The lawfulness of filioque

[beng]

No. The heresy of conciliarism is that a Council can act apart from or contrary to its head. The Pope conceding to the dogmatic Decrees of a prior Ecumenical Council is not conciliarism.

The heresy of conciliarism is putting an ecumenical council above the Pope.

“a universal Creed … should only contain what is affirmed universally as defined by the instrument that originally codified it i.e. Ecumenical Councils.”

A pope has the authority to impose a universal creed over the whole Church without the aid of an ecumenical council. So it’s incorrect to say that a universal creed SHOULD ONLY CONTAIN what is affirmed universally by the original instrument that codified it.

“Supreme” does not mean “only” or “absolute.”

He has absolute fullness of the supreme power. God given. Everyone must obey or they shall not be saved.

No he doesn’t. He acts as a MEMBER OF the Ecum Council, not apart from or above it.

Yes he does. A pope can not be judged by an ecumenical council. We put that to rest many years ago.

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. - Chapter 3, Pastor Aeternus, First ECUMENICAL Council of Vatican

If you are referring to the Creed for his local diocese, I’d agree. If you are referring to the universal Creed, he would be doing nothing contrary to his office only if the bishops of the world agreed first.

No. He could impose a universal creed to be said by all the Churches if he so wishes. If they do not obey, they would not be saved.

The only authority the Pope has is to build up the Church. If an action of the Pope causes division or scandal in the Church, he does not have the authority to do such things.

Where is such restriction [ie. If an action of the Pope causes division or scandal in the Church, he does not have the authority] in Pastor Aeternus? I do not see it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Beng,

I have to be off, so I’ll just respond to two items of your post for now.

He has absolute fullness of the supreme power. God given. Everyone must obey or they shall not be saved.

The error of the Absolutist Petrine view is that it is not faithful to the text of the Decree. The text states “absolute fullness of the supreme power,” but your mind reads it as “supreme fullness of ABSOLUTE POWER.” Sorry, that’s not what it actually says, no matter what dyslexic misinterpretation you wish to put on it.

Where is such restriction [ie. If an action of the Pope causes division or scandal in the Church, he does not have the authority

] in Pastor Aeternus? I do not see it.
Why is that? Here’s what Pastor Aeternus teaches us that the Pope is authorized to do:

“Indeed, he placed St. Peter at the head of the other aspotles that the episcopate might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a well-organized priesthood.”

The purpose of consensus - according to the Apostolic Canon that Vatican 1 calls a RULE OF FAITH - is to ensure the UNITY of the Church. Since it is the Pope’s divine duty to preserve unity according to Pastor Aeternus, then the Pope has no authority to do things that can cause disunity or even has the potential to cause the sin of disunity.

I’ll respond to the rest of your post later.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[beng]

Dear brother Beng,

I have to be off, so I’ll just respond to two items of your post for now.

The error of the Absolutist Petrine view is that it is not faithful to the text of the Decree. The text states “absolute fullness of the supreme power,” but your mind reads it as “supreme fullness of ABSOLUTE POWER.” Sorry, that’s not what it actually says, no matter what dyslexic misinterpretation you wish to put on it.

I just re-wrote from Pastor Aeternus [ie. " … the absolute fullness, of this supreme power]. If you think that what I just re-wrote from Pastor Aeternus is absolutist Petrine view, then maybe Pastor Aeternus does teach Absolutist Petrine view (whatever that is)

Why is that? Here’s what Pastor Aeternus teaches us that the Pope is authorized to do:

“Indeed, he placed St. Peter at the head of the other aspotles that the episcopate might be one and undivided, and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a well-organized priesthood.”

The purpose of consensus - according to the Apostolic Canon that Vatican 1 calls a RULE OF FAITH - is to ensure the UNITY of the Church. Since it is the Pope’s divine duty to preserve unity according to Pastor Aeternus, then the Pope has no authority to do things that can cause disunity or even has the potential to cause the sin of disunity.

I’ll respond to the rest of your post later.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is an eisegesis of the text. Bottom line, Pastor Aeternus put no such restriction.

And you advence the principle of “unity before truth” or “unity at all cost.”

 

[mardukm]

I just re-wrote from Pastor Aeternus

Thank you for the admission, brother. Indeed, you re-wrote it AND re-interpereted it (or rather, misinterpreted it).

That is an eisegesis of the text. Bottom line, Pastor Aeternus put no such restriction.

So all you’ve got are hollow statements, without any proof? Prove to us it is eisegesis. Prove to us that is not in fact the very purpose of the papal office. We’ll be waiting.

And you advence the principle of “unity before truth”

Rather, you cause truth to be in opposition to unity.

or “unity at all cost.”

