Filioque?

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Hello Alethiaphile!

As far as Fr. Meyendorff goes, I may have been overstating his position to some extent. If I was I retract him from my comments. I haven’t, however, overstated the position of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. He has said this explicitly several times at past Orientale Lumen conferences, and we have him on film making that statement. I’ve also read a good amount of his writings, including “Orthodox Church,” “Orthodox Way,” and “Inner Kingdom.” In “Orthodox Church” he doesn’t say this explicitly, but it is implied all throughout. I highly encourage you to read anything and everything that Metropolitan Kallistos as written. He’s extremely deep, yet simple. He’s also non-polemical. While he obviously takes an Orthodox bias/stance, he doesn’t bash Catholicism in the process.

Now, as far as being fully Orthodox and in communion with Rome goes; it is important to remember that it is the tradition of both Rome and Orthodoxy to be in communion with each other. The sad fact is that we have gotten used to defining ourselves in opposition to, rather than in communion with, each other. So it sometimes gets to the point that it resembles Democratic and Republican politics; if one group says one thing, the other says the opposite. Hence we end up with ridiculous accusations of “heresy.” These accusations come from both sides. Romans and Orthodox are always calling each other heretics (I’ve never heard an Eastern Catholic of any particular church refer to either Rome or Orthodoxy as heretical, however). Personally I’ve never seen anything to justify the accusation of heresy from either side. That accusation is always based off of a misunderstanding of the other at best, and willful ignorance based on polemics at worst.

Another important thing to realize is that both Rome and Orthodoxy have condemned proselytism and uniatism as an authentic form of unity. So although the Eastern Catholic Churches all have a right to exist, they aren’t the form of union/communion that we look toward and hope for. It’s left open, therefore, what that union should entail. Our recent Popes, including the most recent, have all stated that Orthodoxy ought not to be required to accept anything that has been defined by Rome since the Schism should reunion ever take place. Our current Holy Father has also made similar claims, although he has also stated that Orthodoxy ought to respect the “development of theology” that has occurred in the West. Add to that that Pope John Paul II and our current Holy Father also recognized that the papacy itself needs to be reformed and what are we left with? A sharp distinction and near contradiction between what is said on a “dogmatic” level, what is said on the level of canon law, and what is actually lived. This are issues that the greatest theological and pastoral minds of are times are seriously wrestling with. I don’t feel qualified to wrestle with them myself, only to point them out that there is much more “wiggle room” than the typical Catholic, or even Orthodox for that matter, will allow or is comfortable with. This, I believe, is best typified and personified in the person of Kyr Elias Zoghby who was able to deny papal infallibility and supreme and immediate jurisdiction, declare his personal communion with Orthodoxy, but still maintain his communion and good standing with Rome. I’ve never heard of the pope condemning or excommunicating Kyr Zoghby. What I have heard, however, is words of praise and gratitude on the parts of both Rome and the Antiochian Greek Orthodox for Kyr Zoghby’s courage and initiative in forwarding relations between Rome, Eastern Catholics, and Orthodoxy.

So, from what I’ve been able to gather, the ideas of papal infallibility, and universal supreme and immediate jurisdiction, are still up for grabs. Is the pope infallible? The best way I’ve heard it described is, “Sure, when what he says is true.” I would say sure, but in the same sense that any bishop is “infallible,” i.e. provided that he is in keeping with Scripture and the Universal (not just particular Latin) Tradition of the Church. Does he have supreme universal and immediate jurisdiction? On an official canonical level perhaps , but on a pastoral level I think if he tried to exercise that jurisdiction, he’d end up with another schism on his hands. Take the example of the first married Melkite priest ordained in the U.S. The Vatican tried to object because it was an ordination of a married man (formerly a Roman Catholic, if I remember correctly) "outside of the traditional Patriarchal territory (I’d ask, what makes the U.S. a “traditional” Roman/Latin territory? It’s a mission country after all). The Patriarch intervened and said that he’d given the bishop permission to go ahead with the ordination. He also effectively dared Rome to suspend this priest’s faculties. This dare, from what I’ve heard, had the definite undertones of a threat.

The point of all this is, things aren’t as cut-and-dry as many Catholics and Orthodox would like to make them.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes:

So, from what I’ve been able to gather, the ideas of papal infallibility, and universal supreme and immediate jurisdiction, are still up for grabs. Is the pope infallible? The best way I’ve heard it described is, “Sure, when what he says is true.” I would say sure, but in the same sense that any bishop is “infallible,” i.e. provided that he is in keeping with Scripture and the Universal (not just particular Latin) Tradition of the Church.

