Maronites and the Filioque

[yeshua]

Greetings,

The filioque obviously being an issue of discussion as of late, I would like to venture into a discussion regarding the Maronites and the filioque. To be honest, this is actually a discussion on truly does the Orient express the same faith as the West. You will understand why I ask soon, first, the history. The following is from Abouna Elias El-Hayek, a Maronite priest, writing on the history of the Latinization of the Maronite Church:

The second bull [that being a bull of Pope Innocent III], dated January 1216, was addressed too Patriarch Jeremias (Al-Amshitti)[or Primate, a true office of the Patriarch was not granted until the 16th century, prior to the Latin Patriarch of Antioch held jurisdiction] , to the archbishops and bishops, men of note, clergy, and Maronite people. This bill enumerated a few points of **doctrine **and discipline that Holy See wished to introduce into the Maronite rite: [the author proceeds to list discipline which is of no focus for us now]; two natures of Christ (another issue to be raised regarding continuity of faith for another thread); and the correct profession of faith, the inclusion of the filioque.

This bull mandating the use of the filioque occurred prior to the Council of Florence where it was officiated that the inclusion or exclusion of the filioque was a non-issue; both were the expressions of the same belief (I know, I am truncating a 15th century council). The first question that is begged then is was the same expression of faith not believed by Pope Innocent III, who in his specific bull stated that he was addressing doctrinal issues (and that the Pope was dictating to the Maronites a matter of faith)?

From 1291 until the beginning of the 15th century communication between the Holy See and the Maronites was minimal, this was also a time that the Maronties retained many of their Oriental traditions. Communication re-ensued in 1404, and in 1514 Leo X refused the Pallium to then Patriarch Simon (whose office was now a Patriarch in the fullest sense) unless the Maronites re-adpot the correct profession of faith, as it was discovered that the Maronites were not practicing it. Mind you, this was after a period that the Maronites claimed their discipline, and Rome was less interested in dressing them in Latin vestments. If the filioque were a matter of discipline, it is sorely misplaced in history, and neither does the Pope speak of its readoption as merely discipline.

So, we have a Pope prior to the Council of Florence calling the filioque a matter of doctrine, and a subsequent Pope far after the Council of Florence enforcing the filioque as a matter of doctrine. Not the mention Pope Innocent’s original words towards the Maronites on a matter of faith.

Eastern Catholics, fellow Maronites, fellow Catholics, what are your thoughts?

 

[jimmy]

Do we express the same thing as the west? I don’t know. Some things seem to be somewhat contradictory.

 

[tdgesq]

Hello Yeshua,

I am a Roman Catholic, so I can give you some impressions from that perspective. I’ve seen you post many times, and I believe you to be a man of goodwill. I would say first of all that it is difficult for me to discuss these things without seeing the actual text of the documents in question. I don’t accuse you or the good priest who you quote of any deception, but over the years I’ve probably become a little bit jaded about statements attributed to the Roman Pontiff that I haven’t authenticated from the original source. Hopefully you understand that. For purposes of this discussion though, I will assume that what you’ve posted is accurate.

The first question that is begged then is was the same expression of faith not believed by Pope Innocent III, who in his specific bull stated that he was addressing doctrinal issues (and that the Pope was dictating to the Maronites a matter of faith)?

I don’t think there can be any doubt that Pope Innocent was defining a matter of faith, simply because Florence, and even earlier than that Lyons II (Const. II, Art. 1), state the following:

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the 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. Florence, SESSION 6 6 July 1439.

I understand that Innocent III lived between 1160 and 1216, prior to Lyons II. Nevertheless, if he was stating it as a matter of doctrine that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then he was correct from an RCC perspective today. Not just as a matter of Latin tradition, but as a matter of eternal truth to be believed by all of the faithful. If he demanded that it be a part of the Eastern Catholic liturgy (included in the creed) however, that is troubling, as I will explain below.

Communication re-ensued in 1404, and in 1514 Leo X refused the Pallium to then Patriarch Simon (whose office was now a Patriarch in the fullest sense) unless the Maronites re-adpot the correct profession of faith, as it was discovered that the Maronites were not practicing it.

