Shift in the Western Understanding of Filioque to Eastern View?

[fames]

Nicaea I, canon 6.

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.”

• To render Canon 6 along the lines of: “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch [with his own separate jurisdiction]” is nonsense; it’s the non-sequitur fallacy: it doesn’t follow nor fit with the (territorial) claims being made in regards to Alexandria.

• The only reading that makes sense is something along the lines of: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since it is the tradition of the Pope to grant Alexandria this jurisdiction." This directly connects to the first clause, and the reasoning and force of the argument is that the authority to which it is appealing to (i.e. Rome) is sufficient to settle the matter.

source

I’ll add Chalcedon’s canon 28 which declared that Constantinople New Rome had equal authority (isa presbeia).

Pope Leo didn’t accept that canon.

 

[Ghosty]

Don’t you see how it gives jurisdiction of Egypt to Alexandria and Syria to Antioch, and not both to Rome?

There were many other Bishops in Egypt, yet this Canon says that Alexandria had authority over those bishops. It says nothing of Rome’s position in relation to Alexandria, and therefore can’t contradict Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction.

Egypt cannot have two heads, like a monster.

According to this Canon, Egypt had many, many heads (Bishops), with the Head in Alexandria to bring them together. It’s the same set up that persists today in the Coptic Orthodox Church.

I’ll add Chalcedon’s canon 28 which declared that Constantinople New Rome had equal authority (isa presbeia). Does that mean that the Ecumenical Patriarch has Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction as well?

Ok, another one, the defeat of conciliarism and the fact that the Pope was declared to be *above *an Ecumenical Council.

First of all I’ll note that Canon 28 is not an Ecumenical Canon; it was not accepted by Rome. Secondly, it says that Constantinople should be second to Rome ecclesiastically; the equality spoken of relates to secular privileges, such as the Senate and Imperial Throne. Otherwise the Church of Constantinople was granted Patriarchal authority, namely authority over neighboring Bishops (a reality you seem to deny) according to the Canon.

Incidentally, was the Church of Antioch a “monster” when the Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally annulled the decision of the Antiochian Synod and placed his own candidate on the Patriarchal See? If yes, then you condemn the very existence of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, if no, then you agree implicitly with the Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction of some Patriarch, if not specifically Rome.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cyrillic]

First of all I’ll note that Canon 28 is not an Ecumenical Canon; it was not accepted by Rome. Secondly, it says that Constantinople should be second to Rome ecclesiastically; the equality spoken of relates to secular privileges, such as the Senate and Imperial Throne. Otherwise the Church of Constantinople was granted Patriarchal authority, namely authority over neighboring Bishops (a reality you seem to deny) according to the Canon.

Rome’s acceptance or non-acceptence doesn’t change a thing about the fact that canon 28 is ecumenical and promulgated by an ecumenical council.

Incidentally, was the Church of Antioch a “monster” when the Patriarch of Constantinople unilaterally annulled the decision of the Antiochian Synod and placed his own candidate on the Patriarchal See? If yes, then you condemn the very existence of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, if no, then you agree implicitly with the Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction of some Patriarch, if not specifically Rome.

There are no bishops outside the Church with authority, so the throne of Antioch was vacant.

Pope Leo didn’t accept that canon.

Innocent III did. In either case, Leo’s non-acceptence doesn’t matter.

 

[Contarini]

Okay, let’s look at two passages from John

It seems it would be unfair to cut off the Son, albeit the Holy Spirit would not necessarily be proceeded from Him. Sent maybe? (“ex Patre procedit et de Filio misit”?)

But the Creed isn’t talking about temporal mission–it’s talking about the structure of the Trinity.

Edwin

 

[Cyrillic]

• The only reading that makes sense is something along the lines of: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since it is the tradition of the Pope to grant Alexandria this jurisdiction." This directly connects to the first clause, and the reasoning and force of the argument is that the authority to which it is appealing to (i.e. Rome) is sufficient to settle the matter.

source

Are you saying the authority of the Patriarchs in the early Church was given to them by Rome. If so, back that up with documents and ante-nicene Fathers.

But the Creed isn’t talking about temporal mission–it’s talking about the structure of the Trinity.

Edwin

 

[fames]

Are you saying the authority of the Patriarchs in the early Church was given to them by Rome.

Where did you read that?