Howso?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This is of topic but… wouldn’t the above be conciliarism? The Pope has supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church, over ecumenical councils. If he so wishes the word “theotokos” to be added to the creed, he would do nothing contrary to his office. Maybe it wouldn’t be prudent, but not outside the bound of his divinely given authority.

Dear Sir,

This is certainly the crux of the entire debate and is central to the whole East-West rapprochement matter (congratulations for putting it so succinctly - you cover many volumes of scholarly theological commentary in a few well-chosen words!).

And I don’t have a comprehensive answer to this. The Pope of Rome is there to protect Divinely revealed Tradition i.e. the Apostolic Catholic Faith of the universal Church of Christ. Apart from the Filioque, I don’t know if the Popes ever wished to affirm doctrinal truths other than by separate statements and teachings. Given the strong teaching of the universal Church on the Theotokos, would there ever be a need to add this title to the Creed? Recent papal musings on the Filioque, in response to the Orthodox-Catholic theological commission reports, SUGGEST that any earlier papal pronouncement on the Filioque is not written in stone.

Again, what I find interesting is that while the Eastern Church has found fault with the Filioque as a universal teaching to be held by the entire Church, it has never insisted that the West divest itself of it as part of its theological heritage on the Holy Trinity (this is also confirmed by Archbishop Kallistos Ware - who, as it happens, is sympathetic to the Filioque).

I don’t believe any Pope today will want to do anything that would harm Catholic-Orthodox relations while affirming his historic pastoral role as the defender of Apostolic Tradition. The Ecumenical Councils that confirmed the Creed in its original form did so with the approbation of the Popes of their day - as infallible a statement as could be imagined. The role of such Councils is to gauge the mind of the Church, vox Ecclesiae, vox Dei, if I may adapt a well-worn phrase. Even the Ven. Pius XII conferred with the world RC episcopate before he declared the dogma of the Assumption. The synergy between Popes and Councils that we see in the first millennium of the Catholic Church served everyone well - and at the Sixth Council, it was the Christian East that outdid all subsequent councils in heaping praise on the role of the Pope of Rome and his office (even in the face of the situation with Pope Honorius). The Conciliarism of the first millennium did nothing to undercut papal authority which is always related to the Church of Christ and the pope is truly the “servant of the servants of God.”

In addition, the Filioque, as an expression of the Particular Latin Catholic Triadology, is beginning to be seen, by theologians and also by recent Popes, as such and so while it is an entirely valid theological approach, it is limited to the Latin Catholic theological “culture” if I may. It is “ultra vires” the universal Creed which is not the property of any Particular Church, but belongs to the entire Church as a symbol of Apostolic confession and unity in the true faith as set out by the early Ecumenical Councils which were governed, of course by the great patriarchal centres of Christianity with the president of the Church of Rome taking the first chair, as he has always done.

“Conciliarism” has historically been understood to be “anti-papal.” I see no sign of any such anti-papalism in any of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils at all while Conciliarism is, in fact, a later problem that arose within the Western Church alone. Given the strong monarchical tradition of the Byzantine Church in relation to Imperial New Rome/Constantinople, and the Eastern Church’s perceived great need to have a strong arbiter in its dealings with the imperial court in the person of the pope of Rome, there was little fear that the western model of Conciliarism would ever take root in the East.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear brother Alex,

I believe this statement would only be relevant if the Western Church sought to make the filioque text universal. But I’m certain they never did. Granted, this seems like the viewpoint of Mark of Ephesus - that the Western Church was trying to make the filioque text universal.

Blessings,
Marduk

A very good point sir!

For the East, the Nicene Creed was and is a universal Creed for the entire Church. It was never the property of any Particular Church to add to or subtract from. When the Latin Church added the Filioque, this meant, to the East, that an addition was indeed being imposed on the universal Church via this universal Creed.

Although Pope Eugenius at Florence did not require the Greeks to add the Filioque to the Creed, they were obligated to affirm the Filioque’s orthodoxy - for the sake of political expediency with the Turks breathing down the Byzantine Emperor’s neck, most of the Greek bishops agreed to the Latin theological term and signed the instrument of unity. Pope Eugenius was painfully aware of the political situation and how the Greek bishops, if they were not already completely “inculturated” in the Western renaissance life, as was Bessarion, were compliant with what their Emperor asked of them. Mark of Ephesus refused to sign and it was said that Pope Eugenius had come to respect this opponent of unity based on Western theology and ecclesiology which is why it was said that when Mark Eugenikos left the Council without signing the instrument of unity, the Pope was to have said, “We have accomplished nothing.”

