M
Mickey
Guest
So the Roman Catholic Church does not accept the First Council of Constantinople?
Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit
- Status
G
Ghosty
Guest
It wasn’t an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Chalcedon affirmed it 70 years later. It was merely a local council until that point.So the Roman Catholic Church does not accept the First Council of Constantinople?
dcointin:
When Greek Catholics do the Mass/Divine Liturgy.
Cavaradossi:
Do you mind pointing out what specifically leads you to think this? I haven’t seen anything in this thread that implies “from the Son” in the sense rejected by most of the Fathers (remember, several Fathers did say “from the Son”).
Peace and God bless!
M
Mickey
Guest
And so you are saying that the Latins, at the Council of Chalcedon, confirmed Constantinople, added the filioque, and the rest was history?
V
Vico
Guest
Example, besides the eastern Catholic Churches that dot use the filioque (in vernacular, or Greek), at the Somemn Papal Mass in 2004:
“2. This year the Holy Mass for the Solemnity, celebrated by the Holy Father at the tomb of Peter in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, thus takes on a special ecclesial and ecumenical significance.”
“17. For the Creed, the Holy Father and the Patriarch will recite together the Greek text of the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, according to the usage of the Byzantine Churches.”
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2004/documents/ns_lit_doc_20040629_rite_en.html
As stated in the CCC, the dogma was made in 447 A.D. Pope Leo I. The Nicean Creed of 381 C.E was later modified with the filoque (in Latin only), but was approved (in Greek) without it at Chalcedon 451 A.D… Pope Leo I wrote his tome on hypostasis prior to Chalcedon. (This was not a violation of the canons because it was not the creed of Nicea 325 which carried the restriction.) In 447 A.D. Pope St. Leo I, wrote a letter refuting the Arians, to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga, using the phrase “and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.”
The First Council of Constantinople (381) was local eastern council, and later ratified by the Holy Father. Not everything from a council is ratified by the Supreme Pontiff either. Sometimes the information from a council is not known to the Supreme Pontiff.
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html
Pope St. Gregory I (590-604 pontificate) declared the four general councils to be authoritative as the four Gospels.
catholic-resources.org/Church…alCouncils.htm
And there was Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085 pontificate) that referred to the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) as ecumenical, by reference to canon 22.
“2. This year the Holy Mass for the Solemnity, celebrated by the Holy Father at the tomb of Peter in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, thus takes on a special ecclesial and ecumenical significance.”
“17. For the Creed, the Holy Father and the Patriarch will recite together the Greek text of the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, according to the usage of the Byzantine Churches.”
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2004/documents/ns_lit_doc_20040629_rite_en.html
As stated in the CCC, the dogma was made in 447 A.D. Pope Leo I. The Nicean Creed of 381 C.E was later modified with the filoque (in Latin only), but was approved (in Greek) without it at Chalcedon 451 A.D… Pope Leo I wrote his tome on hypostasis prior to Chalcedon. (This was not a violation of the canons because it was not the creed of Nicea 325 which carried the restriction.) In 447 A.D. Pope St. Leo I, wrote a letter refuting the Arians, to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga, using the phrase “and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.”
The First Council of Constantinople (381) was local eastern council, and later ratified by the Holy Father. Not everything from a council is ratified by the Supreme Pontiff either. Sometimes the information from a council is not known to the Supreme Pontiff.
- Council of Nicaea (325)
ratified by Pope St. Sylvester I (314-335 pontificate) - First Council of Constantinople (381)
It was a local council of the east. - Council of Ephesus (431)
ratified by Pope Celestine I (421-432 pontificate) - Council of Chalcedon (451)
ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461 pontificate) - Council of Constantinople II (553)
reconfirmed the first four councils: Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate)
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html
Pope St. Gregory I (590-604 pontificate) declared the four general councils to be authoritative as the four Gospels.
catholic-resources.org/Church…alCouncils.htm
And there was Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085 pontificate) that referred to the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) as ecumenical, by reference to canon 22.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’m simply pointing out the fact that council of 381 was not originally an Ecumenical Council. I’m not making any arguments beyond that.
Peace and God bless!
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,
How do Eastern Orthodox rationalize that the Son has absolutely no participation in the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit if the EO admit (at the very least) that the ETERNAL energetic procession (proienai) occurs with the participation of the Son. Is not the Energy of God an integral part of the Hypostasis? If you say no, then please give us any patristic support for your negative reply.
Remember, we are talking about what goes on in ETERNITY, which is filled through and through with the Being of God. EVERY activity of God in Eternity is an INTERNAL activity of God. Or does EO’xy not agree with that statement?