Rome’s acceptance or non-acceptence doesn’t change a thing about the fact that canon 28 is ecumenical and promulgated by an ecumenical council.

Innocent III did. In either case, Leo’s non-acceptence doesn’t matter.

Source ?

 

[Cyrillic]

Source ?

Twelfth “Ecumenical” Council, 1215.

 

[Sepp]

Rome’s acceptance or non-acceptence doesn’t change a thing about the fact that canon 28 is ecumenical and promulgated by an ecumenical council.

On this view, why did Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time, tell Pope Leo that the canon had no force without his approval?

 

[Ghosty]

Rome’s acceptance or non-acceptence doesn’t change a thing about the fact that canon 28 is ecumenical and promulgated by an ecumenical council.

It’s not Ecumenical, and wasn’t promulgated by an Ecumenical Council. It was proposed by an Ecumenical Council, and rejected by Rome.

There are no bishops outside the Church with authority, so the throne of Antioch was vacant.

The Synod of 1724 was a Synod of Orthodox Bishops to elect their Patriarch. They elected Cyril VI as the Bishop of Antioch, but this election was unilaterally overturned by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Backed by the Ottoman Empire, the Patriarch of Constantinople installed the Greek Sylvester of Antioch as the Patriarch of Antioch. Sylvester was not accepted by the majority of the people, and Sylvester was so unpopular that he had to flee the Patriarchal See in Damascus to Allepo, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church was born (under the rule of Constantinople), and the hierarchy was controlled by the Greeks for the next 200 years.

It was only after five years that Rome recognized the Canonically elected Patriarch, Cyril VI, as Patriarch of Antioch, and the Melkite Church went from being “Eastern Orthodox” to being “Catholic”. This Synod and Patriarch had never broken with Constantinople, they had been usurped. To this day the Melkite Church does not view the Eastern Orthodox Communion as “hostile”, and in the breech the Melkite and Antiochian Orthodox Churches share Sacraments because we were put in schism primarily by external sources.

We didn’t leave the Orthodox Communion, the Orthodox Communion abandoned the Synod of Antioch, and the majority of “Melkite” Christians.

Innocent III did. In either case, Leo’s non-acceptence doesn’t matter.

So if a Russian Patriarch, two centuries from now, accepts Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction, you would say that it was actually the Orthodox Faith all along?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cyrillic]

On this view, why did Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time, tell Pope Leo that the canon had no force without his approval?

Why was it put into practice then?

The Pope in Rome never had the ability to annul or veto a council or canon. At various times the Popes tried to assert such a power, but it was never seen as a valid claim by any other see.

At the Council of Chalcedon, when the Acts of Pope St. Dioscorus at the Second Council of Ephesus were read out, the Roman legates wanted to know why EP St. Flavian was not given the honor of being before Alexandria and Antioch.

 

[Cyrillic]

Btw, canon 28 was accepted by Chalcedon.

 

[Cyrillic]

So if a Russian Patriarch, two centuries from now, accepts Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction, you would say that it was actually the Orthodox Faith all along?

No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn’t do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope’s acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn’t change a thing about that.

But I’m going to catch some sleep now. I’ll answer any replies in the morning.

 

[Sepp]

The Pope in Rome never had the ability to annul or veto a council or canon. At various times the Popes tried to assert such a power, but it was never seen as a valid claim by any other see.

But the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time explicitly disagreed with this, as far as I can tell. He volunteered that the decision was ultimately up to Leo. And I can’t find any record of any bishop anywhere rebuking Pope Leo over this matter, or suggesting that he lacked the power to annul the canon. This is quite extraordinary, if he was indeed claiming a new power that no one believed him to have.

 

[Ignatius_Maron]

I want to state the council said that Constantinople was second to Rome anyways. Here is a commentary that explains it: "The twenty-eighth ratified the third canon of the Council of Constantinople (381), and decreed that since the city of Constantinople was honoured with the privilege of having the emperor and the Senate within its walls, its bishop should also have special prerogatives and be second in rank, after the Bishop of Rome. In consequence thereof he should consecrate the metropolitan bishops of the three civil Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Cappadocia.

This last canon provoked another session of the council, the sixteenth, held on 1 November. The papal legates protested therein against this canon, alleging that they had special instructions from Pope Leo on that subject, that the canon violated the prerogatives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and was contrary to the canons (vi, vii) of the Council of Nicaea. Their protests, however, were not listened to; and the council persisted in retaining this canon in its Acts. With this incident the Council of Chalcedon was closed."

