Question on Filioque

[steve_b]

Dear Steve,

I saw your question - but didn’t understand its relevance. The Russian Church is the largest EO Church, to be sure.

Mark of Ephesus is a saint of the Orthodox Church, he came to Florence as a unionist and was undoubtedly free of the fear of the emperor back home. Unlike his bishop-compatriots who changed with the wind, Mark never wavered from his position, at Florence or at home. Pope Eugenius could not have been unaware of the politicall pressure on the Greek bishops - which is why he is said to have remarked, at Mark’s leaving without signing the union, “We have accomplished nothing.”

Florence was a Latin Council, espousing Latin ideas onto a Greek episcopal audience anxious to effect a union at a time when their home country’s continued existence depended on Western aid.

Here’s what the pope knew and tried to influence in favor of the East, and here is how the East responded. Check out the following

(all emphasis mine)

"The submission of the Greek bishops had not been sincere. On their return to Constantinople most of them openly rejected the decrees of the council and declared for the continuance of the schism. Eugene IV vainly endeavoured to stir up the Western nations against the ever-advancing Turks. Some help was given by the Republics of Venice and Genoa; but Hungary and Poland, more nearly menaced, supplied the bulk of the forces. A victory at Nish (1443) had been followed by two terrible defeats (Varna, 1444, and Kosovo, 1449). The whole of the Balkan peninsula, except Constantinople, was now at the mercy of the infidels. The emperor, Constantine XII, sent messages to Rome imploring the pope to summon the Christian peoples to his aid. Nicholas sternly reminded him of the promises made at Florence, and insisted that the terms of the union should be observed. Nevertheless the fear that the Turks would attack Italy, if they succeeded in capturing the bulwark of the east, induced the pontiff to take some action — especially as the emperor professed his readiness to accept the decrees of the council. In May, 1452, Cardinal Isidore, an enthusiastic Greek patriot, was sent as legate to Constantinople. A solemn function in honour of the union was celebrated on 12 Dec., 1452, with prayers for the pope and for the patriarch, Gregorius. But the clergy and the populace cursed the Uniates and boasted that they would rather submit to the turban of the Turk than to the tiara of the Roman Pontiff. After many obstacles and delays a force of ten papal galleys and a number of vessels furnished by Naples, Genoa, and Venice set sail for the East, but before they reached their destination the imperial city had fallen and the Emperor Constantine was no more (29 May, 1453). "
newadvent.org/cathen/11058a.htm

I ask you,

• if you were the pope, knowing what has happened, and the toxic feeling of the clergy and the people in the East towards you and the CC, how would YOU react to this plea from the Emperor? Would you do what Eugene IV did or would you do something else?
• if you were someone the pope was trying to rally, to go fight for the East to save these “poor innocent folks” from their fate, and you knew full well the history of the East, all the intrigues, particularly Easterners toxic attitude towards the pope, the CC, and the West in general, what would YOU do? Be honest

A:

We cannot separate theology from politics, to be sure. Florence was an abject failure in its aims and the later unias, such as at Brest, that was based on it were also abject failures, if modern RC scholarship that repents of them is anything to go by.

Again, Florence did not take Orthodox Triadology seriously - it only assumed that Latin Triadology was the true standard for orthodox Trinitarianism.

That was the main flaw - it elevated the Latin theologoumenon as a sine qua non of an orthodox understanding of Triadology for the universal Church.

So much for diversity in unity.

Alex

1. • The West comprehends the Triadology of the EO just fine.
   • Cudos to the Eastern churches that DID unite with the pope. That was NOT a failure but a great success
   • moral of this story, be careful what you wish for, you just may get it…

 

[Alexander_Roman]

OK, I would, first of all, not be as reliant on New Advent for the historicity et alia, given that New Advent uses rather outmoded terminology that contemporary Roman Catholic historiography would itself find intellectually offensive re: East/West relations (including its use of the term “schism” which, to be sure, it does not intend to use to describe the RC West). New Advent is simply a bad example of ecclesial historiography which it simplifies and reduces to RC ecclesial praxis. That’s good for triumphalism, but bad for dispassionate discussion.

Rome is on very good terms with the Orthodox - MUCH better than it is with Eastern Catholics.

As for what I would do if I were the Pope at the time of Florence, well, Pope Alexander would have returned to the Creed of Pope St Leo IV which is without the addition of terms or words representing Local, Particular Church Trinitarian theology. His Holiness Pope Alexander would have brought out the two tablets prepared by his illustrious predecessor, Pope St Leo IV in Latin and Greek (without the Filioque) and would have had them carried in procession around Florence, announcing that East and West is one Church once again. The Supreme Pontiff would have likewise declared that “Through the Son” is the accepted term for the Procession of the Holy Spirit for both East and West by way of a common affirmaiton.