Does this abide by the teaching of Vatican I?

Does he have supreme universal and immediate jurisdiction? On an official canonical level perhaps , but on a pastoral level I think if he tried to exercise that jurisdiction, he’d end up with another schism on his hands.

An authority that if utilized leads to disunity?

Or maybe it’s just a legal fiction.

That’s what this sounds like to me.

In other words,

Take the example of the first married Melkite priest ordained in the U.S. The Vatican tried to object because it was an ordination of a married man (formerly a Roman Catholic, if I remember correctly) "outside of the traditional Patriarchal territory (I’d ask, what makes the U.S. a “traditional” Roman/Latin territory? It’s a mission country after all). The Patriarch intervened and said that he’d given the bishop permission to go ahead with the ordination. He also effectively dared Rome to suspend this priest’s faculties. This dare, from what I’ve heard, had the definite undertones of a threat.

The point of all this is, things aren’t as cut-and-dry as many Catholics and Orthodox would like to make them.

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

I did not know about this case. It would seem that, if the man had properly changed sui iurus churches, the Latin Church would no longer have say in the issue.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Does this abide by the teaching of Vatican I?

Vatican I isn’t very highly favored among many Eastern Catholics. Plus it was an incomplete council. The purpose of Vatican II was to complete the work begun by Vatican I. If we really want to understand Vatican I, therefore, we must read it in light of Vatican II (and vice versa). Vatican II had a much more conciliar notion of the papacy than Vatican I. It was meant to balance the “over-emphasis” on the papacy that came about thanks to Vatican I. The West has always struggled with the problem of over-centralization thanks to the fact that there is only one Patriarchal See in the West. This is certainly a place where West could learn from East since the East has always had at least 4 Patriarchal Sees exercising authority.

An authority that if utilized leads to disunity?

Or maybe it’s just a legal fiction.

That’s what this sounds like to me.



This is what the Catholic Church is still trying to work out. If the Pope meddles in the affairs of other sui juris churches without first being invited it can and has led to disunity. Once again, it all sounds great on paper, but how does it work in “the real world?”

I did not know about this case. It would seem that, if the man had properly changed sui iurus churches, the Latin Church would no longer have say in the issue.

You would think so. Sadly that’s not the case. Look at how Rome has treated the Ruthenians in the U.S. For years they weren’t permitted to ordain their own married men to the priesthood; they were only permitted to import them from “the old country.” Now, even though that mandate has been lifted, there is hesitation to ordain married men because of past treatment received from Rome and from their brother Catholics.

 

[Virginia804]

Welllllll, there seems to be a major disconnect between culture and theology. If we try to force fit culture into theology it does not work, and vice-versa. So, do we allow local variants without heresy how?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Hesychios!

I don’t understand why so many of us Eastern Christians speak so poorly of the idea of development of doctrine. After all …

I’ve seriously been searching and searching to find out why we in the East have such a problem with this idea. My search hasn’t produced any fruits. So I could use some help.

To be honest, it’s always going to be difficult.

I could use some help too

I can only share my own thoughts on the subject (and with little time at hand today, I am afraid I will do a poor job of it), and I will not pretend to speak for Holy Orthodoxy, but for myself.

The problem for me is a mindset. Are we cultivating an attitude of primarily respecting and protecting the Received Teaching … or are we of cultivating an attitude of wondrous searching for new things to know? Are we honoring God here, or feeding our heads?

Knowing more is not the key to salvation (that is one description of gnosticism). Knowing rightly certainly is a key, and we already have that.

The early church was very conservative in these matters, reacting strongly to the innovative thinking of ‘heretics’. It is this context that Conciliar definitions were made. The actual development of doctrine was not driven by the Catholic church, but by those individuals (heretics) who would put their own thoughts forth as Truth solely upon their own authority. The Fathers defined only as a means of restraint, a pruning and trimming away of heretical teachings, and it is clear they were actually setting limits in this process of defining.

We know that people even in the first century were being saved through this Faith of ours. Our focus should never be on expanding dogmatic teaching, but in conserving and preserving what we already have from distortions.