If what you say is correct, then it seems an unreasonable demand by Pope Leo. He should have well known that the filioque would not translate well into your liturgy. I have to assume his motives were good in attempting to indoctrinate the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son as understood by much of the East. Obviously it had the opposite effect.

So, we have a Pope prior to the Council of Florence calling the filioque a matter of doctrine, and a subsequent Pope far after the Council of Florence enforcing the filioque as a matter of doctrine. Not the mention Pope Innocent’s original words towards the Maronites on a matter of faith.

I am loathe to talk about this issue in terms of the “filioque.” It is too weighed down with baggage and misunderstandings. If we can talk about it in terms of procession, I think it would be more productive, whether it’s procession through or from the Son. Whatever the case, I pray that this thread remains civil so that we can all actually learn what our respective traditions teach.

 

[Alexius]

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the 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

This makes me annoyed. Where is the distinction? The last part isn’t even Eastern at all…tgdesq–I am not saying these things to you personally, but rather stating these in the open. It’s more like:
“Hey, Easterners! You have to accept this, but just so it looks like you don’t, you need not include it in the creed…” Am I misunderstanding this? First, this states that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and Son and later says that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father and the Son. This is incorrect. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, but the Spirit is sent from the Father and the Son. It seems this last part from the Council assets the Father and Son as cause because the are of the same nature. This is not Eastern, IMHO.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[tdgesq]

Alexius,

Let me suggest this. Tell us your understanding of the procession of the Spirit, whether from the Father alone, through the Son, or not involving the Son at all. Tell us in detail, and not in anger. I’m trying to understand what you are saying.

 

[Alexius]

Alexius,

Let me suggest this. Tell us your understanding of the procession of the Spirit, whether from the Father alone, through the Son, or not involving the Son at all. Tell us in detail, and not in anger. I’m trying to understand what you are saying.

Okay, sure

As I understand it, the Father is the arche of the Trinity. The Son is begotten eternally of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Regarding the Spirit, He is sent by the Father and the Son. Procession speaks of coming as from a source, that is the arche–the Father alone. Sending is a separate action and involves the Son aswell, as He calls the Spirit “the Comforter.” The Comforter, or Spirit, is sent by the Father and Son and proceeds from the Father [alone], as attested to by Scripture.

Does this make sense?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[tdgesq]

Alexius,

I cannot stay any longer tonight, but will return tomorrow. Consider these words from the the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:

“The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the “Father’s Monarchy,” and the Western tradition, following St. Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father principaliter, that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, P.L. 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the “monarchy of the Father” implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or Principle (Principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

Origin and “proceed” do not mean the same thing to us as it does to you. Will return tomorrow.

 

[ronyodish]

Eastern Catholics, fellow Maronites, fellow Catholics, what are your thoughts?

yeshua

I just posted some thoughts in this thread: Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma (Post 449)

God bless,

Rony

 

[Alexius]

Alexius,

I cannot stay any longer tonight, but will return tomorrow. Consider these words from the the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:

“The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the “Father’s Monarchy,” and the Western tradition, following St. Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father principaliter, that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, P.L. 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the “monarchy of the Father” implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or Principle (Principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

Origin and “proceed” do not mean the same thing to us as it does to you. Will return tomorrow.

Yes and I think you found the problem: definitions…

 

[yeshua]

For purposes of this discussion though, I will assume that what you’ve posted is accurate.

Thank you, and I do promise that I am not merely plucking this from air. The quotation is from an article written by Abouna entitled “Romanization of the Maronite Church.” The dear priest is also a former author of other things Maronite.

I don’t think there can be any doubt that Pope Innocent was defining a matter of faith, simply because Florence, and even earlier than that Lyons II (Const. II, Art. 1), state the following:

I understand that Innocent III lived between 1160 and 1216, prior to Lyons II. Nevertheless, if he was stating it as a matter of doctrine that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then he was correct from an RCC perspective today. Not just as a matter of Latin tradition, but as a matter of eternal truth to be believed by all of the faithful. If he demanded that it be a part of the Eastern Catholic liturgy (included in the creed) however, that is troubling, as I will explain below.

So, we can affirm that he was asserting a matter of doctrine to the Maronites prior to the Lyons or Florence. After Florence came, and the issue was stated that either with or without the filioque is the same expression, Pope Leo in the 16th century still mandates its inclusion due to a doctrinal deficiency?