Then I would have retired to my apartments to celebrate the achievement of a real union of the Churches with my new friend, Archbishop Mark of Ephesus and would have invited him to dinner at which he would have occupied the place next to me. With Mark of Ephesus at my side, I would have travelled to Greece to meet with the people there directly and with as many troops as I could muster as an initial sign of good will.

Mark of Ephesus would have announced to the people that Rome upholds the orthodox faith of all of our Fathers. Apart from some tomato and hummus thrown at some of the members of my papal entourage, I would not expect the people to go after me with Mark Eugenikos by my side. I would do a “Pope John Paul II” by asking forgiveness for Rome’s attack against Constantinople and would then do a “Pope Paul VI” by returning a number of the priceless relics et al. stolen by the crusaders (who should really have been called “sword-bearers”).

As for the military aid, one would hope that Europe would have responded to assist the City of Constantine, but who knows? Western Catholicism saw the East as cut off from the “true Church” and totally bereft of grace. Old habits die hard.

The reality of the situation is that the East had, and continues to have, an aversion for the RC West. The strike at Constantinople, notwithstanding other conflicts between East and West, deeply impressed Orthodox Christians about the barbarity of the West (and the West was considered barbaric for a long time, this only confirmed their impression at a time when the East was willing to give the West a benefit of the doubt).

Whenever Eastern Christians had any experience with Roman Catholic Crusaders or governors, that had NO appreciation for Eastern Christianity and were quite antagonistic toward them - then yes, they preferred ANYTHING but Roman Catholic overlords. The same was true for Oriental Orthodox. It was a mistake, to be sure, but it also illustrates the injust repression that Roman Catholic rule was characteristic of.

The UGCC, my own Particular Church, suffered similar repression from Roman Catholic overlords throughout its history. That is what created the “Russophile” movement even within the UGCC that looked eastwards - another mistake, but one to which people were pushed by repressive RC governance. The vulnerability and repression of the Orthodox Church under Poland in the 16th century was what also led to the union of Brest.

As for your last points, I never said the West didn’t understand Orthodox Triadology - indeed the West had the same Triadology at one time.

I said that the RC Church at Florence didn’t want to take that same Triadology seriously and, instead, equated Filioquism with that Triadology. Roman Catholic theologians engaged in dialogue with the Orthodox affirm this and that it was wrong.

Thus, the unions of the Churches effected at Florence and afterwards were not based on an actual union of two different Triadologies, but on the basis of the Latin Triadology triumphing OVER the Eastern (and at one time, the universal) Triadology.

As for the “kudos” for the unions, the unions, such as at Brest, created division in the national Eastern Churches and utterly failed to achieve what Rome really wanted - to effect a union with Moscow. The whole experience of uniatism created even more hatred towards Rome (if that is possible) mong the Orthodox which to this day severely hampers Rome’s unabated and yet never satisfied hunger for unity with Moscow especially.

So Florence was a complete and utter ecumenical failure for that reason.

• Alexandrus I PP Romanus

 

[steve_b]

OK, I would, first of all, not be as reliant on New Advent for the historicity et alia, given that New Advent uses rather outmoded terminology that contemporary Roman Catholic historiography would itself find intellectually offensive re: East/West relations (including its use of the term “schism” which, to be sure, it does not intend to use to describe the RC West). New Advent is simply a bad example of ecclesial historiography which it simplifies and reduces to RC ecclesial praxis. That’s good for triumphalism, but bad for dispassionate discussion.

Your opinion of New Advent is noted.

As for schism, the term and its condition, is still valid. For example, the link I gave many posts ago, is only a few years old. Hardly out of date or using a-historical terminology as you would put it. Considering the age of this dispute, that article is a spring chicken. People who technically aren’t guilty of formal schism themselves now, (current terminology) doesn’t mean they CAN’T / WON’T be guilty of it at some future date. For example, as soon as a person realizes their condition, and doesnt do anything to fix it. iow, when the voluntary componant of schism kicks in AFTER knowledge of truth is exposed, then the following which I took as an excerpt from that article, is a true statement.

*"*By rigidly ignoring additional truth of the filioque, many Eastern Orthodox come very close to heresy – that is, the sin of a schismatic mentality, which is the sin of rejecting the totality of Truth, and so dividing the unity of the Church"

Feigned ignorance or hardness of heart, do not diminish ones culpability, but rather increases it, due to the voluntary character of a sin. At some point therefore, the voluntary characteristic of a person’s schismatic mentality kicks in for the one who knows, AND refuses to acknowledge the totality of a religious truth. Once they know the truth, and won’t be guided by the chair of Peter, and prefers instead to be seperated from the pope, rather than be united to him, ( assuming one knows that necessity) then they most certainly CAN be guilty of schism at that point…

Further, when someone takes little effort to understand, or purposely refuses to change in the face of being wrong, it not only makes them guilty of their wrong but it boosts the wrong.
A:

Rome is on very good terms with the Orthodox - MUCH better than it is with Eastern Catholics.