No Catholic (Eastern, Oriental and Western) denies that the principle of ORIGINATION is the Father ALONE.
The issue here is the hypostatic existence (i.e. hypartzia) of the Holy Spirit “AFTER” (in quotes because there is no progression of time in Eternity) the point of ORIGINATION from the Father. Catholics believe the Fathers are unanimous that this existence involves the participation of the Son because the OUSIA of the Spirit is clearly FROM the Son, received from the Father who is the Source – in other words, from the Father THROUGH the Son.
I find it ironic that Eastern Catholics sometimes look to their EO brethren as a marker for their beliefs. I honestly believe that on this issue (as well as a few others), it is the EO who can learn from their EC brethren. The unity of Eastern Catholics with their Western Catholic brethren on the matter reflects an understanding of the matter (by Eastern Catholics) that is more patristic than what many EO today currently understand. IMO, perhaps all Eastern Catholics (who have studied the matter) understand:
(1) The distinction between the Sons’ non-participation in the ORIGIN of the hypostasis of the Spirit, on the one hand, and the Son’s participation in the hypartzia of the Holy Spirit, on the other – a distinction that has escaped our Eastern Orthodox brethren.
(2) That the only thing that has been dogmatized by the Ecumenical Councils is the non-participation of the Son in the ORIGIN (i.e., ekporeusai) of the Holy Spirit. They understand that the issue of the Son’s participation in the hypartzia of the Holy Spirit is a different matter, and cannot (unlike many EO) accuse the Westerns of heresy on the matter.
(3) Eastern Catholics do not accept an actual division of Essence/Energy in the internal operations of God.
I would like a comment on the following from any of my Eastern brethren:
I have read Mark of Ephesus’ Letter against the Union several times. His point has ALWAYS been that the Son is not a CAUSE of the Existence of the Holy Spirit. But from what I understand, Easterns use the term CAUSE in the same way that Latins use the term SOURCE. Because in the Florence Decree, the Latins used the word “cause” in reference ot the Son’s participation in the existence of the Holy Spirit, Mark of Ephesus assumed the Latins meant that the Son is a SOURCE of the existence of the Holy Spirit. But that is obviously not what the Latins meant because the Florence Decree plainly says that only the FATHER is the SOURCE of the both the Son and Holy Spirit.
So Mark of Ephesus, not understanding Latin, was never actually arguing against the Latin position, for the Latins never claimed that the Son is SOURCE of the Holy Spirit. In truth, Mark of Ephesus was only ever teaching (in his remonstrances against the Latin teaching as he (mis)understood it) that the Son has no participation in the ORIGIN of the of the Holy Spirit. He was never actually arguing what modern EO are claiming - that the Son has absolutely no role in the existence (hypartzia) of the Holy Spirit.
I expect EO readers will immediately react to my analysis above with the claim “what business does an Oriental have in RE-interpreting what Easterns have always understood?” I would suggest that instead of an emotional reaction, please analyze instead what I have written, and test it against the writings of Mark of Ephesus.
I would especially appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut of my EC brothers Alexander Roman, Ryan Black, and Ghosty, and my EO brethren Dcointin and Cavaradossi on what I have stated above regarding Mark of Ephesus.
Blessings,
Marduk
OK. Being in eternity, “where” the Essence and Energy are on no account divided or separated, or even actually distinguished, please answer this question:
How do Eastern Orthodox rationalize that the Son has absolutely no participation in the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit if the EO admit (at the very least) that the ETERNAL energetic procession (proienai) occurs with the participation of the Son. Is not the Energy of God an integral part of the Hypostasis? If you say no, then please give us any patristic support for your negative reply.
Remember, we are talking about what goes on in ETERNITY, which is filled through and through with the Being of God. EVERY activity of God in Eternity is an INTERNAL activity of God. Or does EO’xy not agree with that statement?
There has been no change. Catholics (Eastern. Oriental, and Western) are taking the words of the Fathers quite literally. The Greek Creed states quite plainly - the Holy Spirit EKPOREUSAI from the Father. Catholics fully understand that this refers to nothing more nor less than the ORIGINATION of the Holy Spirit.
No Catholic (Eastern, Oriental and Western) denies that the principle of ORIGINATION is the Father ALONE.
