Trinitarian Theologies of East and West -- reconciled at long last

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I am a bit confused. The following quote is from the article The Council of Florence in the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 26 February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque was the chief matter of discussion. In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: “the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the ‘Procession’ of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son.” In the last session, the same theologian again expounded the doctrine, after which the public sessions were closed at the request of the Greeks, as it seemed useless to prolong further the theological discussions. At this juncture began the active efforts of Isidore of Kiev, and, as the result of further parleys, Eugene IV submitted four propositions summing up the result of the previous discussion and exposing the weakness of the attitude of the Greeks. As the latter were loath to admit defeat, Cardinal Bessarion, in a special meeting of the Greeks, on 13 and 14 April, 1439, delivered his famous discourse in favour of reunion, and was supported by Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again, after which, to put an end to all equivocation, the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two “principia” in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Greeks met this statement with an equivocal counter-formula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Dortheus of Mitylene, encouraged by the emperor, came out strongly in favour of the ex filio. The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight.

[emphasis mine]

What was the source from which you provided your quote? The quote I’ve provided would seem to indicate the the Council of Florence and its decrees are no more problematic than any other considerations in this discussion between East and West, along those lines that the “Clarification” and the Metropolitan’s response present to us. I admit though, that I may be quite mistaken.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fr Ambrose:

One of the Orthodox responses is to ask how the recent Clarification clarifies the definition of the Roman Catholic Church taught at the Council of Florence. It does not clarify it but it overturns it.

If the Roman Catholic Church were to renounce the definition of Florence then the dialogue could proceed, but while this definition is ticking away like a timebomb there is concern by the Orthodox that Rome may again turn to it as an infallible statement.

The important discrepancy between the contemporary Clarification from Rome and the Council of Florence is that the Clarification denies that the Son is the principle of the Spirit’s origin but Florence teaches that he is (principaliter.) Since Florence is an Ecumenical Council of the Church of Rome and was ratified by the Pope it is infallible and trumps the Clarification hands down. Florence needs overturning either by another Council or by the Pontiff personally.

The above is why it is yet too early to make the claim that the filioque dispute has been reconciled. Rome has created a bit of a muddle for itself with the Clarification.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal [ecumenical] council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

Pope Eugenius at the Council of Florence.

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28

Is there any reason why both ways of seeing the Trinity cannot co-exist in peace - why they cannot “grow together until the harvest” ?​

Besides, what point is there in our being able to speak and write learnedly of the Trinity, if our lives and our hearts and our attitudes to our neighbours are far from God Who is the Trinity ?

Our Lord teaches us “Love one another” - not, “Discourse learnedly of Me.” A babushka who loves her neighbour with the love of Christ does more to unify and edify the Church than all the most brilliant theologians who forget to love the God of Whom they write.

Theology, dogma, credal orthodoxy, tradition, are as able to become so many idols and false gods as any block of wood or stone. Not all of us are skilled in theological learning - but all of are called to love God as He has loved us.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I am a bit confused. The following quote is from the article The Council of Florence in the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

1. "In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: “the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father.”

2)"…the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they ***stated that they did not admit two “principia” in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, * ** and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son."

I cannot reconcile these statements from Florence. Indeed I do not even understand them. For example, I have no idea what is the “productive power” of the Father and the Son from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.

Notice also the contradictory teaching from Giovanni di Ragusa which is claimed as a clear exposition of the Latin doctrine:

"the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father"

This is flatly contradicted by Pope Eugenius who proclaimed the following definition at the same Council:

"the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration."

For context, here is the Pope’s full infallible statement again:

*In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal [ecumenical] council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

Pope Eugenius at the Council of Florence.*

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

1. "In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: “the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father.”

2)"…the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they ***stated that they did not admit two “principia” in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, *** and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son."

I cannot reconcile these statements from Florence. Indeed I do not even understand them. For example, I have no idea what is the “productive power” of the Father and the Son from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.

JMJ + OBT​

Oh, Father, you need to be more creative in your thinking!

I’m justing giving you a hard time – actually, this is a truly difficult matter, and I won’t claim to “get it” at the level I hope to someday, but if you read the “Clarification” document carefully, a solution is outlined (read it slooooowly):

“For the procession they (the Romans) brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son cause (aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusis – but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence” (Letter to Marin of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).

According to St Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father’s Monarchy.

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:

“The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance… It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality” (DS 804-805).

In 1274, the second Council of Lyons confessed that “the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle (tamquam ex uno principio)” (DS 850).

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

In the light of the Lateran Council, which preceded the second Council of Lyons, it is clear that it is not the divine essence that can be the “one principle” for the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets this formula in no.248 as follows:

“The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the ‘principle without principle,’ is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds” (Council of Lyons II, DS 850)."

