Should the pope be always the bishop of Rome?

[steve-b]

Yes, one at a time and portions of each of those have reunited with Rome, but not all members. However there

steve-b:

“Those” In their resistance to accept the explanation of the filioque, as I asked before, what do they say about this? Jesus & the HS

Vico:

That scripture refers to procession in time (mission) not ontological. There is no scripture referring to ontological procession. That the persons of the Trinity are consubstantial was declared at the Council of Nicea 325.

Except that

(All emphasis mine)

The Holy Spirit is referred to in Scripture as both the Spirit of the Father (Mt 10:20, Rom 8:10-11, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Eph 3:14-16) and as the Spirit of the Son (Rom 8:9, Gal 4:6, Phil 1:19, 1 Pt 1:11). Statements saying that the Spirit is “of” the other two Persons of the Trinity indicate that his Person is tightly bound up with and originates from them (just as the Son is the Son “of” the Father).

A philosophical explanation of this is found in the Council of Florence, which stated in 1439, "Since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son" (Decree for the Greeks).

The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because the Father has given all things to the Son, including the procession of the Holy Spirit. For more information see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 246-248, 264."

From C.A.

Correction, I gave the wrong link. It should have been
Catholic Answers

I’ll just add

An ecumenical council can clarify a previous council’s actions. That is what the filioque does. Explained HERE

 

[Vico]

…

Saying the same if not interpreted rigidly. Patriarch Photius asserted procession from the Father alone. To understand the difference between the development (not in scripture) in the two regions, see the Catholic Encylopedia:

The Greek Fathers did not neglect to safeguard the doctrine of the Divine Unity, though manifestly their standpoint requires a different treatment from that employed in the West. The consubstantiality of the Persons is asserted by St. Irenæus when he tells us that God created the world by His Son and His Spirit, “His two hands” (Against Heresies IV.20.1). The purport of the phrase is evidently to indicate that the Second and Third Persons are not substantially distinct from the First. A more philosophical description is the doctrine of the Recapitulation (sygkephalaiosis). This seems to be first found in the correspondence between St. Denis of Alexandria and St. Dionysius of Rome. The former writes: “We thus [i.e., by the twofold procession] extend the Monad [the First Person] to the Trinity, without causing any division, and were capitulate the Trinity in the Monad without causing diminution” (outo men emeis eis te ten Triada ten Monada, platynomen adiaireton, kai ten Triada palin ameioton eis ten Monada sygkephalaioumetha — P.G., XXV, 504). Here the consubstantiality is affirmed on the ground that the Son and Spirit, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless not separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections, can be regarded as contained within Him.

Joyce, G. (1912). The Blessed Trinity. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

…

Saying the same if not interpreted rigidly. Patriarch Photius asserted procession from the Father alone. To understand the difference between the development (not in scripture) in the two regions, see the Catholic Encylopedia:

The Greek Fathers did not neglect to safeguard the doctrine of the Divine Unity, though manifestly their standpoint requires a different treatment from that employed in the West. The consubstantiality of the Persons is asserted by St. Irenæus when he tells us that God created the world by His Son and His Spirit, “His two hands” (Against Heresies IV.20.1). The purport of the phrase is evidently to indicate that the Second and Third Persons are not substantially distinct from the First. A more philosophical description is the doctrine of the Recapitulation (sygkephalaiosis). This seems to be first found in the correspondence between St. Denis of Alexandria and St. Dionysius of Rome. The former writes: “We thus [i.e., by the twofold procession] extend the Monad [the First Person] to the Trinity, without causing any division, and were capitulate the Trinity in the Monad without causing diminution” (outo men emeis eis te ten Triada ten Monada, platynomen adiaireton, kai ten Triada palin ameioton eis ten Monada sygkephalaioumetha — P.G., XXV, 504). Here the consubstantiality is affirmed on the ground that the Son and Spirit, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless not separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections, can be regarded as contained within Him.

Joyce, G. (1912). The Blessed Trinity. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Here’s an interesting point

An ecumenical council can clarify a previous council’s actions. That is what the filioque does. Explained HERE

 

[Vico]

…
Here’s an interesting point
…

That is what happened when the unecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) modified the Nicene Creed (Symbol of 381) and it was later accepted by Rome at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) about 200 years later. That did not happen with the filioque at the Council of Chalcedon although it was being used before it. The Catechism states that it was dogmatically defined in the fifth century in 447 A.D. – it was not a dogma of faith to the eastern bishops. It was an issue that was emphasized in the late 13th century (Second Council of Lyons 1274 A.D.) .

