Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[ASimpleSinner]

If you want to quote scripture then you must remember that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Son according to scripture. There is not one instance in all of scripture where it says the Spirit proceeds from the Son.

The full stop would be to say “then you must remember that the Spirit proceeds from the Father” FULL STOP

We could open a new thread or pick one of a dozen from the archives to just restart on the matter. The scriptural texts themselves end at “The spirit proceeds from the Father” and is otherwise silent about procession from the Son - neither affirming or denying it.

Saying “I invited my mother to my graduation party” only tells you I invited mom, it doesn’t say if dad got an invite.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I for the life of me can not see the difference in the Creed with or without saying the filioque. As it Is my understanding the the Father and the Son are one in union to say the the Holy Spirit proceed form the Father implies that he proceeds for the Son as well. To deny that implies that the Father and the Son are not one, and that really kind of messes with the whole concept of the Trinity. I am not trying to start a argument with Our Orthodox brethren, but when it come to the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches is should not matter as it is said per the Tradition of each Church and By decree from Rome it is correct both ways so this should not be a point of argument.

 

[Peter_J]

To deny that implies that the Father and the Son are not one, and that really kind of messes with the whole concept of the Trinity.

oneGODoneCHURCH,

I think you can set your mind at ease on that: no one here is denying that the Father and the Son are one. Catholics and Orthodox agree on that point.

 

[Ghosty]

More loyal…tendencies…these terms mean nothing, really.

Where’s proof that they are, in fact, heretical?

Also, I just had a visit from my brother, who is a Byzantine Rite priest.

He told me a bit about the controversy, which included some interesting facts.

First of all, it was the ‘Franks’ (apparently converts to the faith), who during their battle with the Arian heresy, that ‘inserted’ the problematic ‘and the Son’. The Byzantines never ‘changed’ it. The Pope, at that time, even upheld the original creedal format, with the Byzantines. He even had a couple shields made that had the original fililoque profession ‘engraved in bronze’, in support of it. There was never any council which ‘changed it’. It simply got inserted (via the Franks) and sort of just ‘stuck’.

So, I wouldn’t point fingers at the Byzantine Rite for messing with anything, or in being ‘objectionable’ about doctrines and dogmas. They simply stayed the course and are actually in complete union with the early Church and the Catholic understanding (which has only become confused in the Latin Rite).

With all due respect to your brother, the whole “blame it on the Franks” approach to dealing with the filioque is a peculiar, and recent, bit of historical revisionism that is unfortunately quite popular among certain segments in the Byzantine East (it seems to have been popularized by Fr. Romanides, a Greek scholar with some very questionable claims about Western Christianity). The fact is that “from the Father and Son” was taught by St. Athanasius, who even said that the Father and Son were together the Source of the Holy Spirit (language which even the Latin Church doesn’t use, saying instead that the Father alone is Source).

The Franks weren’t even the first to insert the filioque clause into the Creed; that honor goes to either the Assyrians in East, or the Spaniards in the West depending on which history you follow. The Franks were late-comers to the discussion, and while they followed the Spanish in adding it, they didn’t originate anything. The theology of the filioque was long established before the Franks got involved, as can be seen by St. Maximos the Confessor, an Eastern theologian, dealing with the issue before the supposed “Frankish influence”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

But ultimately Latin theology does not make a distinction between the procession from the Father and that from the Son. The procession from the Son is in an equal sense as that from the Father. This is nothing other than a duel procession and it basically means ditheism to the Greeks.

This is manifestly untrue. Even the Council of Florence makes the distinction between the Father and Son (calling the Father the Source of Deity, in contrast to the Son), and the Latins authored it. The greatest Latin theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas, have explicitely stated that there is a distinction. Do not confuse “equally with” with “there is no distinction between”.

If you have any credible Latin theological documents that definitely state that there is no distinction in how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, versus how He proceeds from the Father (as the Source of all Deity), then by all means share it with us.

Otherwise this is merely a repitition of false claims against the Latin Church which have no basis in reality, and have been used to slander the entire Catholic Church, and Latins in particular. It certainly isn’t found in any theological works that I’m familiar with, especially the scholastic ones.