Later “unias” such as the Union of Brest did lead to EC’s taking on the Filioque, against the conditions of the union in the first place. In Ukraine, Polish gendarmes were sent out to the villages to ensure compliance with the recitation of the Filioque in the creeds in the EC parish churches.

Our people, not wishing to upset the gendarmes, adapted the Filioque (“I Syna”) to read “Istynno” or “truly.”

Either way, it was Rome’s intention in the 15th century to ensure compliance, one way or another, with the Filioque, a Latin theological expression that had come to be something Rome saw as being part of the universal faith. That is because Rome had become blurred to its dual identity as a particular Church and as the first Cathedra of Christendom. This blurring never occurred in popes such as Pope St Leo IV who refused to change the historic Creed meant as a universal confession of faith for the universal Church, enacted by an Ecumenical (universal) Council. That pope may have come to agree with the Filioque, but he knew that it was a child of Western theology that would be strenuously opposed in the Greek-speaking Christian world.

Cheers,

Alex

 

[beng]

Thank you for the admission, brother. Indeed, you re-wrote it AND re-interpereted it (or rather, misinterpreted it).

Not much of a re-wrote, basically the same thing:

1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

So all you’ve got are hollow statements, without any proof? Prove to us it is eisegesis. Prove to us that is not in fact the very purpose of the papal office. We’ll be waiting.

How am I suppose to prove a negative? There is no restriction in the paragraph you’ve quoted. You made it up.

Rather, you cause truth to be in opposition to unity.

No. I just didn’t put unity above truth. If unity needs to be sacrificed for truth, then so be it Mat 10:34-36.

Howso?

Your words: “to ensure the UNITY of the Church … the Pope’s divine duty to preserve unity … the Pope has no authority to do things that can cause disunity or even has the potential to cause the sin of disunity.”

 

[beng]

“Conciliarism” has historically been understood to be “anti-papal.” I see no sign of any such anti-papalism in any of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils at all while Conciliarism is, in fact, a later problem that arose within the Western Church alone. Given the strong monarchical tradition of the Byzantine Church in relation to Imperial New Rome/Constantinople, and the Eastern Church’s perceived great need to have a strong arbiter in its dealings with the imperial court in the person of the pope of Rome, there was little fear that the western model of Conciliarism would ever take root in the East.

Alex

That is true. The role of emperor is more significant in the east than in the west (just like how the role of deacon is more significant in the east than in the west). The fact that eastern Church in ancient times called for the Pope when they suffered imperial displeasure could mean that they did not step over the bound of Caesaropapism.

But a trace of conciliarism might be found during Photius’ rebellion especially in the Council of Constanitnople of 879 (which the Orthodox consider as the 8th ecumenical council, while the Catholic Church consider Council of Constantinople of 869 as the 8th ecumenical). I can’t really be sure. It’s been a long time since I look into the whole sad episode.

 

[mardukm]

The heresy of conciliarism is putting an ecumenical council above the Pope.

That’s what I said. But judging from your other posts, I can understand why you would not equate “apart from and contrary to” with “above.” You somehow have to rationalize that “above” does not have the meaning of “apart from and contrary to” since you yourself adhere to the error that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

“a universal Creed … should only contain what is affirmed universally as defined by the instrument that originally codified it i.e. Ecumenical Councils.”

A pope has the authority to impose a universal creed over the whole Church without the aid of an ecumenical council. So it’s incorrect to say that a universal creed SHOULD ONLY CONTAIN what is affirmed universally by the original instrument that codified it.

There is nothing wrong with what brother Alex stated. The Pope has no authority to contradict a prior Ecumenical Council’s decrees on matters of Faith. Though I certainly disagree with Mark of Ephesus’ assumption that Rome was trying to impose the TEXT of filioque on the universal Church, he was indeed correct to assume that the text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the STANDARD UNIVERSAL TEXT of the Church that represents the UNIVERSAL FAITH of the Church. This, HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory and HH Pope Benedict have explicitly affirmed. What the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople did, by presenting to us the UNIVERSAL STANDARD of the Creed, was a matter of FAITH, not mere discipline (as you wrongly presume in another thread).

He has absolute fullness of the supreme power. God given. Everyone must obey or they shall not be saved.

Again, “supreme power” is not equivalent to “absolute power.” “Supreme power” has limits, while “absolute power” does not.

No. He could impose a universal creed to be said by all the Churches if he so wishes. If they do not obey, they would not be saved.