Catechism:

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, 76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

…
Here’s an interesting point
…

That is what happened when the unecumenical Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) modified the Nicene Creed (Symbol of 381) and it was later accepted by Rome at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) about 200 years later. That did not happen with the filioque at the Council of Chalcedon although it was being used before it. The Catechism states that it was dogmatically defined in the fifth century in 447 A.D. – it was not a dogma of faith to the eastern bishops. It was an issue that was emphasized in the late 13th century (Second Council of Lyons 1274 A.D.) .

Catechism:

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, 76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

As the link I provided previously stated

"Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils.

At the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45), it was changed, and the council ruled that the words “and the Son” had been validly added to the Creed. The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted the authority of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it. …"

since “through the son” is acceptable to both sides, and “and the son” means the same, then this is within the council of Florence authority to make the addition…

What’s missing from all this is no time limit was given. Therefore there is no time limit for another ecumenical council to modify or make changes from a previous council

 

[Vico]

…

What’s missing from all this is no time limit was given. Therefore there is no time limit for another ecumenical council to modify or make changes from a previous council

The eastern view was that a council is not ecumenical until it is accepted by the entire church. Note that this happened at Chalcedon for the unecumenical Council Creed of 381. It is irrelevant as to who attends and how many bishops sign off on the council.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

…

What’s missing from all this is no time limit was given. Therefore there is no time limit for another ecumenical council to modify or make changes from a previous council

The eastern view was that a council is not ecumenical until it is accepted by the entire church.

That’s True from a later view. Remember, the Ortthodox (proper name) didn’t exist till the 2nd millenium.

And the entire Church did participate in the filioque when the pope approved it.

Vico:

Note that this happened at Chalcedon for the unecumenical Council Creed of 381. It is irrelevant as to who attends and how many bishops sign off on the council.

Said simply, what makes a council ecumenical is the pope approves it for the entire Church. Otherwise the council is local and doesn’t affect the entire Church. See Definition

 

[Vico]

Vico:

steve-b:

…

What’s missing from all this is no time limit was given. Therefore there is no time limit for another ecumenical council to modify or make changes from a previous council

The eastern view was that a council is not ecumenical until it is accepted by the entire church.

That’s True from a later view. Remember, the Ortthodox (proper name) didn’t exist till the 2nd millenium.

And the entire Church did participate in the filioque when the pope approved it.

Vico:

Note that this happened at Chalcedon for the unecumenical Council Creed of 381. It is irrelevant as to who attends and how many bishops sign off on the council.

Said simply, what makes a council ecumenical is the pope approves it for the entire Church. Otherwise the council is local and doesn’t affect the entire Church. See Definition

Actually the Latin and eastern bishops did not use the filioque in the Catholic Church and do not do so today either in the eastern Catholic Churches.

The Pope cannot go over and against the entire Church and speak “from the chair” but it is possible to go against part of the Church.

 

[dochawk]

That’s True from a later view. Remember, the Ortthodox (proper name) didn’t exist till the 2nd millenium.

Neither did “the Catholic” when put in those terms.

Both “Orthodox” and “Catholic” were used for the entire church.

And the entire Church did participate in the filioque when the pope approved it.

Vico:

Really? Can you provide citations for that use in, say, Antioch and Constantinople?

Said simply, what makes a council ecumenical is the pope approves it for the entire Church. Otherwise the council is local and doesn’t affect the entire Church. See Definition

hawk

Said simply, what makes a council ecumenical is the pope approves it for the entire Church. Otherwise the council is local and doesn’t affect the entire Church. See Definition

You’ve given new definition to assuming your conclusion.

That notion (as opposed to the need for approval by Rome) post-dates the schism.

hawk

 

[steve-b]

Can you provide citations for that use in, say, Antioch

From:
Bp Ameritas John Adel Elya,

"The rejection of Catholic doctrine and dogma comes from false ecumenism in order to please those outside the Church. However, the Eastern Catholic code of canon law opposes this.
“In fulfilling ecumenical work especially through open and frank dialogue and common undertaking with other Christians, due prudence has to be kept avoiding the dangers of false irenicism, indifferentism, & immoderate zeal.” (Canon 905, Eastern Catholic Canon Law.)
To put it in simple terms, this canon is opposing the idea that there must not be a ultimate goal to promote union under the umbrella of the one true Church of Christ; that being the Catholic Church. With that being said, many have unfortunately rejected this mission and have given into error by refusing to recant their errors in order to promote false unity with our schismatic brothers and sisters in the orthodox communions.
Ironically, The Most Rev. John Adel Elya, former eparch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church of Newton, addresses a lot of claims of false ecumenism in which are commonly stated by clerics and laymen of our church. Within his Q&A sessions on the Melkite Eparchy of Newton, he addresses the following claims in which I have heard personally:
First claim: We are the Orthodox Church in communion with Rome!”
Objection: “When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

 

[dochawk]

I’ll take that as a “no”, then.