For just one example of this distinction being made, even while the term “equal” is being used, here’s the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas:

therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds equally from both, although sometimes He is said to proceed principally or properly from the Father, because the Son has this power from the Father.

Equal means that there is not a “greater” and “lesser” procession, but a single procession. At the same time there is a distinction between the Father and the Son’s role in this procession: the Father is Source, the Son is the “medium”, or the “through”, the receiver of the procession and not its origin.

Forgive my frustration, but this is precisely the kind of thing that bugs me about dialogue between Eastern and Western Catholics. Both sides are often content to simply repeat slander that flies in the face of history and easily researched facts (“The Latins believe the Father and Son are the Source of the Holy Spirit, and Charlemagne started it!” or “Melkites consider the Latins heretics and deny the Papacy!”) rather than actually do the mentally straining work of actually understanding our fellow Catholics. It’s much easier to repeat nonsense we’re familiar with than to understand truth that we’re not familiar with.

I make it a point to study and understand Thomism, and to study and understand Palamism, and it’s sad to see mischaracterizations passed around so casually.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

If you have any credible Latin theological documents that definitely state that there is no distinction in how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, versus how He proceeds from the Father (as the Source of all Deity), then by all means share it with us.

Otherwise this is merely a repitition of false claims against the Latin Church which have no basis in reality, and have been used to slander the entire Catholic Church, and Latins in particular. It certainly isn’t found in any theological works that I’m familiar with, especially the scholastic ones.

For just one example of this distinction being made, even while the term “equal” is being used, here’s the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas:

The quote from Aquinas sounds like a double procession to the Greeks. It says there are two processions but since the Son recieves the ability to send the Spirit from the Father therefore the Father can be said to be the sole source.

My whole point is that Latin documents don’t say anything about a distinction. It is not my job to give a document from the Latins that says they don’t make the distinction. Why would they make a positive statement about them not making a distinction?

 

[Ghosty]

The quote from Aquinas sounds like a double procession to the Greeks.

Then, to put it bluntly, “the Greeks” (and I use this term in quotes because I know for a fact that this doesn’t reflect the understanding of all “the Greeks”, being that I worship in a “Greek” community that is very insistant on not adopting the filioque, but also insistant that the Latin understanding doesn’t contradict ours) need to learn to read Latin theology before commenting on it or judging it. This is the same reaction that led to my own Armenian ancestors being labled Eutychians and Monophysites for the past 1600 years.

Part of the problem is that the critics of this theology haven’t grasped it before arguing against it, and instead have latched on to misunderstandings of certain phrases and placed their own meanings above the actual meanings expressed (and clarified, and re-clarified) by the theological tradition in question.

It says there are two processions but since the Son recieves the ability to send the Spirit from the Father therefore the Father can be said to be the sole source.

Actually it says that there is one procession, with a distinction between the Father’s role in it, and the Son’s (the article from which the quote is drawn is on the question of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father, through the Son”; one procession a distinction between the roles of Father and Son).

Elsewhere Aquinas makes it very clear that there are only two processions in God, that of the Son and that of the Holy Spirit; there can not be three (two for the Holy Spirit) under any reading of Aquinas.

My whole point is that Latin documents don’t say anything about a distinction. It is not my job to give a document from the Latins that says they don’t make the distinction. Why would they make a positive statement about them not making a distinction?

Aquinas does make an explicit distinction: he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally (principaliter) from the Father. That is a very clear distinction because there can only be one “principal”, a term that literally and directly states the monarchy of the Father (“principal” being equivalent to “mon-archos”), whereas the term “principle” (a different term with a shared root, often confused with “principal”; in Aquinas text they are very clearly different words, namely “principaliter” and “principium” respectively).

To say that the Latin documents say nothing about a distinction is to completely ignore the actual words used.

At the Council of Florence the Latins set forth the distinction before setting down the “definition”, namely that the Father alone is the Source of the Holy Spirit. Only then does it go on to speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding “at once” from the Father and Son, with the assumption that the readers haven’t forgotten the previous paragraph and context.

At any rate, my point of saying all of this is to encourage a proper understanding of a particular Catholic theological tradition, not to claim that the Latin approach is the end-all and be-all. We can’t have any discussion about the validity of different Catholic traditions and theological expressions if we can’t even get those theologies and traditions right.

