Filioque??

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zabdi,

To be honest, I have no idea what was proclaimed in Vatican I & II concerning judgments and the bishop of Rome. I was just pointing out that you didn’t address what Brother Isa said.

Actually, I did respond to brother Isa’s concerns. Since he appealed to V I and V II, stating that they contradicted the Eighth Ecumenical, and there are actually no statements made at V I and V II about judgment on the PERSON of the Pope either way, then brother Isa’s argument is nothing more than a straw man.

By the way, what are you guys refering to as the “so-called Eighth Ecumenical”? The Robber Council of 869-870, or Constantinople IV? I assume it’s the former, but I want to make sure.

We are referring to the Council of 869-870. I’ve never heard of it called a “Robber Council.” It was, after all, attended and confirmed by all the Patriarchs (when, I say “attended”, I mean official representation) of the time. But that, I’m sure, is a topic for another thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

So called is right.

That’s a topic for another thread.

But then there’s the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the anathematization of Pope Honorius of Rome.

No doubt non-Catholics view the issue as a Council judging against a Pope.

But I believe the arguments of the time revolved around whether or not a Council can judge DEAD PEOPLE, not whether or not a Council can judge a Pope (this debate was around in the Church for about two centuries IIRC). The idea that the Council believed they could judge a Pope is an invention of later controversialists. In any case, the point is rather moot, since upon his death, Pope Honorius ceased to hold the Petrine office.,

I have no doubt that if a Council was held DURING the lifetime of Pope Honorius, he would have easily absolved himself of the charges of history by simply explaining his true position. As I stated elsewhere, I am glad to have lived during a time when Pope St. Dioscorus has been absolved of his supposed heresies. I pray for the time when Pope Honorius is likewise absolved of any supposed charges of formal heresy (though history will always judge him for failing to uphold the duties of his Petrine office).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Zabdi,

Actually, I did respond to brother Isa’s concerns. Since he appealed to V I and V II, stating that they contradicted the Eighth Ecumenical, and there are actually no statements made at V I and V II about judgment on the PERSON of the Pope either way, then brother Isa’s argument is nothing more than a straw man.

Lumen Gentium and the ensuing code of canon law (for some reason I can’t get the Vatican site right now to get verbatim quotes) state that the “head” can act alone, or in conjunction with the “colleged of bishops” but the latter can never act without the former, which makes it hard to conceive of how the head would be judged. Canon law also emphasies the total control of the pope over a council and the total dependence of the latter on the former.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

It was the question of judging the pope, which Vatican I and II doesn’t hold out as a possibility.

Which documents or decrees from VI and/or V II cause you to presume this?

The only thing VI and V II address is whether or not anyone can have recourse against his dogmatic/disciplinary decisions.

Your argument is a straw man.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Lumen Gentium and the ensuing code of canon law (for some reason I can’t get the Vatican site right now to get verbatim quotes) state that the “head” can act alone, or in conjunction with the “colleged of bishops” but the latter can never act without the former, which makes it hard to conceive of how the head would be judged. Canon law also emphasies the total control of the pope over a council and the total dependence of the latter on the former.

They’re talking about doctrinal decisions, not about the person of the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[mardukm]

If anyone would like, please start a thread on “Judging the Pope” - I mean his person, not his doctrinal or administrative/canonical decisions. I believe this discussion on judging the Pope is beyond the scope of this thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Isa,

That’s a topic for another thread.

No doubt non-Catholics view the issue as a Council judging against a Pope.

But I believe the arguments of the time revolved around whether or not a Council can judge DEAD PEOPLE, not whether or not a Council can judge a Pope (this debate was around in the Church for about two centuries IIRC). The idea that the Council believed they could judge a Pope is an invention of later controversialists. In any case…
Blessings,
Marduk

Hello Marduk, good to see you again rememeber me ?
I dont have much time to spend on the computer but I like to repsond to the above for the record only, That what you have stated in the above is not acurate, and I would say that what you have mentioned is the inovation, according to history that is.
I see that they have made a mention of The Council of Constance (1414-18] where they deposed three popes who each claimed to be the one true vicar of Christ and had each “excommunicated” the other two.
but there is another to mention ( besides Pope Honorius) and that is Pope Vigilius, as pope (537-55), became an even more tragic figure. He changed his mind on doctrine each time the emperor demanded it. Vigilius was finally declared a heretic and excommunicated by the Fifth General Council (553) No one doubted that a council’s authority was above that of a pope.

 

[Ignatios]

If anyone would like, please start a thread on “Judging the Pope” - I mean his person, not his doctrinal or administrative/canonical decisions. I believe this discussion on judging the Pope is beyond the scope of this thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

I am sorry my freind I lost you on this one, what do you mean “Judge the person of the Pope”? could you clearify further for me on this, thank you.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

I am sorry my freind I lost you on this one, what do you mean “Judge the person of the Pope”? could you clearify further for me on this, thank you.