The issue here is the hypostatic existence (i.e. hypartzia) of the Holy Spirit “AFTER” (in quotes because there is no progression of time in Eternity) the point of ORIGINATION from the Father. Catholics believe the Fathers are unanimous that this existence involves the participation of the Son because the OUSIA of the Spirit is clearly FROM the Son, received from the Father who is the Source – in other words, from the Father THROUGH the Son.
I find it ironic that Eastern Catholics sometimes look to their EO brethren as a marker for their beliefs. I honestly believe that on this issue (as well as a few others), it is the EO who can learn from their EC brethren. The unity of Eastern Catholics with their Western Catholic brethren on the matter reflects an understanding of the matter (by Eastern Catholics) that is more patristic than what many EO today currently understand. IMO, perhaps all Eastern Catholics (who have studied the matter) understand:
(1) The distinction between the Sons’ non-participation in the ORIGIN of the hypostasis of the Spirit, on the one hand, and the Son’s participation in the hypartzia of the Holy Spirit, on the other – a distinction that has escaped our Eastern Orthodox brethren.
(2) That the only thing that has been dogmatized by the Ecumenical Councils is the non-participation of the Son in the ORIGIN (i.e., ekporeusai) of the Holy Spirit. They understand that the issue of the Son’s participation in the hypartzia of the Holy Spirit is a different matter, and cannot (unlike many EO) accuse the Westerns of heresy on the matter.
(3) Eastern Catholics do not accept an actual division of Essence/Energy in the internal operations of God.
I would like a comment on the following from any of my Eastern brethren:
I have read Mark of Ephesus’ Letter against the Union several times. His point has ALWAYS been that the Son is not a CAUSE of the Existence of the Holy Spirit. But from what I understand, Easterns use the term CAUSE in the same way that Latins use the term SOURCE. Because in the Florence Decree, the Latins used the word “cause” in reference ot the Son’s participation in the existence of the Holy Spirit, Mark of Ephesus assumed the Latins meant that the Son is a SOURCE of the existence of the Holy Spirit. But that is obviously not what the Latins meant because the Florence Decree plainly says that only the FATHER is the SOURCE of the both the Son and Holy Spirit.
So Mark of Ephesus, not understanding Latin, was never actually arguing against the Latin position, for the Latins never claimed that the Son is SOURCE of the Holy Spirit. In truth, Mark of Ephesus was only ever teaching (in his remonstrances against the Latin teaching as he (mis)understood it) that the Son has no participation in the ORIGIN of the of the Holy Spirit. He was never actually arguing what modern EO are claiming - that the Son has absolutely no role in the existence (hypartzia) of the Holy Spirit.
I expect EO readers will immediately react to my analysis above with the claim “what business does an Oriental have in RE-interpreting what Easterns have always understood?” I would suggest that instead of an emotional reaction, please analyze instead what I have written, and test it against the writings of Mark of Ephesus.
I would especially appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut of my EC brothers Alexander Roman, Ryan Black, and Ghosty, and my EO brethren Dcointin and Cavaradossi on what I have stated above regarding Mark of Ephesus.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
“AND” and “THROUGH” are EQUIVALENT in terms of second causes.
Imagine person A making a gift for Person C; Person A gives it to person B to give to person C; Person B gives it to person C.
The two following sentences are epistemologically equivalent:
Person C received the gift from Person A and Person B.
Person C received the gift from Person A through Person B.
IOW, since Person B is a second cause, the terms “and” and “through” can be used with equal meaning and intention for Person B.
Does that help?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
If one understands the original language and the original intention of the language used, there will be no concerns.
The Greek ekporeusai denotes the principle of ORIGINATION.
The Greek proienai or the Latin procedit denotes the principle of TRANSMISSION.
By using the term procedit, the Latins are not claiming that the Son is the or an Origin of the Holy Spirit.
What is hard to understand about that? Concerns will only arise if you impose on the term procedit a meaning that it does not possess.
No Father of the early Church denied that the ousia of the Spirit is FROM the Son (as second cause, not as Source).
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Michael,
Blessings,
Marduk
As brother Mickey stated, your run-of-the-mill Orthodox or Catholic are not going to be aware of or care much about the deep theological discussions that goes on between us. So don’t attempt to make this about what the regular Roman Catholic will understand. The regular Orthodox would be just as “confused” as the regular Roman Catholic.
The RC’s have it exactly as it means. The problem is that the Orthodox (whether in or out of communion with Rome) are translating ekporeusai wrongly. So the confusion is perpetuated by us, not the Latins.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
The Latins teach that filioque means that the ousia of the Spirit is transmitted (procedit) from the Father and the Son, while the Father is the sole Source of both Son and Spirit (as the Council of Florence taught).