At this point we might as well be asking how Monophysites like the Copts (and St. Cyril, for that matter) can truly be Catholic along with Duophysites like the Byzantines and Latins.

I have to ask, Jimmy. Have you actually read a Latin document saying that the Father and Son are one Source, or that there are two processions of the Holy Spirit, or that the Father and Son have an identical relationship to the Spiration of the Holy Spirit, or is that what you’ve read in non-Latin works about Latin beliefs?

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

The full stop would be to say “then you must remember that the Spirit proceeds from the Father” FULL STOP

We could open a new thread or pick one of a dozen from the archives to just restart on the matter. The scriptural texts themselves end at “The spirit proceeds from the Father” and is otherwise silent about procession from the Son - neither affirming or denying it.

Saying “I invited my mother to my graduation party” only tells you I invited mom, it doesn’t say if dad got an invite.

Everything in the Greek creed speaks from the authority of scripture. As Benedict XVI himself says, the scripture is the Soul of theology. Theology without scripture is meaningless.

Who are you or they to discount the various and sundry patristic sources that seem to affirm the understandings of some in the West on procession? Who are you to say that the party most convincing to you is definative?

And who are you to discount John of Damascus’ and other fathers outright denial of the filioque? The problem is that the west has enstrined it as dogma. They continually make new dogmas and they say that all Churches must submit. The west has developed its understanding of the Trinitarian nature of God and it is trying to force its own perspective on all other Churches.

And this is one of the main problems I see with the western view of the papacy and councils. If the pope calls an ecumenical council then it is infallible. Forget the fact that the various Churches are not represented and consequently the Traditions of these Churches are consequently destroyed because one Tradition is forcing its perspective on all others.

I have no problem with Latins believing as they believe. I have problems with them making speculations and then trying to force them on the rest of the Churches. All the particular Churches are guided by the Spirit and experience His action. The Spirit doesn’t only guide councils and papal declarations; He guides the development and growth of the Church in all its places.

anthony022071:

That’s alright,because the Church Fathers say it. The Church bases its doctrines upon both scripture and apostolic traditions.

No they don’t. Take for example St. John of Damascus who openly denies the procession of the Spirit from the Son. You might be able to find a few quotes that say the Spirit proceeds from the Son but the same could be found for the opposite from just as authoritative sources.

 

[jimmy]

I have to ask, Jimmy. Have you actually read a Latin document saying that the Father and Son are one Source, or that there are two processions of the Holy Spirit, or that the Father and Son have an identical relationship to the Spiration of the Holy Spirit, or is that what you’ve read in non-Latin works about Latin beliefs?

Peace and God bless!

I haven’t read any non-Latin interpretations of Latin theology. I am simply giving my interpretation from what I have read of the documents and Latin theology.

 

[Ghosty]

I haven’t read any non-Latin interpretations of Latin theology. I am simply giving my interpretation from what I have read of the documents and Latin theology.

Good to know.

Out of curiousity then, where did you pick up the “Greek perspective” then? I’m not trying to pry too much, I’m just curious where you perception is coming from since it’s so different from what I’ve learned among both the Latin Dominicans and the Melkite Catholics.

That being said, Latin theology is definitely difficult to get a handle on. For one thing it’s ALL translated from Latin, at least the good stuff, and that leaves a lot to be desired. Secondly it’s a very intricate and nuanced theological language and approach, and one not given to casual reading. I have the utmost respect for anyone who even attempts to read it without a tutor (as I did for years before finding the local Dominican community).

Keep up the good work!

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Good to know.

Out of curiousity then, where did you pick up the “Greek perspective” then? I’m not trying to pry too much, I’m just curious where you perception is coming from since it’s so different from what I’ve learned among both the Latin Dominicans and the Melkite Catholics.

That being said, Latin theology is definitely difficult to get a handle on. For one thing it’s ALL translated from Latin, at least the good stuff, and that leaves a lot to be desired. Secondly it’s a very intricate and nuanced theological language and approach, and one not given to casual reading. I have the utmost respect for anyone who even attempts to read it without a tutor (as I did for years before finding the local Dominican community).