The Catholic Church understands that the Eastern tradition expresses first that it is characteristic of the Father to be the first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who takes his origin from the Father” (“ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon” cf. Jn 15:26), it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.

The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). “This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church no.248).

Being aware of this, the Catholic Church has refused the addition of kai tou Uiou to the formula ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek. The liturgical use of this original text remains always legitimate in the Catholic Church.

If it is correctly situated, the Filioque of the Latin tradition must not lead to subordination of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognizes the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ekporeusis. [5]

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

It is on this very issue that the Metropolitan commented (warning: careful and slow reading important!):

a) Does the expression “principaliter” necessarily preclude making the Son a kind of secondary cause in the ontological emergence of the Spirit? The Filioque seems to suggest two sources of the Spirit’s personal existence, one of which (the Father) may be called the first and original cause (principaliter), while the other one (the Son) may be regarded as a secondary (not principaliter) cause, but still a “cause” albeit not “principaliter”.

b) In the light of this observation it would be important to evaluate the use of the idea of cause Greek word that didn’t copy properly: see the original ] in Trinitarian theology. It was not without reason that the Cappadocian Fathers introduced this term next to the words Greek word that didn’t copy properly: see the original ] and Greek word that didn’t copy properly: see the original ] (source and principle) which were common since St. Athanasius at least both in the West and in the East.

The term “cause”, when applied to the Father, indicates a free, willing and personal agent, whereas the language of “source” or “principle” can convey a more “natural” and thus impersonal imagery (the homoousios was interpreted in this impersonal way by several people in the fourth century). This point acquires crucial significance in the case of the Filioque issue.

In the Byzantine period the Orthodox side accused the Latin speaking Christians, who supported the Filioque, of introducing two Gods, precisely because they believed that the Filioque implied two causes–not simply two sources or principles–in the Holy Trinity. The Greek Patristic tradition, at least since the Cappadocian Fathers, identified the one God with the person of the Father, whereas, St. Augustine seems to identify Him with the one divine substance (the deitas or divinitas).

It is of course true that, as the Vatican document points out, the Fourth Lateran Council excludes any interpretation that would make divine substance the source or cause, of the Son’s generation and the, Spirit’s procession. And yet the Cappadocian idea of “cause” seems to be almost absent in the Latin theological tradition.

As Saint Maximus the Confessor insisted, however, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a “cause” other than the Father. The notion of “cause” seems to be of special significance and importance in the Greek Patristic argument concerning the Filioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a “cause” (aition) in the procession of the Spirit, this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque.

Obviously, there will need to be a great deal more theological dialogue, but I think your initial analysis regarding Florence is unecessarily grim. However, I am always open to your developing your thougths a bit more on this and explaining to me why I sholud be more of a pessimist in this regard.

. . . This is flatly contradicted by Pope Eugenius who proclaimed the following definition at the same Council . . .

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal [ecumenical] council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians . . .

What is your source for that quote? And even assuming it is an accurate translation of the original decree, I don’t understand why you feel it can’t fit into the program for dialogue that was drawn up in the “Clarification” and analyzed nicely by the Metropolitan. Can you explain your concerns and objections more precisely?

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

This is flatly contradicted by Pope Eugenius who proclaimed the following definition at the same Council:

**“the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle **and a single spiration.”

---

You left out the explanation of the statement.

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it**: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.** We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need."

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

whosebob:

What was the source from which you provided your quote?

**THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ** by Joseph Gill, S.J.

Something here…
praiseofglory.com/gillunion.htm

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Thank you.

I look forward to the continuation of this dialogoue, locally here in this thread, and hopefully at the highest levels too between theologians and Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr Ambrose:

I cannot reconcile these statements from Florence. Indeed I do not even understand them. For example, I have no idea what is the “productive power” of the Father and the Son from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.

JMJ + OBT​

Oh, Father, you need to be more creative in your thinking!

I’m justing giving you a hard time – actually, this is a truly difficult matter, and I won’t claim to “get it” at the level I hope to someday, but if you read the “Clarification” document carefully, a solution is outlined (read it slooooowly):

After reading it slowly I still have no idea what the “productive power” is!

As I say, the Clarification actually leads to confusion. It is

1. in contradiction to the definition of Florence
2. does not address the use of sloppy and undefined terminology such as “productive power.”

Really, it would be so much simpler if you returned to the faith of the undivided Church and to that of the Creed.

---

“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!” -Alexis Khomiakov

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:
You left out the explanation of the statement.

If you return to Message #23 and read it slooooowly and caaaaarefully, you will see that I give the whole context.