Many EO impose a different meaning on it than what the Latin Church teaches - i.e., that it means that the hypostasis of the Spirit originates (ekporeusai) from the Father and the Son as two Sources. Thus, these EO pretend that they have cause to complain against the Latin teaching.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
If this is true, then the Latin Church should return to the creed of our Fathers…as Pope Leo IV had it written on the silver tablets at St Peter’s tomb. Then it would not be necessary to publish long dissertations and explanations regarding language differences and the interpretations (or misinterpretations) of the Greek vs the Latin meanings.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother DadDave,
Permit me to explain something further in relation to what I stated below:
In terms of second causes, the phrase “proceeds (Latin procedit or Gk. proienai) from the Father and the Son” is equivalent to the phrase “proceeds (Latin procedit or Gk. proienai) from the Father through the Son.”
HOWEVER…
the phrase “originates (Gk. ekporeusai) from the Father and the Son” is NOT equivalent to the phrase “originates (Gk. ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son.”
In terms of First Cause, to say that the Spirit “originates (Gk. ekporeusai) from the Father and the Son” would mean that there are two sources. And, as brother Ghosty explained, to say that the Spirit “originates (Gk. ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son” would make the Father merely the motive cause, while the Son is the active cause, which would also be problematic.
Having said that, it should be noted that St. John Damascene indeed taught that the Holy Spirit originates (Gk. ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son." But I don’t think that he meant it in the sense of brother Ghosty’s explanation. I think the Damascene possessed the Catholic understanding of the ousia of the Holy Spirit being from the Son, with the ousia being an integral element of the hypostasis. As I have been saying, the Son is not the or a Origin of the Spirit, but He participates in His existence.
Blessings,
Marduk
Permit me to explain something further in relation to what I stated below:
In case you are wondering, this does not contradict what brother Ghosty stated in an earlier post about the inapplicability of using the term “through” to mean “and.” He was only referring to the use of the term “through” in terms of First Cause, not second causes.
In terms of second causes, the phrase “proceeds (Latin procedit or Gk. proienai) from the Father and the Son” is equivalent to the phrase “proceeds (Latin procedit or Gk. proienai) from the Father through the Son.”
HOWEVER…
the phrase “originates (Gk. ekporeusai) from the Father and the Son” is NOT equivalent to the phrase “originates (Gk. ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son.”
In terms of First Cause, to say that the Spirit “originates (Gk. ekporeusai) from the Father and the Son” would mean that there are two sources. And, as brother Ghosty explained, to say that the Spirit “originates (Gk. ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son” would make the Father merely the motive cause, while the Son is the active cause, which would also be problematic.
Having said that, it should be noted that St. John Damascene indeed taught that the Holy Spirit originates (Gk. ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son." But I don’t think that he meant it in the sense of brother Ghosty’s explanation. I think the Damascene possessed the Catholic understanding of the ousia of the Holy Spirit being from the Son, with the ousia being an integral element of the hypostasis. As I have been saying, the Son is not the or a Origin of the Spirit, but He participates in His existence.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
If this is true (and it is)… the more practical and much simpler option is for EO such as yourself to SIMPLY STOP accusing the Latins of heresy.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
I certainly question Florence…and I am no fan of the filioque in any form (have you guessed
)…but I don’t think I have called you a heretic. 
And I think the simpler approach is to can the filioque.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Mickey,
)
:newidea:
:byzsoc:
Blessings,
Marduk
Understood. Can you admit that you may not be understanding correctly what the Latins actually taught at Florence?
Well, I’m not a Latin. But you did call the teaching of Florence heresy in a past post (the one where you quoted the original Greek text of the Florentine Decree and revealed that Florence did not actually say that the Son is a cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit, but rather that the Son is a cause of the hypartzia of the Spirit
)Seeing as filioque is a Tradition of the Latin Church since the 4th century, and the eastern misunderstanding of the Latin teaching on filioque has only been around since the 14th-15th century, it would be easier to remove the misunderstanding instead of the text.