How are you? I have requested the Moderator to split this thread from post#90 onwards into a new thread entitled “Judging the Pope.” I will respond to your last two comments if and when she does so. I’ll come back tomorrow if the new thread has been initiated. If not, I will respond to your posts in this thread.

Btw, I have not forgotten that I owe you some responses to another thread in the “Apologetics” forum. Hopefully, I will get to that by this weekend.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[chrisb]

As I understand it, both Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic scholars agree that the Creed of the Church, the Nicene Creed, was the progeny of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils - it read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father - not the Father and the Son (Filioque). The Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, (Ephesus A.D. 431 and Chalcedon A.D. 451) specifically prohibited any changes to the Creed.

As I understand it, this novel teaching made its first appearance at the National Council of Toledo, Spain, in A.D. 586… not exactly the center of the Christian World and from there managed to spread throughout the Western Church.

As I understand it, Rome resisted this novelty and defended the Creed as laid down by the Ecumenical Councils even as late as A.D. 879-880, Pope John VIII, through his legates at the Council of Constantinople, reaffirmed Rome’s opposition to its use. Also Pope Leo III, A.D. 795-816, while not personally seeing anything wrong with the Filioque clause, forbade its use on the grounds that the Ecumenical Councils had forbidden any additions to be made to the Creed. To reinforce his defense of the original Creed, he had two silver plaques, one in Latin and one in Greek, placed before the tomb of St. Peter containing the Creed ‘without’ the Filioque. However, in violation of the Pope’s commands, Filioque continued to be used in the court of Charlemagne and throughout the West. Eventually, around 1014 Rome accepted it into her liturgy. On these points both Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic scholars agree.

I would like to know if those two plaques are still before the tomb of St. Peter or have they been replaced with plaques with Creed that contain the filioque?

Personally, I believe it was a grave error to allow a lowly synod on the periphery of Christendom to dictate unilateral changes to the Creed in opposition to the Ecumenical Councils of the ‘whole’ Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

Which documents or decrees from VI and/or V II cause you to presume this?

The only thing VI and V II address is whether or not anyone can have recourse against his dogmatic/disciplinary decisions.

Your argument is a straw man.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’ve posted the relative parts from Lumen Gentium (the vatican site is still having problems now) before. It over emphasizes, as I have shown, that the bishops (the ones who would be judging the pope) cannot act without their head, namely the pope whey would be judging. No problem?

And even what you admit here: so the bishops condemn him, and he says “no.” As you point out, there is no recourse against his decisions. Put on top of this the statement that assent is due to him even when he is not speaking infallibly, and, well, how do you propose a pope would be put on trial?

 

[Badaliyyah]

I’ve posted the relative parts from Lumen Gentium (the vatican site is still having problems now) before. It over emphasizes, as I have shown, that the bishops (the ones who would be judging the pope) cannot act without their head, namely the pope whey would be judging. No problem?

And even what you admit here: so the bishops condemn him, and he says “no.” As you point out, there is no recourse against his decisions. Put on top of this the statement that assent is due to him even when he is not speaking infallibly, and, well, how do you propose a pope would be put on trial?

I propose that this would make an interesting addition to the thread originally started by Marduk called “the head bishop”. That thread really deserves more attention!

salaam.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

They’re talking about doctrinal decisions, not about the person of the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk.

And if he doesn’t want to make that distinction…?

Further, it includes discipline, so the supreme pontiff’s person is quite safe. Sovererign, or pontifical, immunity.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

Which documents or decrees from VI and/or V II cause you to presume this?

The only thing VI and V II address is whether or not anyone can have recourse against his dogmatic/disciplinary decisions.

Your argument is a straw man.

Blessings,
Marduk

Someone on another thread quoted one of the documents, Lumen Gentium:

1. The Lord Jesus, after praying to the Father, calling to Himself those whom He desired, appointed twelve to be with Him, and whom He would send to preach the Kingdom of God;(137) and these apostles(138) He formed after the manner of a college or a stable group, over which He placed Peter chosen from among them.(139)

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

 

[Christy74]

As I understand it, both Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic scholars agree that the Creed of the Church, the Nicene Creed, was the progeny of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils - it read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father - not the Father and the Son (Filioque). The Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, (Ephesus A.D. 431 and Chalcedon A.D. 451) specifically prohibited any changes to the Creed.

As I understand it, this novel teaching made its first appearance at the National Council of Toledo, Spain, in A.D. 586… not exactly the center of the Christian World and from there managed to spread throughout the Western Church.