"

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JMJ + OBT​

I look forward to the continuation of this dialogoue, locally here in this thread, and hopefully at the highest levels too between theologians and Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders.

Yes, we all do.

One thing which the dialogue will bring into the limelight is the two different modes of authority in the two Churches. The Roman Catholic faithful are accustomed to learning about things via official statements from Rome - as in the recent case of the Catholic-Lutheran Accord on Justification. The Orthodox faithful have a more active role and participate in the maintenance and transmission of the Tradition.

This was one lesson which emerged rather sharply from the Council of Florence. The Pope assumed that the signatures of the Orthodox delegates sealed the matter and he immediately went ahead and issued the Bull “Laetentur Caeli” proclaiming the Union of the two Churches.

He failed to grasp that the faithful had had no participation and without the agreement of the fulness “the Pleroma” of the Church the document was at best only tentative.

We know what happened next. The delegates returned home and… the Christians rejected the agreed Statement. Most of the delegates retracted their signatures, pointing out that they had been cowed into signing by ill treatment (being kept on short rations and confined to their quarters.) Those who did not retract were forced by the faithful to flee back to Italy; one of them was even killed!

The Orthodox maxim is not: Vox magisterii, vox Dei but Vox populi, vox Dei. And the faithful wait to recognise whether or not Agreed Statements and the like reflect the the voice of the authentic Tradition and the voice of those whom they recognise as being the authentic bearers of the Tradition.

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

As I say, the Clarification actually leads to confusion. It is

1. in contradiction to the definition of Florence

JMJ + OBT​

Please be more exact so I can attempt a precise rebuttal, i.e. what statements or ideas in the “Clarification” are in contradiction with what statements within Pope Eugenius’ decree?

1. does not address the use of sloppy and undefined terminology such as “productive power.”

I will try to address this in one of my next posts.

Really, it would be so much simpler if you returned to the faith of the undivided Church and to that of the Creed.

I was baptized into the one, holy, and apostolic Catholic Church shortly after being born, and have never apostized from the Faith, so I “have those bases covered.”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

whosebob:

I was baptized into the one, holy, and apostolic Catholic Church shortly after being born,

Accoding to modern Roman Catholic theology, we all were.

The Greek Orthodox baby, the Baptist minister, the Anglican dean, the Lutheran acolyte - all were baptized into the one holy apostolic catholic Church. All are members of your Church

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Dear ones,

We have two threads now running on the filioque. Maybe the two who started them could hold a confabulation and maybe amalgamate them?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JMJ + OBT​

Please be more exact so I can attempt a precise rebuttal, i.e. what statements or ideas in the “Clarification” are in contradiction with what statements within Pope Eugenius’ decree?

It would be a great help for the non-Catholics here if you would define what “productive power” means. It is an important term in the Eugenian and Florentine definition but I haven’t a clue what it means.

Please see Message #23.

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

Accoding to modern Roman Catholic theology, we all were. . . .The Greek Orthodox baby, the Baptist minister . . .All are members of your Church

JMJ + OBT​

Well, yes and no . . . really, it is important to read Dominus Iesus to get the “big picture” as to what the Church believes regarding this matter. Here is a relevant selection from that document:

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

1. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church – like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity – will never be lacking.52

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity – rooted in the apostolic succession53 – between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection – divided, yet in some way one – of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

Does that help?

I know you may have been “simplifying” on purpose, but still, other readers might get confused. ]

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

One of the Orthodox responses is to ask how the recent Clarification clarifies the definition of the Roman Catholic Church taught at the Council of Florence. It does not clarify it but it overturns it.

If the Roman Catholic Church were to renounce the definition of Florence then the dialogue could proceed, but while this definition is ticking away like a timebomb there is concern by the Orthodox that Rome may again turn to it as an infallible statement.

The important discrepancy between the contemporary Clarification from Rome and the Council of Florence is that the Clarification denies that the Son is the principle of the Spirit’s origin but Florence teaches that he is (principaliter.) Since Florence is an Ecumenical Council of the Church of Rome and was ratified by the Pope it is infallible and trumps the Clarification hands down. Florence needs overturning either by another Council or by the Pontiff personally.

The above is why it is yet too early to make the claim that the filioque dispute has been reconciled. Rome has created a bit of a muddle for itself with the Clarification.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal [ecumenical] council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

Pope Eugenius at the Council of Florence.

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28

FrAmbrose, I have been over the Council of Florence with you and you just refuse to listen. The Council of Florence confirms the Catholic teaching.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

jimmy:

FrAmbrose, I have been over the Council of Florence with you and you just refuse to listen. The Council of Florence confirms the Catholic teaching.

I know it does.

It is the Clarification which muddies it.