Baloney. You presume WAAAAY too much with the statement “obedience to the Pope is necessary for salvation” So all the Catholics in the first millenium who disobeyed the Pope by maintaining filioque in the Creed despite the Pope’s commands went to Hell? The recitation of the Creed is a part of the Liturgy, and the Liturgy has always been under the purview of the LOCAL bishop (under the guidance of the local Synod, of course), which Vatican 1 affirms the Pope has no authority to impede. So you are just plain wrong to claim that the Pope could force any particular Church to SAY a Creed of his own choosing.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Beng,

How am I suppose to prove a negative?

If you can’t prove it, you have no right to claim it. As the saying goes, “put up or shut up.”

There is no restriction in the paragraph you’ve quoted. You made it up.

The Pope cannot go beyond what God intended his office to do. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp?

No. I just didn’t put unity above truth. If unity needs to be sacrificed for truth, then so be it Mat 10:34-36.

Jesus is speaking of disunity with unbelievers. Good luck proving that Catholics are unbelievers.

Your words: “to ensure the UNITY of the Church … the Pope’s divine duty to preserve unity … the Pope has no authority to do things that can cause disunity or even has the potential to cause the sin of disunity.”

What’s wrong with that statement?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Our people, not wishing to upset the gendarmes, adapted the Filioque (“I Syna”) to read “Istynno” or “truly.”

That was smart!

Either way, it was Rome’s intention in the 15th century to ensure compliance, one way or another, with the Filioque, a Latin theological expression that had come to be something Rome saw as being part of the universal faith. That is because Rome had become blurred to its dual identity as a particular Church and as the first Cathedra of Christendom. This blurring never occurred in popes such as Pope St Leo IV who refused to change the historic Creed meant as a universal confession of faith for the universal Church, enacted by an Ecumenical (universal) Council. That pope may have come to agree with the Filioque, but he knew that it was a child of Western theology that would be strenuously opposed in the Greek-speaking Christian world.

I agree. Though filioque was orthodox theologically (i.e., as a reference to consubstantiality), it’s peculiar Latin construct was no doubt difficult for Greeks to understand, and, consequently, to accept. It was an innocent mistake borne of a difference in theological paradigms, but a mistake nonetheless. It has taken about 9 centuries for any sort of understanding to come about between the Greeks and Latins.

Really, in the face of 15 centuries of misunderstanding between the non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians, that’s actually pretty good, d’accord?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[beng]

That’s what I said. But judging from your other posts, I can understand why you would not equate “apart from and contrary to” with “above.” You somehow have to rationalize that “above” does not have the meaning of “apart from and contrary to” since you yourself adhere to the error that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

Actually this is what you said: “The heresy of conciliarism is that a Council can act apart from or contrary to its head”

Thus you did not say “The heresy of conciliarism is putting an ecumenical council above the Pope.” That’s me saying it.

My error has nothing to do with it.

There is nothing wrong with what brother Alex stated. The Pope has no authority to contradict a prior Ecumenical Council’s decrees on matters of Faith.

And that is a straw man. I specifically points out the writing of Alexander Roman which seems problematic. And you get another quote. Oh I wish Gregdaly sees this.

Though I certainly disagree with Mark of Ephesus’ assumption that Rome was trying to impose the TEXT of filioque on the universal Church, he was indeed correct to assume that the text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the STANDARD UNIVERSAL TEXT of the Church that represents the UNIVERSAL FAITH of the Church. This, HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory and HH Pope Benedict have explicitly affirmed. What the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople did, by presenting to us the UNIVERSAL STANDARD of the Creed, was a matter of FAITH, not mere discipline (as you wrongly presume in another thread).

So… if a Pope decides to add theotokos in the Nicean-Constantinople creed without ecumenical council and have it read by ALL churches at mass and baptism does he have the authority to do that?

Again, “supreme power” is not equivalent to “absolute power.” “Supreme power” has limits, while “absolute power” does not.

I simply pick it from Pastor Aeternus. Take your beef with Pastor Aeternus, then.

Baloney. You presume WAAAAY too much with the statement “obedience to the Pope is necessary for salvation”

Wasn’t Boniface VIII who wrote Unam Sanctam YOUR pope?

So all the Catholics in the first millenium who disobeyed the Pope by maintaining filioque in the Creed despite the Pope’s commands went to Hell?

Did they disobey? If “yes” then they did [assuming that they didn’t err in good faith and they did not repent before dying].

The recitation of the Creed is a part of the Liturgy, and the Liturgy has always been under the purview of the LOCAL bishop (under the guidance of the local Synod, of course), which Vatican 1 affirms the Pope has no authority to impede. So you are just plain wrong to claim that the Pope could force any particular Church to SAY a Creed of his own choosing.

