latin side, we’re taught that Lyons is an Ecumenical Council. Is this the point of view of all Eastern Catholics?
 
Well, get a load of this folks. This is the first article of the Union of Brest:

“Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.”

Shut my mouth, and make me a monkey’s uncle!
 
sidbrown said:
Oh really?
So you deny that the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and at the Second council of Lyons (1274) ?
Click to expand...
At the Council of Florence, the Greeks were not expected to use the Filioque in their Creed. And St Thomas Aquinas equated the theology of the Filioque with the Eastern “Through the Son.”

So the Filioque is an entirely Latin expression which “works” with Latin Trinitarian theology and so is perfectly orthodox from within that perspective.

However, BOTH Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology condemns as heretical the idea that the Spirit has two Sources within the Trinity.

The expression “From the Father and the Son” has always been suspect in the East as a result.

What the Filioque expresses is true, but the East believes it is a clumsy and even dangerous form of expression as a result.

It should never have been placed into the Creed unilaterally and it should never have been allowed to cause the break between East and West.

Alex
 
JackQ said:
Well, get a load of this folks. This is the first article of the Union of Brest:

“Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.”

Shut my mouth, and make me a monkey’s uncle!
Click to expand...
And if the Latin Catholic Church had adhered to this theological expression, there would never have been any split between East and West.

What the Eastern bishops are saying here is that “how we have always believed is the way we will continue to believe” - no mention of the Filioque at all.

Alex
 
JackQ said:
Interesting. And nobody on the Western side (I mean with authority, not someone who posts here) ever insisted that you accept Florence?
Click to expand...
Florence is indeed accepted by Eastern Catholics. However, Florence does not meet all the requirements for an Ecumenical Council that the first Seven most certainly did.

The main point being that Florence was not called by the whole, united Church to proclaim a dogma etc.

Again, it was a Union Council (and one that failed miserably at that). All the Greeks who signed, save for a very few (Bessarion and Isidore of Kyiv), repudiated their signatures when they arrived home.

The Ruthenian Bishops at Brest certainly used Florence in formulating the 33 points of their Union. And I don’t think anyone says that the Union of Brest, another Union council, was an “Ecumenical Council.”

Pope Paul VI did suggest that the 14 later Latin councils could be considered as “Local” rather than “Ecumenical” by the East.

Neither Florence nor Brest established any “new” doctrine for the Eastern Christians entering communion with Rome. They continiued to believe what they always did believe prior to 1054. The Seven Ecumenical Councils remain the great universal Councils of the entire Church, West, East, North and South.

Alex
 
JackQ said:
I don’t. Over here on the Latin side, we’re taught that Lyons is an Ecumenical Council. Is this the point of view of all Eastern Catholics?
Click to expand...
Eastern Catholics accept 7 Ecumenical councils…all the rest are local councils of the Western Church…all the Popes since Paul VI have taught this.
 
ciero said:
Eastern Catholics accept 7 Ecumenical councils…all the rest are local councils of the Western Church…all the Popes since Paul VI have taught this.
Click to expand...
Paul VI certainly left open that door which was very helpful indeed to East-West relations (and ALSO to our own EC ecclesiology!).

Good for you! I love it when you allow the Popes to defend us! 🙂

Alex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top