I’ve asked you before to explain this. What do you mean?
A:

As for what I would do if I were the Pope at the time of Florence, well, Pope Alexander would have returned to the Creed of Pope St Leo IV which is without the addition of terms or words representing Local, Particular Church Trinitarian theology.

Local Church? only representing a particular Church as if it doesn’t represent the whole truth? You speak of the CC as if it is a boutique religion, and the filioque is just added because it was a nice thing to say for some but not all, and was a completely wrong thing to do.

Haven’t you agreed that the filioque is true? Isn’t a creed to state truth? Who’s being political here?
A:

His Holiness Pope Alexander would have brought out the two tablets prepared by his illustrious predecessor, Pope St Leo IV in Latin and Greek (without the Filioque) and would have had them carried in procession around Florence, announcing that East and West is one Church once again. The Supreme Pontiff would have likewise declared that “Through the Son” is the accepted term for the Procession of the Holy Spirit for both East and West by way of a common affirmaiton.

You swallow camels and choke on gnats. Both words “and” and “through” are terms used by the Fathers to say the same thing.
A:

Then I would have retired to my apartments to celebrate the achievement of a real union of the Churches with my new friend, Archbishop Mark of Ephesus and would have invited him to dinner at which he would have occupied the place next to me. With Mark of Ephesus at my side, I would have travelled to Greece to meet with the people there directly and with as many troops as I could muster as an initial sign of good will.

As it turned out, the filioque has been accurately called a tempest in a tea pot. The real issue is authority and always has been and always will be…
A:

Mark of Ephesus would have announced to the people that Rome upholds the orthodox faith of all of our Fathers. Apart from some tomato and hummus thrown at some of the members of my papal entourage, I would not expect the people to go after me with Mark Eugenikos by my side*. I would do a “Pope John Paul II” by asking forgiveness for Rome’s attack against Constantinople and would then do a “Pope Paul VI” by returning a number of the priceless relics et al. stolen by the crusaders (who should really have been called “sword-bearers”).*

The Eastern mindset has such selective memory, AND they don’t forget OR forgive. For example

Yes JPII asked pardon for the 1204 sack of Constantinople. Where was the EO apology for the slaughter of 50,000 Catholics in Constantinople and the selling of Catholic men women and children to the Muslims for slaves, by the EO 20 years earlier? Deafening silence! Some could say the sack of 1204 was a rather mild recompense for that abomination by the EO. Some could also say, for the EO to keep bringing up 1202, and not their own slaughterr of innocent Catholics 20 years earlier, is galactically hypocritical.

for details

(to be continued)

 

[Peter_Mogila]

Rome is on very good terms with the Orthodox - MUCH better than it is with Eastern Catholics.

Brother Alex,

This is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time! You’re brilliant! An excellent summation of how things really are!

For Steve: One example comes to mind to explain this – No one expects the Orthodox Churches to live under the Eastern Catholic Canon Law if they would agree to union with Rome. That’s a given as it would be considered an insult to them to so expect. But, there’s no move on Rome’s part to have the Eastern Catholics have more rights like they would grant Orthodox in a reunited Church.

Peter

 

[Cecilianus]

Your opinion of New Advent is noted.

As for schism, the term and its condition, is still valid. For example, the link I gave many posts ago, is only a few years old. Hardly out of date or using a-historical terminology as you would put it. Considering the age of this dispute, that article is a spring chicken. People who technically aren’t guilty of formal schism themselves now, (current terminology) doesn’t mean they CAN’T / WON’T be guilty of it at some future date. For example, as soon as a person realizes their condition, and doesnt do anything to fix it. iow, when the voluntary componant of schism kicks in AFTER knowledge of truth is exposed, then the following which I took as an excerpt from that article, is a true statement.

*"*By rigidly ignoring additional truth of the filioque, many Eastern Orthodox come very close to heresy – that is, the sin of a schismatic mentality, which is the sin of rejecting the totality of Truth, and so dividing the unity of the Church"

Feigned ignorance or hardness of heart, do not diminish ones culpability, but rather increases it, due to the voluntary character of a sin. At some point therefore, the voluntary characteristic of a person’s schismatic mentality kicks in for the one who knows, AND refuses to acknowledge the totality of a religious truth. Once they know the truth, and won’t be guided by the chair of Peter, and prefers instead to be seperated from the pope, rather than be united to him, ( assuming one knows that necessity) then they most certainly CAN be guilty of schism at that point…

Further, when someone takes little effort to understand, or purposely refuses to change in the face of being wrong, it not only makes them guilty of their wrong but it boosts the wrong.