BTW, some other random thoughts. What is of great concern to me is a general eagerness on the part of some to see new things defined, even to the point of making petitions! How did it come to this, that such a thing as dogma can be promoted with petitions? How astounding! Will this newly mandated knowledge save our souls, or is it for some other purpose?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Thank you, Hesychios! I couldn’t agree with you more, especially when it comes to the idea of petitioning for the definition of new dogmas. Would you agree, however, with the idea of reformulating the Church’s (Catholicism or Holy Orthodoxy) teaching and dogma in such a way that it speaks to our own times? By reformulating I don’t mean what could be interpreted as a revolutionary break from Holy Tradition. What I mean is acknowledging that dogma, like Scripture, is limited by the linguistic and cultural context in which it was formed. So can “development of doctrine” be more properly understood not as discovering “new dogmas” but as understanding the already established dogmas according to their cultural and linguistic context, and then interpreting those dogmas according to our current situation? This is what I’ve come to understand (thanks to Orthodox biblical scholars like Fr. John Breck) as “Living Tradition.” Would you agree with this?

 

[Diak]

There’s that slippery animal Development of Doctrine again.

If one completely ignores this concept, there would be nothing outside of the Council of Nicea. Even Orthodoxy ascribes importance to other specific “developments” (such as Trullo) beyond the “seven”. Is orthodox truth immutable? Absolutely. But likewise revelation and the action of the Holy Spirit is not static or fixed in some past event.

“Development”, as Cardinal Newman of blessed memory pointed out, is not the same as “innovation” or “perversion”. St. Basil the Great was considered quite innovative at the time by the Arians who truly believed it was they who had the proper understanding consistent with the received tradition of Nicea I, and thus the need to “develop” the doctrine through Constantinople I to further expound what should have been clear and definitive orthodox teaching.

 

[stephraim]

If one completely ignores this concept, there would be nothing outside of the Council of Nicea. Even Orthodoxy ascribes importance to other specific “developments” (such as Trullo) beyond the “seven”. Is orthodox truth immutable? Absolutely. But likewise revelation and the action of the Holy Spirit is not static or fixed in some past event.

“Development”, as Cardinal Newman of blessed memory pointed out, is not the same as “innovation” or “perversion”. St. Basil the Great was considered quite innovative at the time by the Arians who truly believed it was they who had the proper understanding consistent with the received tradition of Nicea I, and thus the need to “develop” the doctrine through Constantinople I to further expound what should have been clear and definitive orthodox teaching.

Agreed.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

In all charity, yes I have to agree with the last two posters. It took nearly a millenia to sort out the Iconoclastic dispute. I have read of church fathers who make fundamentalist preachers sound like kittens when it comes to the use of images in churches. That alone shows that there is a “development” of dogma. Again, it is not an inovation, but a better undertanding of what has been previously deposited,

 

[Poco]

Ah! IMHO, another example of the “limitations of language” rearing its ugly head!

I’ve read up on the whole thing of it being added to the Nicean Creed, but what I honestly do not understand is why either side is so adamant about this phrasing.

I’m NOT trying to start any sort of a fight or debate, it just seems to me like none of us can say we KNOW what the right phrasing should be regarding the nature of the relationships between/among the members of the Trinity.

I agree. While we can use reason and intellect to understand as much as is possible, I do not think anyone can “fully know” the Holy Trinity. At least not on this earth.

From what I have read (and I know I could/should read more!), the dispute seems to rest on simple “phrasing” as stated above, not what is actually “believed”. Unfortunately, not being fluent in Greek and Latin, I’m unable to determine for myself if these are simlple semantics and linguistic nuances or if radically different ideas are being expressed. I can only go by what I read in English. “Begotten Not Made”, “Proceeding From”, “Proceeding Through” etc. It’s just difficult for me to understand how mere “phrasiology” can lead to such problems (as the schism) when the underlying belief seems to be the same?

Having said that… Could it be that the schism was due more to “political intrigue” than a serious Theological dispute? I’m referring to folks like Photius of Constantinople, Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople, Byzantine Emperor Michael III and Pope Nicholas I?

I hope I have made my point somewhat clearly. It’s quite difficult to put in a few paragraphs/sentences what others have written books about.

Hesychios, I’m pretty sure you can correct any mistakes/omissions I have made!

 

[Hesychios]

Thank you, Hesychios! I couldn’t agree with you more, especially when it comes to the idea of petitioning for the definition of new dogmas. Would you agree, however, with the idea of reformulating the Church’s (Catholicism or Holy Orthodoxy) teaching and dogma in such a way that it speaks to our own times? By reformulating I don’t mean what could be interpreted as a revolutionary break from Holy Tradition. What I mean is acknowledging that dogma, like Scripture, is limited by the linguistic and cultural context in which it was formed. So can “development of doctrine” be more properly understood not as discovering “new dogmas” but as understanding the already established dogmas according to their cultural and linguistic context, and then interpreting those dogmas according to our current situation? This is what I’ve come to understand (thanks to Orthodox biblical scholars like Fr. John Breck) as “Living Tradition.” Would you agree with this?