Absolutely nothing in that suggests these of the filioque in Constantinople or even Antioch after papal declaration, just the well known situation of modern Antioch.

hawk

 

[steve-b]

I’ll take that as a “no”, then.

Absolutely nothing in that suggests these of the filioque in Constantinople or even Antioch after papal declaration, just the well known situation of modern Antioch.

hawk

you asked me to provide evidence from Antioch. So I gave you Bp Elya’s answer
Did you look up canon 43 of the Eastern canons in his answer?

Canon 43 - The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

As for Constantinople, technically, by name, it doesn’t exist anymore,

But

I posted earlier, from Card Kasper

“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.”

Kasper in Zenit

 

[dochawk]

you asked me to provide evidence from Antioch. So I gave you Bp Elya’s answer

No, you did not. You gave his answer to an utterly different issue.

The question was about the Filioque, which you insisted.

Noone has disputed Roman control of the EC churches, yet you continue to argue it.

And the entire Church did participate in the filioque when the pope approved it.

That has nothing to do with a bishop (appointed by Rome in the diaspora at that, rather than by the Church of Antioch) acknowledging Roman jurisdiction almost a millennium later.

And, frankly, even if post-union Melkites were to adopt the Filioque today, it wouldn’t support your statement.
[/quote]

Did you look up canon 43 of the Eastern canons in his answer?

Of course not.
a) I know what it says, and
b) it has nothing to do with the Filioque.

As for Constantinople, technically, by name, it doesn’t exist anymore,

That would indeed be news to the Metropolitan of Constantinople, also known as the Ecumenical Patriarch, as well as it’s priests and suffrage dioceses . . . that Muslims conquered and renamed the city has nothing to do with the name of the see, which they use to this day.

I posted earlier, from Card Kasper

“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.”

Again, this has nothing to do with anything in this thread.

Cardinal Kasper was rather late to the party on this one. Maybe next week he can discover that much corn is grown in Iowa . . .

And note that “doubts” about the EP’s primacy are limited to the MP and its puppets.

hawk

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

you asked me to provide evidence from Antioch. So I gave you Bp Elya’s answer

No, you did not. You gave his answer to an utterly different issue.

The question was about the Filioque, which you insisted.

Noone has disputed Roman control of the EC churches, yet you continue to argue it.

If you don’t dispute it what’s your issue?

And the entire Church did participate in the filioque when the pope approved it.

dochawk:

That has nothing to do with a bishop (appointed by Rome in the diaspora at that, rather than by the Church of Antioch) acknowledging Roman jurisdiction almost a millennium later.

With that answer you just contradicted your previous statement about the pope’s authority

dochawk:

And, frankly, even if post-union Melkites were to adopt the Filioque today, it wouldn’t support your statement.

Did you look up canon 43 of the Eastern canons in his answer?

dochawk:

Of course not.
a) I know what it says, and
b) it has nothing to do with the Filioque.

It gets to the main point of Bishop Elya. If one won’t acknowledge the primacy of the Roman Pontiff they aren’t Catholic.

As for Constantinople, technically, by name, it doesn’t exist anymore,

dochawk:

That would indeed be news to the Metropolitan of Constantinople, also known as the Ecumenical Patriarch, as well as it’s priests and suffrage dioceses . . . that Muslims conquered and renamed the city has nothing to do with the name of the see, which they use to this day.

Consider

“When the long-lasting Ottoman Empire finally collapsed in 1923, the new Republic of Turkey officially changed Constantinople’s name to Istanbul. (They also changed the new capital’s name from Angora to Ankara.) This did not stop foreign travelers, businesses, and even governments from calling the city “Constantinople.” That changed in 1930, once mail addressed to Constantinople—including paychecks, shipping forms, and other legal documents—stopped being delivered to any home or business in Istanbul."

From National Geographic

If mail is addressed Constantinople, no body gets that mail. Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore.

I posted earlier, from Card Kasper

“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.”

dochawk:

And note that “doubts” about the EP’s primacy are limited to the MP and its puppets.

Apparently the ROC make up ~55% EO. The other 18 or so EO Churches combined, make up ~45%. NO ONE is in control which was Kasper’s point.

 

[dochawk]

If you don’t dispute it what’s your issue?

steve-b:

The question was about the Filioque. I don’t have “an issue”; it just has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand.