If what you say is correct, then it seems an unreasonable demand by Pope Leo. He should have well known that the filioque would not translate well into your liturgy. I have to assume his motives were good in attempting to indoctrinate the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son as understood by much of the East. Obviously it had the opposite effect.

So, I am confused. If using the clause or not is now a negligible issue (due to Florence), why would the Maronites be in need of indoctrination? Mind you this was before the period that Rome sent the Jesuits to the Cedars, before Rome was able to gage a pulse for where the Maronites stood in relation to where Rome wants them. It was after this period that the Maronites received a bulk of their innovations. Prior to, Rome was simply passive and accepted communion of the Patriarchs assuming that their ultimatums (latinizations for giving the pallium) were followed (which often times they were not). Leo in fact only said the clause had to be re-accepted as a matter of faith because the then Patriarch when requesting the pallium did not include it in his profession of faith.

I am loathe to talk about this issue in terms of the “filioque.” It is too weighed down with baggage and misunderstandings. If we can talk about it in terms of procession, I think it would be more productive, whether it’s procession through or from the Son. Whatever the case, I pray that this thread remains civil so that we can all actually learn what our respective traditions teach.

I am not really interested in debating the merits of if either perspective, more so trying to figure out what the history is telling us. In past experiences when I brought this topic up, all that was mentioned was “Well, Pope Leo was simply being a jerk,” an explanation I find downright offensive and unsatisfactory, and speaks volumes about potential problems with the Papacy and the Eastern Churches. To merely say the Pope is human, especially about this matter of faith and the Maronites, is a mere cop-out, so I bring these questions to hopefully hash out some credible answers.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[mardukm]

Question:

What was the language of the Maronites - or rather, what was the language of their Creed? Could the Maronites have incorporated filioque into their Creed with the same understanding of “proceeds” as the Latins did?

If Pope Leo offered the Creed to the Maronites in Latin, then he would not have been wrong to insist on filioque.

If Pope Leo offered the Creed to the Maronites in Greek while insisting on filioque, then he would be a bully.

That’s my two cents.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[tdgesq]

Let me see if I can get a quick response to yeshua and then get to Alexius later tonight.

Thank you, and I do promise that I am not merely plucking this from air. The quotation is from an article written by Abouna entitled “Romanization of the Maronite Church.” The dear priest is also a former author of other things Maronite.

I’m not accusing you of any such thing. I really wish I could read the papal bull though. I looked for it online, but the only thing I could find was a scan of an original fragment that didn’t reference the Maronites at all. If anybody knows where a copy can be found, I would appreciate it.

So, we can affirm that he was asserting a matter of doctrine to the Maronites prior to the Lyons or Florence. After Florence came, and the issue was stated that either with or without the filioque is the same expression, Pope Leo in the 16th century still mandates its inclusion due to a doctrinal deficiency?

Yes, I think we should focus on Pope Leo too. And as I stated before, I find this potentially troubling in light of the language in Florence where it is stated that the Greeks and the Latins have come to the same meaning in different words. I believe there was even a profession of faith by the Bishop of the Maronites that indicates, although not expressly mentioned, that he accepted the decree of Florence on the issue of procession of the Spirit.

So, I am confused. If using the clause or not is now a negligible issue (due to Florence), why would the Maronites be in need of indoctrination? Mind you this was before the period that Rome sent the Jesuits to the Cedars, before Rome was able to gage a pulse for where the Maronites stood in relation to where Rome wants them. It was after this period that the Maronites received a bulk of their innovations. Prior to, Rome was simply passive and accepted communion of the Patriarchs assuming that their ultimatums (latinizations for giving the pallium) were followed (which often times they were not). Leo in fact only said the clause had to be re-accepted as a matter of faith because the then Patriarch when requesting the pallium did not include it in his profession of faith.

I understand. Do we have the words of Leo in this regard? I would like to see them. If the Maronites still accepted the decree of Florence, and there was no indication that they didn’t, I don’t see why Leo required inclusion in their profession of faith. It seems arbitrary to me.