May be .

Isn’t this what every priest does with his Sunday homilies? That’s a ‘boots on the ground’ application of living tradition. A priest in Kenya will have different things to say than a priest in Oregon, but hopefully they are teaching the same Truths under good bishops.

I can agree that there could be times when intervention might be necessary on a formal level (in which case only a properly constituted Council should act). But I do not feel that it would be a continual ‘modus operandi’ of the church. Sure, we aren’t in eight century Gaul or fourth century Syria, but some parts of the world today are just like that, even now (in China and elsewhere one can still find some people lifting life’s water out of wells with buckets). Are we to say “we modern Christians have a different faith than you ‘behind the times’ Christians” ? We haven’t really moved away from how we understood the Faith then, Christ is always fresh for us.

As I see it culture changes over time, but truth does not. We don’t need more Truth, we need to understand the Truth we have already been given. I think we Christians are a people with community attention deficit disorder. We can’t stay focused, and we seek out something else.

 

[Poco]

By reformulating I don’t mean what could be interpreted as a revolutionary break from Holy Tradition. What I mean is acknowledging that dogma, like Scripture, is limited by the linguistic and cultural context in which it was formed. So can “development of doctrine” be more properly understood not as discovering “new dogmas” but as understanding the already established dogmas according to their cultural and linguistic context, and then interpreting those dogmas according to our current situation?

May be .

Isn’t this what every priest does with his Sunday homilies? That’s a ‘boots on the ground’ application of living tradition. A priest in Kenya will have different things to say than a priest in Oregon, but hopefully they are teaching the same Truths under good bishops.

I can agree that there could be times when intervention might be necessary on a formal level (in which case only a properly constituted Council should act). But I do not feel that it would be a continual ‘modus operandi’ of the church. Sure, we aren’t in eight century Gaul or fourth century Syria, but some parts of the world today are just like that, even now (in China and elsewhere one can still find some people lifting life’s water out of wells with buckets). Are we to say “we modern Christians have a different faith than you ‘behind the times’ Christians” ? We haven’t really moved away from how we understood the Faith then, Christ is always fresh for us.

As I see it culture changes over time, but truth does not. We don’t need more Truth, we need to understand the Truth we have already been given. I think we Christians are a people with community attention deficit disorder. We can’t stay focused, and we seek out something else.

I think you two stated the point I was trying to make, albeit, much more eloquently!

“As I see it culture changes over time, but truth does not. We don’t need more Truth, we need to understand the Truth we have already been given.”

Well said! Possibly some (maybe many) need to spend more time exercising their intellect and reason rather than their rhetoric and sophistry?

(my apologies for any incorrect use of any theological/philosophical terms! )

 

[Virginia804]

So then is this whole topic of Filioque something that requires clarification of an existing truth, or is it that our understanding of the truth has been partial, and what is going on is that the changes in statements are expressions of our growing understanding?

Specifically, is our understanding of what is the truth about the Trinity growing as God reveals more over time. After all, scripture does say (where?) that there is much more Christ would tell us, but the Spirit would reveal it to us later on…

 

[Hesychios]

Specifically, is our understanding of what is the truth about the Trinity growing as God reveals more over time. After all, scripture does say (where?) that there is much more Christ would tell us, but the Spirit would reveal it to us later on…

Are you suggesting that we 2000 years later will be privileged to know more about the inner workings of God than the Apostles themselves knew? And then the Christians 2000 years from now will know even that much more?

What could be the point of that?

I don’t take the Paraclete to be feeding us factual information at all, personally. Truth is not just a bunch of facts to be piled up, truth for us is in the understanding and that can take different forms.

So in brief, the problems associated with the filioque are not associated so much with accumulated truth or fiction, as they are with our understanding. (I won’t go into the arguments for/against as they have been hashed to death here in many threads.)

For instance (I’ll give one poor example off the top of my head in my limited time) a truth might be “the sky is up” and that would be perfectly correct, although perhaps a little too vague for some people. For most of us it might be sufficient.

However some aspiring sage might ask “which way is up?” and now you have a whole new kettle of fish, because the earth is (supposedly) round and up can be in any actual direction … depending.