The term “schism” has multiple meanings. Most properly, a schismatic is one who commits an act of rebellion against one’s bishop; the term “schism” is also used to refer to the rupture of communion between two bishops, and the rupture of a “daughter Church” from its “mother Church”. Finally and fourthly, the term is used - almost exclusively by Roman Catholics - to mean people in schism from the See of Peter, the “Rock” upon which Christ built His Church which is perceived to be the body in which the Church subsists. The first sense would include people like the Corinthians rebuked by St. Clement of Rome. Modern Orthodox are not schismatics in this sense; they are only out of communion with Rome because they followed their bishops into that state. In the second sense, both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are in schism from each other. “We are all schismatics”, as Mar Elias said. Thirdly, we “Uniates” are in schism from our mother churches in Kiev and Antioch. The Orthodox are more proximately our Mother Church, rather than Rome. One should note that there are Orthodox bodies - such as ACROD and the OCA - which are also schismatic in this third sense as their Mother Church is the Ruthenian Catholic Church. Finally, the Orthodox are “schismatic” in the fourth sense because their are cut off from the See of Peter, but the Church still fully subsists in them by their faith and their mysteries - but they are wounded by rupture from Peter, like a limb cut off from the torso.

Most Roman Catholics do not seem to recognize the reality that the fullness of the Church subsists in each particular Church, “schismatic” or otherwise; they view the Church as one corporation, and therefore anyone not in communion with Rome is “outside the Church”. The reality is more complicated, and more multilayered - one Mystical Body, the fullness of which resides in particular Churches as true monads of the Mystical Body, and indeed in every see and eparchy. The actual Roman teaching (e.g., Ott) is that in order for a teaching to be infallible it must be a universal teaching of the whole Church, so that “particular traditions” are only theolegoumena (e.g., the Papacy for many years refused to define the Immaculate Conception as dogma believing it to only be a particular tradition of the Greek Church). Of course, after 1054 a teaching only has to be Western to be considered “universal” because of the limitation of the boundaries of the Church to those in communion with Rome, and the Latin view of the filioque is regarded as the final word because the Pope legislated it as such.

By contrast, the proper Eastern Catholic view is that each particular Church’s tradition is the Faith, and therefore we must accept each other’s tradition as perfectly compatible with our own expression of the Faith. Roman Catholics are bound by faith to accept our (post-1054) Orthodox saints simply in virtue of the fact that we pray to them at Liturgy, and we are bound by faith to accept the saints of the Latin Church (and who wouldn’t, anyway?). Roman Catholics are bound to accept the teaching of the Council of Constantinople-Blachernae in 1351 as the Catholic Faith because it is dogmatic for us - we celebrate the Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday in Great Lent, the completion of the Feast of the Triumph of Holy Orthodoxy. Likewise, we Eastern Catholics are bound to accept all the teachings proclaimed by the See of Peter - including the filioque - as of the Catholic and Orthodox faith, although we have our own proper means of expressing these truths, and indeed we affirm that neither the East nor the West will ever teach heresy, and that we will never depart or need to depart from the Orthodox Faith we have always held.

 

[Cecilianus]

Yes JPII asked pardon for the 1204 sack of Constantinople. Where was the EO apology for the slaughter of 50,000 Catholics in Constantinople and the selling of Catholic men women and children to the Muslims for slaves, by the EO 20 years earlier? Deafening silence! Some could say the sack of 1204 was a rather mild recompense for that abomination by the EO. Some could also say, for the EO to keep bringing up 1202, and not their own slaughterr of innocent Catholics 20 years earlier, is galactically hypocritical.

for details

(to be continued)

Can you please give some references for this historical claim, as I for one have never heard it before?

What do you mean by “Catholics”? Latin Catholics? Of what nationality?

Part of the reason why the schism continues is because of the language we use. Language shapes our thought (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) just as much as thought shapes our language. Roman Catholics and Orthodox together use the term “Catholic” to refer to Latins and “Orthodox” to refer to Greeks. So long as different words are used for their faiths, nobody will ever recognize that we share the same faith and should end the schism. You are perpetuating the schism by the language you use.

Latins in Constantinople were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople even after the events of 1054. The Latin churches were closed temporarily at that time, but were re-opened in 1089. After the sack of Constantinople in 1204, the Venetians who set up a Latin Patriarch were excommunicated by Pope Innocent III as schismatics, and the rightful place of the Byzantine Patriarch and Emperor were affirmed. (John Paul II’s apology was actually superfluous - Innocent III apologized immediately after the event.)