:newidea::byzsoc:Blessings,
Marduk
H
hazcompat
Guest
The Philokalia
On Anger
‘Do not let the sun go down upon your anger: and do not make room for the devil’ (Eph. 4: 26-27), by which he means: ‘Do not make Christ, the Sun of righteousness, set in your hearts by angering him through your assent to evil thoughts, thereby allowing the devil to find room in you because of Christ’s departure.’ God has spoken of this Sun in the words of His prophet: ‘But upon you that fear My name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings’ (Mal. 4:2). If we take Paul’s saying literally, it does not permit us to keep our anger even until sunset. What then shall we say about those who, because of the harshness and fury of their impassioned state, not only maintain their anger until the setting of this day’s sun, but prolong it for many days? Or about others who do not
express their anger, but keep silent and increase the poison of their rancor to their own destruction? They are unaware that we must avoid anger not only in what we do but also in our thoughts; otherwise our intellect will be darkened by our rancor, cut off from the light of spiritual knowledge and discrimination, and deprived of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
It is for this reason that the Lord commands us to leave our offering before the altar and be reconciled with our brother (cf. Matt. s: 23-24), since our offering will not be acceptable so long as anger and rancor are bottled up within us. The Apostle teaches us the same thing when he tells us to ‘pray without ceasing’ (1 Thess. 5:17), and to ‘pray every where, lifting up holy hands without anger and without quarrelling’ (1 Tim. 2:8). We are thus left with the choice either of never praying, and so of disobeying the Apostle’s commandment, or of trying earnestly to fulfill his commandment by praying without anger or rancor.
We are often indifferent to our brethren who are distressed or upset, on the grounds that they are in this state through no fault of ours. The Doctor of souls, however, wishing to root out the soul’s excuses from the heart, tells us to leave our gift and to be reconciled not only if we happen to be upset by our brother, but also if he is upset by us,
whether justly or unjustly; only when we have healed the breach through our apology should we offer our gift.
peace
On Anger
‘Do not let the sun go down upon your anger: and do not make room for the devil’ (Eph. 4: 26-27), by which he means: ‘Do not make Christ, the Sun of righteousness, set in your hearts by angering him through your assent to evil thoughts, thereby allowing the devil to find room in you because of Christ’s departure.’ God has spoken of this Sun in the words of His prophet: ‘But upon you that fear My name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings’ (Mal. 4:2). If we take Paul’s saying literally, it does not permit us to keep our anger even until sunset. What then shall we say about those who, because of the harshness and fury of their impassioned state, not only maintain their anger until the setting of this day’s sun, but prolong it for many days? Or about others who do not
express their anger, but keep silent and increase the poison of their rancor to their own destruction? They are unaware that we must avoid anger not only in what we do but also in our thoughts; otherwise our intellect will be darkened by our rancor, cut off from the light of spiritual knowledge and discrimination, and deprived of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
It is for this reason that the Lord commands us to leave our offering before the altar and be reconciled with our brother (cf. Matt. s: 23-24), since our offering will not be acceptable so long as anger and rancor are bottled up within us. The Apostle teaches us the same thing when he tells us to ‘pray without ceasing’ (1 Thess. 5:17), and to ‘pray every where, lifting up holy hands without anger and without quarrelling’ (1 Tim. 2:8). We are thus left with the choice either of never praying, and so of disobeying the Apostle’s commandment, or of trying earnestly to fulfill his commandment by praying without anger or rancor.
We are often indifferent to our brethren who are distressed or upset, on the grounds that they are in this state through no fault of ours. The Doctor of souls, however, wishing to root out the soul’s excuses from the heart, tells us to leave our gift and to be reconciled not only if we happen to be upset by our brother, but also if he is upset by us,
whether justly or unjustly; only when we have healed the breach through our apology should we offer our gift.
peace
M
Mickey
Guest
No. I do not trust anything that came out of that council.
St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.
You submit to the Latin Church. No?
I do not recall that.
Not at all. If (as you say) the Latins mean the same thing as the Greeks, then it should be inscribed in the same manner as Pope Leo IV. You admitted that the average layman does not…and may never understand this conversation.
M
Mickey
Guest
"An Elder said that quarreling delivers man to anger, anger delivers him to blindness, and blindness impels him to perpetrate every evil."
The Desert Fathers
H
Hesychios
Guest
It is in the Creed. The Creed was based upon baptismal affirmations, the kind of things adult converts would say when they are being brought into the church from outside, it had to be unambiguous. Their eternal life in Christ was at stake.
People say this Creed (Credo = I believe) in worship before God as a testimonial of what they actually believe. Is this concept so hard to comprehend?
They say, all together before God, I BELIEVE. Don’t you think it should be something they understand, if they are going to swear before God and one another that they believe it? If they misunderstand, and swear before God that they believe something which is in fact wrong, don’t you think that is a problem?
Otherwise, what in blue blazes is it doing in the Creed? They might as well say ‘Yadda- yadda-ya’ for as much it means to them.
- Status