I got this from newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

 

[Marybeloved]

That is hardly the assertion when it comes to the Filioque. Did Rome reject any of the first seven Ecumenical Councils? The contention starts there.

What has this got to do with the Filioque? Rome has rejected none of the 21 Councils- including those that affirmed the Filioque.

Notwithstanding, the use of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in its pure form is not without precedent in the Catholic Church, even to this day. How can that be denied?

Who is (denying it)? We do use it today- for over a thousand years now, what ancient Romans did or didn’t do cannot just take away from what the West has done for so long, with the blessing and approval of Popes and Ecumenical Councils.

The Filioque was historically rejected by the Pope, well before it was accepted into general use in the Roman Church at large. Is that not factual?

Who is denying it? It was also accepted by other Popes and Councils- Is that not factual?

The Filioque did not originate in Rome, nor from any Ecumenical Council. Is that not also factual?

You have to start making some point with all these questions that imply a denial that no one on this thread is making. Really ByzCath- What is your point?

A Creed is a common profession of True Faith. How is that a matter of tradition?

It is a matter of Tradition- could you provide a common creed for the church of the first three centuries? The creed was formulated because of heresy- if the contention is that the filioque is heretical, then this gesture you’re suggesting will achieve nothing since we are not going to change our dogmas- and if the Orthodox think it’s heresy they won’t unite with us just because our creeds sound similar.

If it’s not (heretical) then why tell a church to change it’s thousand year practice as a gesture to another that doesn’t deem it heretical? Sorry, such politically motivated changes to our practice with the romantic idea that they will make us more other-friendly have proven disastrous to us in the west, we’ve had enough of that- and we know it doesn’t even work.

The East and West and Orient within the Catholic communion have recited the creed differently without the church falling apart, so far-That’s proof enough for me that such a move is unwarranted. And no matter what they try to make us Latins do, the East’s main problem is the papacy- which until solved will always be an obstacle to unity. You don’t like Latinizations, we don’t like it when the Eastern equivalent is done to us either. Interfering with our practice when we are not imposing it on others is unwarranted. There’s no reason to think that demanding such changes on the West will do anything to achieve unity- It might just cause us to alienate more of our own Latin factions even further and create more problems for us in the West- again, fifty years of that is more than enough for us.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right. So why on God’s green earth is any of the seven ecumenical? Some were rejected by nestorians and going forward, chalcedon and all that followed were rejected by Orientals. Are there only one or two councils - if that- that are ecumenical?

Those who were in heresy were declared as such and deposed.

Again, usually the decision of a council is affirmed in the next one. You can see this with each of the seven Ecumenical ones. Even with Arius he was deposed, exonerated, and then deposed again.

 

[Marybeloved]

But the Creed isn’t talking about temporal mission–it’s talking about the structure of the Trinity.

Edwin

Yes it is, and that is dogma in the CC, despite what we say in the creed. That’s heresy or orthodox dogma, the recital changes nothing if the understanding is not agreed upon. The rest is politics, imo- no offence. I just don’t see unity happening because of political gesturing and I appreciate the slow and cautious approach the churches are taking- We don’t want unity that leads to different and new kinds of schisms. If it takes longer than we’d like, then so be it. Christ is still King.

 

[Marybeloved]

Those who were in heresy were declared as such and deposed.

Again, usually the decision of a council is affirmed in the next one. You can see this with each of the seven Ecumenical ones. Even with Arius he was deposed, exonerated, and then deposed again.

What next ec council are you talking about if they exclude the same churches that denied the earlier one? Are you trying to tell us that the orientals affirmed the councils after Chalcedon? If it’s a matter of imposing Bishops on the churches that reject a council then Rome has done that to the East. You guys like to call it uniatism and it’s a dirty word from all I can gather- you think its only bad when done to the East but to the Orient it’s just peachy? Please explain. Why is Chalcedon that the orients rejected and any that follow it ecumenical in any way?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

What has this got to do with the Filioque?

Rhetorical question?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The East and West and Orient within the Catholic communion have recited the creed differently without the church falling apart, so far

A recent development. The assertion that this has always been is far too generous a view.