The idea that the false Crusaders brought about a forced reunion of the Church which Innocent accepted is bad chronology. The Greek governance of the Roman Empire was re-established in 1261, and the union of Lyons occurred in 1274 - largely inspired by gratitude to the Pope for helping overthrow the French. Since the Latins in Constantinople were excommunicated, under the political philosophy set by Hildebrand there was no sin in deposing them and deposing was in fact a matter of religious duty (not to mention financially profitable for mercenaries). It was Pope Innocent III who made the restoration of the Byzantine Empire possible, and who sheltered the Emperor during his exile.

The reason why the Union of Lyons failed was because of a French Pope, Martin IV. Martin wanted to restore the Latin kingdom of Constantinople under French leadership, and following again the political philosophy of the day he could only legitimately do so by excommunicating the Greeks, which he did in 1284. This is really what the Popes today should apologize for, and while they’re at it, I have a few other axes to grind against Martin - he gave crusading indulgences for the French re-conquest of my beloved Sicily, which failed thanks to the military aid of the Byzantines and of the Aragonese (whom he also excommunicated for this reason).

 

[Cecilianus]

Brother Alex,

This is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time! You’re brilliant! An excellent summation of how things really are!

For Steve: One example comes to mind to explain this – No one expects the Orthodox Churches to live under the Eastern Catholic Canon Law if they would agree to union with Rome. That’s a given as it would be considered an insult to them to so expect. But, there’s no move on Rome’s part to have the Eastern Catholics have more rights like they would grant Orthodox in a reunited Church.

Peter

The common understanding is that in the case of a reunion, we will return to our mother Churches, and therefore have as much rights as the Orthodox do.

Problem is, there’s no move on Rome’s part to give us these rights now, and precious little initiative on the part of many of our bishops to ask for them - we were the ones who asked for the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches.

The proclamation of the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainians as Patriarch regardless of Rome’s recognition of him is a good step in the right direction.

 

[dvdjs]

Can you please give some references for this historical claim, as I for one have never heard it before?

Fascinating.
crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html
You probably should also look at this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

 

[dvdjs]

Brother Alex,

This is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time! You’re brilliant! An excellent summation of how things really are!

For Steve: One example comes to mind to explain this – No one expects the Orthodox Churches to live under the Eastern Catholic Canon Law if they would agree to union with Rome. That’s a given as it would be considered an insult to them to so expect. But, there’s no move on Rome’s part to have the Eastern Catholics have more rights like they would grant Orthodox in a reunited Church.

Peter

 

[steve_b]

(cont)

I would do a “Pope John Paul II” by asking forgiveness for Rome’s attack against Constantinople and would then do a “Pope Paul VI” by returning a number of the priceless relics et al. stolen by the crusaders (who should really have been called “sword-bearers”).

JPII DID ask forgiveness for the sacking of Constantinople. wwrn.org/articles/14825/?&place=greece-cyp-malta However, did the EO apologize for the slaughter of 50,000 Catholics in Constantinople, 20 years prior to that, in 1182? crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html Where is the Orthodox apology for THAT? The silence is deafening & grossly hypocritical.
A:

As for the military aid, one would hope that Europe would have responded to assist the City of Constantine, but who knows? Western Catholicism saw the East as cut off from the “true Church” and totally bereft of grace. Old habits die hard.

explain?
A:

The reality of the situation is that the East had, and continues to have, an aversion for the RC West. The strike at Constantinople, notwithstanding other conflicts between East and West, deeply impressed Orthodox Christians about the barbarity of the West (and the West was considered barbaric for a long time, this only confirmed their impression at a time when the East was willing to give the West a benefit of the doubt).

Based on the previous link, and it’s not unique, one COULD say in reverse, the East has no business expecting the West to trust THEM. Yet popes have always left the door open for peace.
A:

Whenever Eastern Christians had any experience with Roman Catholic Crusaders or governors, that had NO appreciation for Eastern Christianity and were quite antagonistic toward them - then yes, they preferred ANYTHING but Roman Catholic overlords. The same was true for Oriental Orthodox. It was a mistake, to be sure, but it also illustrates the injust repression that Roman Catholic rule was characteristic of.

C’mon Alex get real.
A:

The UGCC, my own Particular Church, suffered similar repression from Roman Catholic overlords throughout its history. That is what created the “Russophile” movement even within the UGCC that looked eastwards - another mistake, but one to which people were pushed by repressive RC governance. The vulnerability and repression of the Orthodox Church under Poland in the 16th century was what also led to the union of Brest.

Is this where you tell me the EO aren’t to blame for anything that happened to them, it’s all the CC fault?
newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm
A:

As for your last points, I never said the West didn’t understand Orthodox Triadology - indeed the West had the same Triadology at one time.