In past experiences when I brought this topic up, all that was mentioned was “Well, Pope Leo was simply being a jerk,” an explanation I find downright offensive and unsatisfactory, and speaks volumes about potential problems with the Papacy and the Eastern Churches. To merely say the Pope is human, especially about this matter of faith and the Maronites, is a mere cop-out, so I bring these questions to hopefully hash out some credible answers.

Yeshua, what is your explanation for what Leo did? I tend to agree with you that the explanation of him “being a jerk” doesn’t explain much. I mean, it doesn’t explain why he was acting that way. I’m not sure I understand you on the potential problems it raises with the Papacy and the ECs though. Maybe you are saying that he enforced what amounts to a false doctrine in your language by requiring it be included in your creed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’ll confess to being a dummy right up front.

But does any of this have anything to do with people in the pew?
Nobody understands God. Nobody understands the Trinity. I understand that, to theologians this might be a big deal. But it sure seems to me this one thing, at least, could be worked out between East and West in some session somewhere or other, and certainly ought not to be a bone of contention among ordinary faithful.

 

[tdgesq]

Yes and I think you found the problem: definitions…

Yes, definitions from what have as their root different languages. Yet even the Patriarch of Constantinople and many other eastern bishops signed off on what is decreed in Florence, excepting of course the notable Marc of Ephesus and a few others. I didn’t include this part of Florence, and maybe I should have:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. 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, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

We agreed at one point on the formulations from Florence. Now we argue about them.

 

[Alexius]

Yes, definitions from what have as their root different languages. Yet even the Patriarch of Constantinople and many other eastern bishops signed off on what is decreed in Florence, excepting of course the notable Marc of Ephesus and a few others. I didn’t include this part of Florence, and maybe I should have:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. 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, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

We agreed at one point on the formulations from Florence. Now we argue about them.

Yes, but the Patriarch and other bishops were being pushed into union by the Emperor in order to gain Western help to protect Constantinople. Not exactly the right motive for reunion…

 

[mardukm]

Yes, but the Patriarch and other bishops were being pushed into union by the Emperor in order to gain Western help to protect Constantinople. Not exactly the right motive for reunion…

May I humbly suggest that the motives of the Patriarch and bishops were sincere since they suffered rejection and expulsion for their belief?

In any case, I believe we should keep the focus of the thread on the Maronites, unless the OP does not mind the digression.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Alexius]

The motives were as sincere as possible, but you must admit that the West had no right to insert the Filioque into creed to begin with. At the minimum, it was a bad idea and jeopardized relations from the get-go. Is there a transcript of the Council of Toledo online. I’m just curious how they thought they had the right to change a universal creed…1) Why would the Vatican allow Eastern Catholics to recite the Nicene Creed without the Filioque if part of the reunion was to recognize its validity and 2) why must it be on Latin terms when they added it to begin with? I really am curious…

I apologize if this thread has been derailed, but I thought an examination of the underlying issues was a good idea. Anyway, back to the Maronites…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[mardukm]

The motives were as sincere as possible, but you must admit that the West had no right to insert the Filioque into creed to begin with. At the minimum, it was a bad idea and jeopardized relations from the get-go. Is there a transcript of the Council of Toledo online. I’m just curious how they thought they had the right to change a universal creed…1) Why would the Vatican allow Eastern Catholics to recite the Nicene Creed without the Filioque if part of the reunion was to recognize its validity and 2) why must it be on Latin terms when they added it to begin with? I really am curious…

Those are good questions for discussion. However, I would just like an explicit OK from the OP to discuss it in his thread before doing so.

Blessings

 

[johnnykins]

Yes, but the Patriarch and other bishops were being pushed into union by the Emperor in order to gain Western help to protect Constantinople. Not exactly the right motive for reunion…

Of course but the Patriarch rejected Florence after the fact because the Turks offered him the post for his rejection of Western unity and help. Hardly the right motive to reject a Council…

Perhaps this site would be of interest: onefineart.com/en/artists/lina_murr_nehme/index.shtml

 

[yeshua]

Those are good questions for discussion. However, I would just like an explicit OK from the OP to discuss it in his thread before doing so.

Blessings

Yes, I would appreciate it if we could stay on the topic at hand. I will (hopefully) isolate myself later so that I might post a relevant response.

Thank you for your patience.

Peace and God Bless.