So if I dogmatically point over my head and you are here to watch, you probably get the right idea, but if I point straight to the ground I could be perfectly correct considering that I am in China and the sky over your head is probably under my feet. So there is some advantage to being less precise sometimes, it can be more correct.

The filioque issue can appear to be just this sort of problem, the more precise and detailed we attempt to be about it the more distorted our understanding can be. What actually is proceeding supposed to be? What is the nature of begottenness? How do they differ? Spirate means “spirally twisted”, how does that relate to God? If the Spirit spirates through the Son, does the Son spirate through the Spirit too? … let’s just not go there.

 

[stephraim]

I think the biggest issue with the *Filioque *is exactly it’s divisive nature. The words should be changed to perhaps per Filium (my Latin is a bit rusty) or it should be removed to avoid continual clashing with our Eastern brethren, just as for the sake of peace in the Quartodeciman controversy Pope Anicetus conceded the celebration of the Eucharist to St. Polycarp.

 

[BcharaK]

…what? i thought the Filioque was no more a problem:

a first compromise was done in the 15th century, when Orthodox adopted the formula “holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father through the Son” a formula close to ours. It was during a council in 1438, in Florence, a council that was attended by the Emperor of Constantinople John VIII Paleologus.

And later, when Paul 6 met with the Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1972, it was definitly solved. But that is with the Greek Orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

I think the biggest issue with the *Filioque *is exactly it’s divisive nature. The words should be changed to perhaps per Filium (my Latin is a bit rusty) or it should be removed to avoid continual clashing with our Eastern brethren, just as for the sake of peace in the Quartodeciman controversy Pope Anicetus conceded the celebration of the Eucharist to St. Polycarp.

Changing it to “through the Son” would seem to be acceptable, but there would need to be a corresponding change of “proceeds” to “originates” - otherwise, the change to “through the Son” would do no good, IMO. At this point in time, a removal of the words would be out of the question, as there seems to be many EO who today deny the patristic truth that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father through the Son. In the face of this, the Church needs to keep asserting this truth.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

The fundamental problem is not the Filioque clause itself so much, as it is the the false theology that developed behind it in the West after the schism, starting with St. Anselm. This is the theology of the double, eternal procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son “equally” and “as from one principle”, as it was defined at the western councils of Lyons and Florence. This means that the Father and the Son act together, jointly, and equally, in eternally processing the Spirit. It divides the Trinity into the Father and the Son above, and the Spirit underneath them, in an inverted triangle. There is simply no other way to honestly characterize it. This image of the Trinity detracts from the monarchy of the Father as the unique eternal source of the Godhead, and divides two persons in the Trinity against the other in a way abhorrent to the Fathers. That is why it is important.

I agree that the wording of the Councils of Lyons and Florence are deficient, but I don’t believe that they used the word “equally.”

Here is the Decree of the Council of Lyons:
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.

If one understands the difference between ekporeusai and procedit, then the Decree of Lyons presents no problem. The only problem at the time of the Council was that everyone thought the two words were perfectly equivalent. If you can think of any other issue that is not mitigated by the difference in meaning between the two words, let’s discuss it.

The Decree of Florence is where a more substantial issue presents itself. Here is the Decree of the Council of Florence:
[T]he holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father. And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Here, it asserts that that the Son is cause “just like the Father.” This would seem to make the Son exactly like the Father in the Origination of the Holy Spirit. But that is not the case. The Decree explicitly distinguishes between the word “cause” and the word “SOURCE.” Earlier in the Decree, it states “The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity.” So whatever the Council meant when it stated that the Son is “cause” just like the Father is “cause,” it cannot have meant “cause” in the manner of “source.”

Finally, can you please explain what the problem is with the words “as from one principle?” As I understand it, this phrase was used by the Latins to affirm the monarchy of the Father, so I don’t understand what possible issue you may have with it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Wisely, the Catholic church seems to no longer insist upon it for the Greeks. I don’t know when the policy changed though, I would be interested to find out (perhaps under Pope John XXIII ?)

I’m not an expert on the history of the Byzantine Churches, but did not their conditions of union exclude an imposition of filioque?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother Michael,

I’m not an expert on the history of the Byzantine Churches, but did not their conditions of union exclude an imposition of filioque?

Blessings,
Marduk

There were no conditions of union for the Greeks AFAIK, the establishment of union was based upon millitary/political occupation (Venice?). Allatae Sunt describes the situation.

Perhaps you are thinking of Brest.