The CC always had the proper understanding and continues to have the proper understanding.
A:

I said that the RC Church at Florence didn’t want to take that same Triadology seriously and, instead, equated Filioquism with that Triadology. Roman Catholic theologians engaged in dialogue with the Orthodox affirm this and that it was wrong.

You KNOW I want references for that…right?
A:

Thus, the unions of the Churches effected at Florence and afterwards were not based on an actual union of two different Triadologies, but on the basis of the Latin Triadology triumphing OVER the Eastern (and at one time, the universal) Triadology.

either Eastern bishops have no authority, or they flat out lied in council. Which is it?
A:

As for the “kudos” for the unions, the unions, such as at Brest, created division in the national Eastern Churches and utterly failed to achieve what Rome really wanted - to effect a union with Moscow. The whole experience of uniatism created even more hatred towards Rome (if that is possible) mong the Orthodox which to this day severely hampers Rome’s unabated and yet never satisfied hunger for unity with Moscow especially.

in 2002 Cardinal Kasper, who was then, head of ecumenical dialogue for the CC, said

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

He continues: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
A:

So Florence was a complete and utter ecumenical failure for that reason.

• Alexandrus I PP Romanus

The chair of Peter has been front and center attempting peace. Those who hear the call and unite…Kudos!!!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Steve,

Yes, when I say Rome is on better terms with the Orthodox than with the EC - I mean that everything having to do with the UGCC, including Rome’s recognition of its patriarchate, depends on what the Orthodox (in this case, the ROC) have to say about it.
And here I, a UGCCer, thought that we are answerable to Rome and Rome is answerable to . . . well, not to Moscow.

I wonder what New Advent has to say about that?

Your conclusion that the Filioque is a tempest in a tea pot IS what is the problem with the Latin West in this regard. You were the same way at Florence (remember that talk we had in the courtyard there when I was pope at the time? ).

That is why the Orthodox can’t take Western overtures on unity seriously. For the Orthodox Catholic East - the Filioque is the camel and not the gnat.

“And” and “Through” could mean the same thing - that depends on a number of other things. Or, “Through the Son” could just mean something altogether different. And that is a very involved study of Orthodox Triadology that needs to be approached without preconceived notions that Orthodoxy has an authority problem.

As for “truth,” I believe the Filioque is true, but theologically clumsy and a bad example of a word that is meant to express a universal truth. As such, it is a local, religious-cultural expression of a universal truth, of the Latin Church, which has either no meaning in the East or else a quite heretical meaning in the East. So, yes, the Filioque is first and foremost an expression and a product of a particular Western theological school (Rome was with the East for centuries before it got the Scholastic bug). It therefore has NO place in a Creed intended to express the common Trinitarian faith of the universal Church. It is the Creed itself which is not the property of any Particular church but of the whole Church.

And if I understand your reference to “authority problem” correctly, you mean that the Orthodox should just accept this Latin theological term “Filioque” because the Pope has declared it to be true? Is that what you are saying?

Well, Popes of late have been reviewing a particular dogmatic declaration on the Filioque in conjunction with the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and have suggested that it could be dropped.

It is wrong to assume this is a tempest in a tea pot (we have a millennium of schism of both East from West and West from East to show it is much more than that). If the issue of the Filioque is so Laodicean, when why doesn’t the West itself abandon it, seeing as it was the one who brought it in and has insisted on it?

And as for that authority problem, the Filioque in the East is a heresy, period.

And we know the rest of the story. Ultimately, you see the Filioque as truth. I see it as one possible expression of truth.

And I don’t intend to continue this ad nauseam - we know and understand the positions outlined here and there is no need to go back and forth, essentially repeating the same arguments.

I would suggest that we both consult the documents of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue on this matter as the best source of information on the historical review of the Filioque. This would help cut through some of the misconceptions that we both have on this matter.

Pax Vobiscum,

Alex

 

[steve_b]

Dear Steve,

Yes, when I say Rome is on better terms with the Orthodox than with the EC - I mean that everything having to do with the UGCC, including Rome’s recognition of its patriarchate, depends on what the Orthodox (in this case, the ROC) have to say about it.
And here I, a UGCCer, thought that we are answerable to Rome and Rome is answerable to . . . well, not to Moscow.

I wonder what New Advent has to say about that?

Your conclusion that the Filioque is a tempest in a tea pot IS what is the problem with the Latin West in this regard. You were the same way at Florence (remember that talk we had in the courtyard there when I was pope at the time? ).

That is why the Orthodox can’t take Western overtures on unity seriously. For the Orthodox Catholic East - the Filioque is the camel and not the gnat.

“And” and “Through” could mean the same thing - that depends on a number of other things. Or, “Through the Son” could just mean something altogether different. And that is a very involved study of Orthodox Triadology that needs to be approached without preconceived notions that Orthodoxy has an authority problem.