Blessings,
Marduk

The pope is above local bishops. If the Pope wants the Byzantine Catholic to add theotokos to their creed at divine liturgy and baptism, and they disobey, they will sin gravely and go to hell.

Dear brother Beng,

If you can’t prove it, you have no right to claim it. As the saying goes, “put up or shut up.”

I must prove a negative? So maybe I should join the atheist in the attempt to prove that God didn’t exist. Maybe I should also prove that Bertrand Russel’s flying China teapot doesn’t exist.

The Pope cannot go beyond what God intended his office to do. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp?

Because your conclusion doesn’t follow. It’s a leap of logic. You have trouble finding quotation that shows restriction so you use that quotation and dance around it as if it puts restriction on papal infallibility.

Jesus is speaking of disunity with unbelievers. Good luck proving that Catholics are unbelievers.

The point is, you follow truth [ie. God] even if it cost you unity. Or maybe you want us to let Protestants have our eucharist?

What’s wrong with that statement?

you’re putting unity as no.1.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

That was smart!

I agree. Though filioque was orthodox theologically (i.e., as a reference to consubstantiality), it’s peculiar Latin construct was no doubt difficult for Greeks to understand, and, consequently, to accept. It was an innocent mistake borne of a difference in theological paradigms, but a mistake nonetheless. It has taken about 9 centuries for any sort of understanding to come about between the Greeks and Latins.

Really, in the face of 15 centuries of misunderstanding between the non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians, that’s actually pretty good, d’accord?

Blessings,
Marduk

Absolutely sir! In fact, the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, with their EC counterparts, can teach both Rome and Orthodoxy a lot of things having to do with civil and Christian discourse!

Cheers,

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

That’s what I said. But judging from your other posts, I can understand why you would not equate “apart from and contrary to” with “above.” You somehow have to rationalize that “above” does not have the meaning of “apart from and contrary to” since you yourself adhere to the error that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council.

There is nothing wrong with what brother Alex stated. The Pope has no authority to contradict a prior Ecumenical Council’s decrees on matters of Faith. Though I certainly disagree with Mark of Ephesus’ assumption that Rome was trying to impose the TEXT of filioque on the universal Church, he was indeed correct to assume that the text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the STANDARD UNIVERSAL TEXT of the Church that represents the UNIVERSAL FAITH of the Church. This, HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory and HH Pope Benedict have explicitly affirmed. What the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople did, by presenting to us the UNIVERSAL STANDARD of the Creed, was a matter of FAITH, not mere discipline (as you wrongly presume in another thread).

Again, “supreme power” is not equivalent to “absolute power.” “Supreme power” has limits, while “absolute power” does not.

Baloney. You presume WAAAAY too much with the statement “obedience to the Pope is necessary for salvation” So all the Catholics in the first millenium who disobeyed the Pope by maintaining filioque in the Creed despite the Pope’s commands went to Hell? The recitation of the Creed is a part of the Liturgy, and the Liturgy has always been under the purview of the LOCAL bishop (under the guidance of the local Synod, of course), which Vatican 1 affirms the Pope has no authority to impede. So you are just plain wrong to claim that the Pope could force any particular Church to SAY a Creed of his own choosing.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, I see the points about papal absolutism et alia, but I don’t see papal absolutism in the style of governance of contemporary popes at all. They define their power much more in terms of the “servant, pastoral” style which is why, symbolically, Pope Benedict chooses the three-tiered mitre for his coat of arms rather than the tiara (which has fallen largely into disuse as a symbol of medieval papal absolutism).

And popes are there primarily to defend the Apostolic tradition and to teach it clearly to succeeding generations. Popes no longer force anything but rather teach and minister as “servants of the servants of God.”

The Filioque was certainly not a new teaching and contemporary popes have suggested that it does not have to be in the Nicene Creed. To remove it would not be to reject it or to name it a “heresy.”

The Novus Ordo and the changes of Vatican II were much more “overwhelming” to many Latin Catholics than anything else in modern times. Traditional RC’s have chosen to try and carry on without paying too close attention to these . Hopefully, they are not going to hell for their tacit or implied disobedience either.

Alex

 

[mardukm]

I agree. Though filioque was orthodox theologically (i.e., as a reference to consubstantiality), it’s peculiar Latin construct was no doubt difficult for Greeks to understand, and, consequently, to accept. It was an innocent mistake borne of a difference in theological paradigms, but a mistake nonetheless. It has taken about 9 centuries for any sort of understanding to come about between the Greeks and Latins.

Oh, btw, to clarify the highlighted portion above. I was referring to the Latin Church making the mistake (administratively speaking, not theologically), not the Greek Church.

Blessings,
Marduk