Keep up the good work!

Peace and God bless!

I have read some EO theology(There aren’t all that many EC books on the subject). Lossky, Ware, and Zizioulas all discuss the Trinitarian nature of God. Zizioulas’ books(Being and Communion and Communion and Otherness) specifically discuss the Trinitarian theology of the Greek Fathers. Just like I don’t trust Greeks to tell me Latin theology, I don’t trust Latins to tell me Greek theology. I prefer Syriac theology to both of them though.

 

[anthony022071]

No they don’t.

 

[jimmy]

jimmy;3707583:

John of Damascus used the word ekporeuomenon. That does not mean the same thing as proienai or procedit or the English word proceeds. He says that the Spirit abides in the Son and issues from him. The Church fathers do not limit the meaning of “eternal procession” to the word ekporeusis,and they do not make a distinction between eternal and temporal procession of the Spirit.

The EO don’t make a distinction between an eternal and a temporal procession of the Spirit either. What they do say is what St. John of Damascus says, the Son manifests the Spirit. No one denies that the Son manifests or sends the Spirit, not even the most antiCatholic EO denies that. And they will say it is an eternal manifestation. Your quotes from St. John do not contradict anything that I have said. They all affirm that he never says the Spirit proceeds from the Son. He might proceed through the Son from the Father but the Son is not a source and He is not a principle of the Spirit according to St. John.

The problem I have with your link is that it takes quotes that will say things like ‘the Spirit recieves from the Son’ and it makes it seem like that means the same thing as ‘He proceeds from the Father and the Son.’ For example,

“Therefore the Spirit is said to receive from Christ, and Christ Himself from the Father.” *Marius Victorinus, Against Arium, I:12 (c. A.D. 355). *

That is great but no one disagrees. Or where does this next one teach the concept of the filioque?

“[T]he Holy Spirit is neither begotten or created … but of the same substance with the Father and the Son.” Epiphanius, Panarion, 74 (A.D. 377).

 

[Ghosty]

I have read some EO theology(There aren’t all that many EC books on the subject). Lossky, Ware, and Zizioulas all discuss the Trinitarian nature of God. Zizioulas’ books(Being and Communion and Communion and Otherness) specifically discuss the Trinitarian theology of the Greek Fathers. Just like I don’t trust Greeks to tell me Latin theology, I don’t trust Latins to tell me Greek theology. I prefer Syriac theology to both of them though.

Fair enough!

One thing to remember, however, is that modern Eastern Orthodox writings on the subject don’t necessarily reflect any kind of unbroken Byzantine approach to the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Union of Brest, which was entered into by Eastern Orthodox in the Ukraine centuries ago, said this in its first article:

1. 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.

You will not find this notion upheld by most Eastern Orthodox writers today, namely that the one origin of the Holy Spirit is “from the Father, through the Son”, and that this is the tradition handed down from the Greek Fathers themselves. Yet this was the “firm stand” of those Eastern Orthodox in the Ukraine at the time of the Union, and it was accepted by the Latins as well.

That the one origin is not from the Father alone, but from the “Father through the Son” was their hardline stance, and was understood to be the “traditional Eastern view”. Four hundred years ago this was “the tradition handed down from the Greek Fathers”, and now it’s a heresy of the Latins (albeit one stated in the peculiar theological language of the Latin Thomistic tradition).

I’ll add that I think this article reflects the healthiest response to the controversy that has ever been set down in official writings. The only problem is that the “unbroken tradition” of the East that this article reflects is not apparently the same as what’s being put forward today as the “unbroken tradition” of the East. That’s certainly something to ponder.

As for Syriac theology, from what little I’ve learned of it I prefer it in many ways too. It’s much simpler, in a good and non-condescending sense. It’s the best approach for introducing the Mysteries to the average (read: normal) person.

Byzantines and Latins are really two sides of the same “imperial, analytical theo-philosophy” coin, IMO. That being said, I absolutely love both traditions, and find myself at home in them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jimmy]

Fair enough!