As for “truth,” I believe the Filioque is true, but theologically clumsy and a bad example of a word that is meant to express a universal truth. As such, it is a local, religious-cultural expression of a universal truth, of the Latin Church, which has either no meaning in the East or else a quite heretical meaning in the East. So, yes, the Filioque is first and foremost an expression and a product of a particular Western theological school (Rome was with the East for centuries before it got the Scholastic bug). It therefore has NO place in a Creed intended to express the common Trinitarian faith of the universal Church. It is the Creed itself which is not the property of any Particular church but of the whole Church.

And if I understand your reference to “authority problem” correctly, you mean that the Orthodox should just accept this Latin theological term “Filioque” because the Pope has declared it to be true? Is that what you are saying?

Well, Popes of late have been reviewing a particular dogmatic declaration on the Filioque in conjunction with the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and have suggested that it could be dropped.

It is wrong to assume this is a tempest in a tea pot (we have a millennium of schism of both East from West and West from East to show it is much more than that). If the issue of the Filioque is so Laodicean, when why doesn’t the West itself abandon it, seeing as it was the one who brought it in and has insisted on it?

And as for that authority problem, the Filioque in the East is a heresy, period.

And we know the rest of the story. Ultimately, you see the Filioque as truth. I see it as one possible expression of truth.

And I don’t intend to continue this ad nauseam - we know and understand the positions outlined here and there is no need to go back and forth, essentially repeating the same arguments.

I would suggest that we both consult the documents of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue on this matter as the best source of information on the historical review of the Filioque. This would help cut through some of the misconceptions that we both have on this matter.

Pax Vobiscum,

Alex

We appear to be talking past each other.

 

[ciero]

We appear to be talking past each other.

Maybe you should loose your prejudice against the Byzantines! Just sayin!

 

[mardukm]

We appear to be talking past each other.

Brother Alex’s words are understandable to me.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ciero,

Maybe you should loose your prejudice against the Byzantines! Just sayin!

I’m willing to give brother Steve the benefit of the doubt and simply say that he is invincibly ignorant.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cecilianus]

Dr. Roman: The problem with removing the filioque in the Creed in the West is that, to the Western mind (including the minds of a number of well-intentioned Roman Catholic ecumenists), it would be an affirmation that the Holy Spirit does not proceed through the Son and is not eternally manifested in Him, i.e. that the Spirit does not receive His divinity in or through the Son. In other words, it would some something completely different to the Latins, something we regard as heresy.

The procession of the Holy Spirit “through the Son” is not a description just of the economic Trinity, but of the immanent Trinity.

Steve B: In the East as in the West the contents of the Faith are “that which has been believed everywhere, in all places, by all people” (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus credituni est - it flows so much better in Latin!). Tradition - as handed down to us by our God-illumined Elders and our Divine Liturgy - is our authority. Heresies are condemned by the anathemas sung against them in the Synodikon of Holy Orthodox; frankly we have not really had any since Barlaam of Calabria (though a few isolated individuals - Leo Tolstoy and Apostolos Makrakis being prime examples - have been excommunicated for heresy). Some theological movements or beliefs are certainly treated with suspicion or condemned as heresy by particular synods (usually that of Moscow), such as imyaslavie, sophiology, and the belief in the mytarstva (toll houses). The Old Believers and Old Calendarists are regarded by the canonical Orthodox as schismatics, not heretics, much in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church regards Orthodoxy as a schism and not a heresy.

The only addition to the Synodikon of Holy Orthodoxy since the Council of Blachernae-Constantinople in 1351 was the series of canons against Roman Catholicism by the Council of Jerusalem in the 18th century. And you can see how well I, an Orthodox believer in communion with Rome, regard THAT one. We just don’t work by proclaiming dogmas in documents like laws - we do it in our liturgy. Hardcore Orthodox have even dissuading me from reading the homilies of St. Gregory Palamas and other works of Orthodox theology - all you need is in the Liturgy and in Orthros and Vespers, he said. If you want to know theology, don’t read a book - pray.

 

[Cecilianus]

Fascinating.
crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html
You probably should also look at this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade

Thanks!

I just became a little less ignorant.

 

[Cecilianus]

Where is the Orthodox apology for THAT? The silence is deafening & grossly hypocritical.