With that answer you just contradicted your previous statement about the pope’s authority

dochawk:

Absolutely not.

The (arguable) irregularity of those appointments has nothing to do with the power of the pope to do so.

It gets to the main point of Bishop Elya. If one won’t acknowledge the primacy of the Roman Pontiff they aren’t Catholic.

Again, that point has nothing to do with whether or not the Filioque was used by “the entire Church”. I have no idea why you are bringing it up. Kind of like if I cite “2+2=4” to show that you’re wrong . . .

If mail is addressed Constantinople, no body gets that mail. Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore.

I have no interest in such semantics about civil jurisdiction. A better place to look would be, perhaps, the EP’s own website, which refers to such things as “Archdiocese of Constantinople”. Whether the civil authorities call it that now is irrelevant. More importantly, we are talking about the use a millennium ago, not modernly.

Apparently the ROC make up ~55% EO.

It’s larger than that, actually.

NO ONE is in control which was Kasper’s point.

Yes, Christiandom has been aware of that for at least nineteen centuries. The only mystery or surprise here is why the good cardinal thought otherwise, and where he obtained such ideas. It’s really on the level of and analogous to being surprised that each US state gets the same number of Senators, even though populations vary widely.

hawk

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

If you don’t dispute it what’s your issue?

steve-b:

The question was about the Filioque. I don’t have “an issue”; it just has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand.

With that answer you just contradicted your previous statement about the pope’s authority

dochawk:

Absolutely not.

The (arguable) irregularity of those appointments has nothing to do with the power of the pope to do so.

It gets to the main point of Bishop Elya. If one won’t acknowledge the primacy of the Roman Pontiff they aren’t Catholic.

Again, that point has nothing to do with whether or not the Filioque was used by “the entire Church”. I have no idea why you are bringing it up. Kind of like if I cite “2+2=4” to show that you’re wrong . . .

If mail is addressed Constantinople, no body gets that mail. Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore.

I have no interest in such semantics about civil jurisdiction. A better place to look would be, perhaps, the EP’s own website, which refers to such things as “Archdiocese of Constantinople”. Whether the civil authorities call it that now is irrelevant. More importantly, we are talking about the use a millennium ago, not modernly.

Apparently the ROC make up ~55% EO.

It’s larger than that, actually.

NO ONE is in control which was Kasper’s point.

Yes, Christiandom has been aware of that for at least nineteen centuries. The only mystery or surprise here is why the good cardinal thought otherwise, and where he obtained such ideas. It’s really on the level of and analogous to being surprised that each US state gets the same number of Senators, even though populations vary widely.

hawk

I answered all your questions.

Re: the filioque
Whether the Eastern Catholics use the filioque or not , they still agree with the teaching because they are Catholic.

The Orthodox in old Constantinople, Now Istanbul, either have their own mail service or they deal with the civil Turkish mail service. If Constantinople is used as the address put through the Turkish mail service, it won’t get delivered.

 

[dochawk]

Whether the Eastern Catholics use the filioque or not , they still agree with the teaching because they are Catholic.

That was never a question, though.

[and as a side issue, no it doesn’t mean that they “agree with the teaching.” Rather, they agree that it is a valid expression of the latin understanding of the same faith. Similar, but very much not the same. ]

The Orthodox in old Constantinople, Now Istanbul, either have their own mail service or they deal with the civil Turkish mail service. If Constantinople is used as the address put through the Turkish mail service, it won’t get delivered.

and that was never an issue at any time, let alone at the time in question (the tenth and eleventh centuries), and the Bishop of Constantinople remains in his see, not withstanding turkish oppression.

hawk

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Whether the Eastern Catholics use the filioque or not , they still agree with the teaching because they are Catholic.

That was never a question, though.

[and as a side issue, no it doesn’t mean that they “agree with the teaching.” Rather, they agree that it is a valid expression of the latin understanding of the same faith. Similar, but very much not the same. ]

The Orthodox in old Constantinople, Now Istanbul, either have their own mail service or they deal with the civil Turkish mail service. If Constantinople is used as the address put through the Turkish mail service, it won’t get delivered.

and that was never an issue at any time, let alone at the time in question (the tenth and eleventh centuries), and the Bishop of Constantinople remains in his see, not withstanding turkish oppression.

hawk

You just like to argue. No matter what it is you argue over it

 

[RyanBlack]

You just like to argue. No matter what it is you argue over it

Pot, meat kettle.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You just like to argue. No matter what it is you argue over it

Pot, meat kettle.

which one are you, pot or kettle