As I understand it, Rome resisted this novelty and defended the Creed as laid down by the Ecumenical Councils even as late as A.D. 879-880, Pope John VIII, through his legates at the Council of Constantinople, reaffirmed Rome’s opposition to its use. Also Pope Leo III, A.D. 795-816, while not personally seeing anything wrong with the Filioque clause, forbade its use on the grounds that the Ecumenical Councils had forbidden any additions to be made to the Creed. To reinforce his defense of the original Creed, he had two silver plaques, one in Latin and one in Greek, placed before the tomb of St. Peter containing the Creed ‘without’ the Filioque. However, in violation of the Pope’s commands, Filioque continued to be used in the court of Charlemagne and throughout the West. Eventually, around 1014 Rome accepted it into her liturgy. On these points both Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic scholars agree.

Chris,
God Bless you for knowing the details of what I know! I only remembered the gist of it. You are very correct. What you have written is what taught in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church I attend. I’m not sure why Ghosty a Melkite of another parish would have been taught something contrary to what History proves. Thank you Chris!
Christy

 

[Hesychios]

Someone on another thread quoted one of the documents, Lumen Gentium:

1. The Lord Jesus, after praying to the Father, calling to Himself those whom He desired, appointed twelve to be with Him, and whom He would send to preach the Kingdom of God;(137) and these apostles(138) He formed after the manner of a college or a stable group, over which He placed Peter chosen from among them.(139)

*But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

I believe the main part of that excerpt (the second paragraph as shown) is under article 22, not 19.

 

[chrisb]

Chris,
God Bless you for knowing the details of what I know! I only remembered the gist of it. You are very correct. What you have written is what taught in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church I attend. I’m not sure why Ghosty a Melkite of another parish would have been taught something contrary to what History proves. Thank you Chris!
Christy

Grace and Peace Christy74!

I can’t speak for anyone but my guess would that such an admission would ultimately cast doubt on the infallibility of the ‘Supreme Pontiffs’ of Rome and illustrate how their orthodoxy might cave to pressures outside the Vatican… as the case of filioque appears to demonstrate.

Once one gets to the heart of the issue “infallibility” one stands at the nexus of the breadth of the departure of the Western Monarchical tradition from the Eastern Councilor tradition. Acknowledging the filioque as an error is unacceptable from the point of view the Roman Catholicism because it’s entire theology is founded on obedience to the Pope. Anything else unravels the entire foundation of their faith. If you can get a diehard Catholic to admit it was a error they will ultimately dissect the entire event to secure a position of safety around the sanctify of the Papacy or at the very least it ability (i.e. Charism) to exercise infallibility.

 

[White_Russian]

“The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences.” (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43)

Bishop Ware (British by birth and a convert from CofE) is of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church in England, which is miles and for lack of a better word, philosophicall apart from the Eastern Orthodox Churches, especially those in the former Iron Curtain countries.

Petrine authority; Immaculate Conception; purgatory(now that sounds like semantics to me.as Orthodox catechesis teaches that there is a "cleansing period after death’)) are the stumbling block which come to my mind. Assuming that Petrine authority can be overcome, the rest will fall into place. but, remember, we are dealing in Church time, so don’t hold your breath.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Chris,

Once one gets to the heart of the issue “infallibility” one stands at the nexus of the breadth of the departure of the Western Monarchical tradition from the Eastern Councilor tradition. Acknowledging the filioque as an error is unacceptable from the point of view the Roman Catholicism because it’s entire theology is founded on obedience to the Pope. Anything else unravels the entire foundation of their faith. If you can get a diehard Catholic to admit it was a error they will ultimately dissect the entire event to secure a position of safety around the sanctify of the Papacy or at the very least it ability (i.e. Charism) to exercise infallibility.

You give to the Pope more importance than Catholics are willing to give - the Pope is not the foundation of our faith. That’s just one more misconception that strengthens my belief that the EO are not really rejecting the dogma of infallibility but their own misconceptions of it.

In any case, Catholic apologists are always ready to admit that according to the Eastern theology, filioque is not just an error,but a real heresy. Now it’s your turn. Can you admit that according to WESTERN theology, filioque is acceptable and orthodox? Western apologists are not imposing their theology on you. Why should you impose Eastern understandings on them?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[chrisb]

Dear brother Chris,
You give to the Pope more importance than Catholics are willing to give - the Pope is not the foundation of our faith. That’s just one more misconception that strengthens my belief that the EO are not really rejecting the dogma of infallibility but their own misconceptions of it.

In any case, Catholic apologists are always ready to admit that according to the Eastern theology, filioque is not just an error,but a real heresy. Now it’s your turn. Can you admit that according to WESTERN theology, filioque is acceptable and orthodox? Western apologists are not imposing their theology on you. Why should you impose Eastern understandings on them?

Because Holy Orthodoxy demands that the Faith of the Fathers ‘all’ recite ‘one’ Creed, not ‘two’.