One thing to remember, however, is that modern Eastern Orthodox writings on the subject don’t necessarily reflect any kind of unbroken Byzantine approach to the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Union of Brest, which was entered into by Eastern Orthodox in the Ukraine centuries ago, said this in its first article:

You will not find this notion upheld by most Eastern Orthodox writers today, namely that the one origin of the Holy Spirit is “from the Father, through the Son”, and that this is the tradition handed down from the Greek Fathers themselves. Yet this was the “firm stand” of those Eastern Orthodox in the Ukraine at the time of the Union, and it was accepted by the Latins as well.

That the one origin is not from the Father alone, but from the “Father through the Son” was their hardline stance, and was understood to be the “traditional Eastern view”. Four hundred years ago this was “the tradition handed down from the Greek Fathers”, and now it’s a heresy of the Latins (albeit one stated in the peculiar theological language of the Latin Thomistic tradition).

I’ll add that I think this article reflects the healthiest response to the controversy that has ever been set down in official writings. The only problem is that the “unbroken tradition” of the East that this article reflects is not apparently the same as what’s being put forward today as the “unbroken tradition” of the East. That’s certainly something to ponder.

I think that most of them, if not all, would recognize the procession through the Son. For example, Zizioulas mentioned in the article I linked in a discussion we had a while back that the procession could even be said to be from the Son but not in a personal sense.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I for the life of me can not see the difference in the Creed with or without saying the filioque. As it Is my understanding the the Father and the Son are one in union to say the the Holy Spirit proceed form the Father implies that he proceeds for the Son as well. To deny that implies that the Father and the Son are not one, and that really kind of messes with the whole concept of the Trinity. I am not trying to start a argument with Our Orthodox brethren, but when it come to the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches is should not matter as it is said per the Tradition of each Church and By decree from Rome it is correct both ways so this should not be a point of argument.

The main cause for the arugment on the filioque is the root languages involved. The use of Latin and Greek. Latin uses a word that has multiple meanings where Greek uses a word that has one meaning.

Any ways, the filioque is not a dogma and we Eastern Catholics have been told to remove it from our Creed. I know that when Pope John Paul II would recite the Creed in Latin he would omit it.

oneGODoneCHURCH,

I think you can set your mind at ease on that: no one here is denying that the Father and the Son are one. Catholics and Orthodox agree on that point.

I do not understand why the Orthodox keep coming up in a thread on Eastern Catholicism.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I do not understand why the Orthodox keep coming up in a thread on Eastern Catholicism.

Because we are Orthodox in communion with Rome. No difficulty there.

CDL

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Having read through this thread, I see that is not so simple to say, “The Catholic Church believes…” about anything. Perhaps it is better to be Anglican, where at least the Church admits that it tolerates some level of contradiction. It seems silly to speak of the solid, easy to identify Catholic doctrinal stands on the issues when those stands are actually disputed within different “branches” of the Catholic Church…

 

[Mickey]

So sayeth Pope Mickey?

Your sarcasm is not welcome.

In both cases, I am not seeing this as nearly convincing as you or he may be.

You are free to have an opinion.

That writing is from a Catholic source.
It may be in silver on plates in the vatican.
Scripture says “proceeds from the Father” ?

Amen.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Having read through this thread, I see that is not so simple to say, “The Catholic Church believes…” about anything. Perhaps it is better to be Anglican, where at least the Church admits that it tolerates some level of contradiction. It seems silly to speak of the solid, easy to identify Catholic doctrinal stands on the issues when those stands are actually disputed within different “branches” of the Catholic Church…

Well, yes, it is agonizing to realize the East and West split over an issue that most moderns consider arcane and extremely difficult to understand. It is a sad thing that not all of the Patriarchies are in union with one another. But then we did not divide over the lust of a king. At least the West recognizes the Eucharist of the East and both East and West, for the most part, recognize the Apostolic Succession of the other. We don’t intentionally dis the Scriptures as authoritative as the Anglicans do. We don’t intentionally ordain sodomites as you do.

You would be making a very sad choice by choosing a schismatic group that throws off Apostolic tradition as easily as you throw off last years ties as being not modern enough. We will pray for you.

It really isn’t that difficult to discern the difference between Catholic, whether Roman or Orthodox in variety, from Anglicanism. Scratch the surface and almost anyone can tell the difference.

CDL