I agree with you, and an act on penitence on the part of the Greek hierarchy would be a great gesture of the overcoming of pride and accepting responsibility for the sins that led to the estrangement. But please remember that the schism was not completely crystallized back then - one cannot refer to the Latins simply as “Catholics” as if the Greeks were not. Only Michael Cerularius and a few other prelates were excommunciated (or putatively excommunicated - the bull was actually invalid by a technicality that all parties were unaware of at the time, namely it expired when the Pope who issued it passed away while the Cardinal was en route to Constantinople) by Cardinal Humbert a century beforehand; the bull explicitly praised the people of the “most Christian city” of Constantinople. I’m nagging you on this because the Greeks in southern Italy and Sicily - who until the Norman invasion in the late 11th century formed the sole Christian body on the island - were in communion with both the Greeks at home and the Latins surrounding them (the Pope was the local primate of the Greek bishops there) until long after the sack of Constantinople by the Venetians. It was not a question of Latins being “Catholics” versus some other religion. The event was more similar to the glorious massacre of Frenchmen by Sicilians at the Sicilian Vespers in 1282. (I’m Sicilian, btw.)

I also think you misunderstood Dr. Roman; he was explaining what he would have done if he were Pope back then (to which I retort, Pope Innocent III apologized for the sack of Constantinople immediately.

The CC always had the proper understanding and continues to have the proper understanding.

What Dr. Roman means is that Rome is generally clueless as to what the Eastern Church believes. Nobody is disputing that the Catholic Church has always had the proper understanding of the Faith in their own terms - what they have absolutely no understanding of is the Eastern expression of the Faith. Good example would be the quote from Cardinal Kaspar mentioned below.

in 2002 Cardinal Kasper, who was then, head of ecumenical dialogue for the CC, said

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

The disunity of the Orthodox Church without Rome’s decentralizing influence has been a major problem. (In the first millennium before she tried imposing Latinizations out of centuries-old ignorance, Rome had always respected the autonomy of national Churches since she had no claim to be their local primate - Rome doesn’t even worship according to the same rite as Georgia and Bulgaria and Russia. Constantinople by contrast has tried to keep all the other Eastern Churches under her thumb, with the consequence that they revolted by appealling to Rome. St. Sava of Serbia snubbed Constantinople by having Papal legates crown his brother King of Serbia in the 13th century, thus ensuring the autocephaly of the Serbian Church; the autocephaly of the Church of Georgia was ensured by a St. George who told the Byzantine Emperor to his face in 1054 after the excommunications were exchanged that he had a duty to remain in communion with Rome; according to the historian Pierre Kovalevsky, Russia justified consecrating its own metropolitans by appealling to the presence of the relics of St. Clement of Rome, as even the relics of the Pope were authority enough to sidestep Constantinople; and finally Bulgaria embraced a Unia with Rome in the 19th century while it was being condemned by the other Orthodox for phyletism, according to Fr. George Maloney’s History of Orthodox Theology Since 1453. The Unia was broken up when the monk arranging it was kidnapped and taken to Russia where after a couple years in prison he suddenly had a change of heart…)

The most prominent sign of disunity was Russia’s boycott of the Ravenna talks because of the presence of the Estonian Orthodox, regarded as non-canonical by Russia because they are subordinate to Constantinople. And I have certainly have Serbian Orthodox friends assure me that “most Orthodox bishops” including their own regard the Ecumenical Patriarch himself as “not really Orthodox” because he’s met the Pope face-to-face.

But Cardinal Kaspar is making absolutely no progress in understanding Orthodox ecclesiology by asserting his consciousness “of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist”. The Orthodox do believe in one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which they call THE Orthodox Church, and which they assert is a visible body. It is a visible body with an invisible head, Christ, just as it has an invisible life, that of the Holy Spirit. In other words, it is a Mystical Body. Schisms are taken for granted in the East as part of the way the Church works in a fallen, sinful world - we do not conclude that a schism removes someone from membership in the Church as Roman Catholics do. (If someone is in schism from Rome, a Roman Catholic will say that he isn’t Catholic any more, whereas if two bishops are in schism from each other in the East as the three Ukrainian Orthodox patriarchs are, then well, welcome to the fallen state of humanity.)

In order to understand Orthodox ecclesiology, one might do well to read the book of Metropolitan Zizioulas, Being as Communion.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Cecilianus,

I thank you for your elucidation of a number of important points here! (And I’m “Alex” ).

Your point on the return of the Latin Church to the original Creed is an important one that would need to be ironed out in future, to be sure.

What I’ve learned by conversing with our Latin Brother Steve here on this topic is that I myself am clueless as to how important the Filioque really is to the Latin Church.

My approach was the same as that of Steve’s i.e. it’s not a big deal - so why not just remove it or return to the original version?

In any event, although I will be taking up a position to teach church history in a college in August, I guess I will just have to hone up on the whole matter!

Thank you, sir, and thanks be to our Brother Marduk and ALL you Orthodox Christians!

Your servant,

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to Steve and to anyone whom I may have offended by my participation in this thread.

Please forgive me for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Alex