D
dzheremi
Guest
What “ancient Alexandrian tradition” does the CCC refer to? 
The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
In 1990 Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote:Thus the Filioque of the Latin West became in subsequent centuries an occasion for a schism which had already been actuated by Photius (882), but which was consummated and extended to almost all the Christian East in 1054. In the creed the Oriental Churches separated from Rome still today profess their faith “in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father,” without mentioning the Filioque . In the West we expressly say that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”What “ancient Alexandrian tradition” does the CCC refer to?
Specific reference to this doctrine is not lacking in the great Fathers and Doctors of the East (Ephraim, Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus, John Damascene) and of the West (Tertullian, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine). Following the Fathers, St. Thomas gave an insightful explanation of the formula on the basis of the principle of the unity and equality of the divine Persons in the trinitarian relationship (cf. Summa Theol., I, q. 36, aa. 2-4).
After the schism various Councils during the second millennium tried to reconstruct the unity between Rome and Constantinople. The issue of the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father and from the Son was the object of clarification especially at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and finally at the Council of Florence (1439). …
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.
The Latin reads,
primo itaque capitulo demonstratur quam impie sentiant de Trinitate divina, qui et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam atque eandem asserunt esse personam, tamquam idem Deus nunc Pater nunc Filius nunc Spiritus Sanctus nominetur; nec alius sit qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque procedit.
catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/08/filioque.html
Good quote.
Do you believe that letter was declaring a dogma?
D
dzheremi
Guest
This does not answer my question at all. What specific Alexandrian tradition is the CCC referring to? I’d like to think that if this stuff is in the CCC, it would actually be based on something concrete and real, and not vague references that assume that the East and the Orient agree with Rome on this issue, when Rome knows full well that we don’t, as we accepted the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without any further alterations, and in the case of Alexandria particularly, we were separated from the imperial church (East and West) before the filioque had appeared at any church, East or West.
So I find the linked document from JPII above to be highly objectionable. In fact, it seems he’s outright fabricating when he states: “The conciliar formula of 381 reads: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” The more complete formula: “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” ( qui a Patre Filioque procedit ), was already present in the ancient texts.”
This is at variance with not only the historical record, but even what earlier Roman Catholic sources have to say about the matter:
If the filioque was present in the text of Constantinople (381), where is it? I would think that of all sources, the Catholic Encyclopedia would capitalize on the fact that it’s there to show that the Roman Catholic position is the correct and historical one, and yet it’s not present. If Alexandrian tradition agrees with Rome, why can’t Rome show us where?
It’s kind of hard to be charitable about such a bold manipulation of history and the truth. Alexandria (either historic church) does not believe in the filiioque, and neither does any of the rest of the Orthodox East and Orient. It is not in the Creed of 381, and was not in any form of the Creed accepted at any church before Toledo. These are the facts.
V
Vico
Guest
Yes. It was specifically written against the heresy of Priscillianism (Modern Catholic Dictionary):Fourth- and fifth-century heresy, begun by Priscillian, who as a layman and later as bishop based his ideas on a mixture of Gnosticism and Manichaeism. He and his followers taught a Modalist doctrine of the Trinity, denied Christ’s divinity and his real humanity, …
V
Vico
Guest
As difficult as it may be to be charitible, one must be, to become like Christ.
The Latin Church did not receive the modified creed from 381, which was a local eastern council, until Chalcedon (451). It already had, *qui a Patre Filioque procedit, in the ancient Latin texts: Tertullian, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine.
- The Vatican has suppressed the document from it’s site: THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity ewtn.com/library/curia/pccufilq.htm
… The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit, proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common. This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council …
4 St Cyril bears witness here to a Trinitarian doctrine common to the whole school of Alexandria since St Athanasius, who had written: “Just as the Son says: ‘All that the Father has is mine’ (Jn 16:15), so shall we find that, through the Son, it is all also in the Spirit” (Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B). St Epiphanius of Salamis (Ancoratus, VIII, PG 43, 29 C) and Didymus the Blind (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, CLIII, PG 34, 1064 A) link the Father and the Son by the same preposition ek in the communication to the Holy Spirit of the consubstantial divinity.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Too late I realize that my question was ambiguous (although very possibly you understood my intention regardless). I should have said, Do you believe that letter declared the filioque a dogma?
B
bilop
Guest
In what sense?
Eastern Catholics aren’t required to include the Filioque in their Nicene Creed.
I don’t think it’s dogma whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son. I believe both interpretations are permitted.
God Bless
T
twf
Guest
It is dogma that the Spirit’s first cause is the Father. Both the Second and Third divine persons find their origin in the Father… I believe that was clarified at Florence.
P
Peter_J
Guest
True, I was speaking a bit colloquially, i.e. using “filioque” to mean the teaching even though technically it is just the clause “and the Son”.
B
bilop
Guest
Gotcha.
L
luckydogh
Guest
Kallistos who said that the Catholic and Orthodox Church have grown ontollogically different over the last Millennium? If the ontology of East and West is indeed different, then union is near impossible.
outil diagnostic automobile
outil diagnostic automobile
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Not sure how you draw that conclusion from your first sentence? I would say reconciliation is never impossible, fleeting no doubt. Course there are then those who for one reason or another conclude reconciliation isn’t needed.
From a quick search here’s what came up.
What Met. Ware has said is that since Florence the majority of the dialogue “spent months discussing the filioque and purgatory, but only 10 days on the role of the pope in the Church.”
Thus the focus of correct understanding of the Primacy is an issue we all want to see resolved, course many know what the Pope is not, yet to a degree we become reduced to unknowns and connecting missing dots. Different points of view of singular events, translations, pseudo authors, pious escalation of thoughts etc. etc. etc. Probably most significant is the destruction of the library in Alexandria.
“The most significant document is the Ravenna Document (2007), in which the Orthodox participants, for the first time, acknowledge the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome. As the Metropolitan stated, of course, what “universal primacy” means is still hotly debated. Nevertheless the issue continues in the attempt to clearly understand. I would assume by a good majority.”
Course I would say to acknowledge universal Primacy and not understand it seems rather controversial itself, or perhaps an incorrectly worded sentence or two linking the Metropolitan with the thoughts of the author of the article.
eirenikon.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/an-insiders-view-of-catholic-orthodox-dialogue/
That article will link you to the second leaked document which gives a glimpse of issues discussed.
Course both Popes JP-II and Benedict have also said they are willing to discuss what’s thought to be the “correct” way to exercise the primacy. That “correct” way is where the dilemma resides it would seem to me.
P
Peter_J
Guest
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Right, I don’t get overly excited about the immediate, possibly an indication. I do appreciate Met. Ware, which caught my attention.
I don’t think there’s much doubt the Church’s have moved in a positive direction. Time is a speculation for me with the Church in this regard. I would think after all this time who could tell?
G
gus
Guest
There really is only one issue. Its authority.
The last LC and O will still be fighting over this as the Mulslim
are about to take their heads off.
The last LC and O will still be fighting over this as the Mulslim
are about to take their heads off.
C
crumblymunky
Guest
Couldn’t the RCC simply maintain papal supremacy over the rites under its jurisdiction already, and the Orthodox maintain their way of leading their Church’s, yet acknowledging an equality among brothers, or am I missing something here? I am not very learned on this topic.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Then what if some of those “under its jurisdiction already” decide that they don’t want to be?
- Status