www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Things the West can do right away

Dear Francis,

I agree with you completely - thank you for your insightful contribution!

Alex

Daniel,

"The Petrine ministry must have teeth and real authority to function as it should."

For the sake of argument, say the churches were reunited. Now there is a problem with a Russian seminary, problems along the lines of the "Pink Palace". A German (RC) Bishop sent by Rome goes to tell these seminarians to straighten up. Before the arrival of the German bishop, the Vatican asks if the seminary is being disciplined and informs the Patriarch of Moscow that he was sending someone to investigate.

Does the Pope have the authority to do this? I'm not asking if he should do it or if it is nice, I'm asking if you believe he has the authority to do it.

Dear Cizinec,

I should not have retaliated against Daniel by deliberately misspelling his name because he misspelled mine.

I apologise to Daniel and to the Forum for doing that and I hope that we can call each other by our real names from now on!

God bless, Man of God!

Alex

Dear CatholicMatthew,

Thank you for raising such an important point!

I myself grew up with the Filioque and it took me forever to get used to saying the Creed without it.

I know that removing it for RC's would be a very difficult thing and I'm not trying to belittle that in any way.

What I am most impressed with is how our RC friends here agree that the Filioque could be removed. That, in and of itself, shows a tremendous amount of good-will on the part of our RC posters and I am truly amazed and humbled by it!

There are several points on the Holy Spirit that both the RC and Orthodox Churches already agree on, right now and these are:

1) The Holy Spirit is sent into the world by both the Father and the Son. This is the so-called "Orthodox Filioque" in terms of the "Ekonomia."

2) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Fr. John Meyendorff said that both sides have always believed this and they could have agreed on this point at Florence.

3) The Holy Spirit's procession from the Father alone ALREADY distinguishes the Spirit from the Son Who is eternally Begotten of the Father. HOW the Son and the Spirit are distingushed by their manner of Proceeding from the Father is unknown and cannot be known. But both East and West affirm this.

As for the Filioque, there is a sense in which EVEN THE RC Church considers that it COULD be heretical. How?

Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds ACTIVELY from the Father but PASSIVELY from the Son. The Son, after all, has everything He does have from the Father Who is the Sole Origin of the Trinity.

In other words, there is a distinction to be drawn from HOW the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

But the Filioque, as such, does not make that distinction.

Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology FORBIDS anyone to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son AS He proceeds from the Father - which would be illogical, in any event.

So, as the RC Church understands the Filioque - it is certainly not heretical. BUT it could be open to an heretical interpretation as even RC theology affirms - and condemns.

From the Eastern vantage point, "From the Father through the Son" is more scripturally dynamic and traditional - as well as crystal clear on the procession, both eternally and temporally.

This would have to be discussed, of course, but as Meyendorff said on the Council of Florence, East and West could have agreed that a) the Roman Church unilaterally remove the Filioque from the Creed and b) both sides subscribe to "From the Father through the Son."

In another article on St Mark of Ephesus, but I don't remember the source, Meyendorff said that Mark Eugenikos went to the Council of Florence as a UNIONIST i.e. desiring union with Rome.

He DID believe that the Filioque was a heresy as all the Greeks did.

BUT he believed that "God would heal the heresy if but Rome agreed to remove the Filioque from the creed."

And, for Mark, this was the minimum requirement necessary in order for a full union of the Churches to be effected.

Rome refused, as we know, and the rest is history.

God bless,

Alex

Sorry Daniel.

Mine was an unintentional fat finger. Feel free to call me Yor. I have corrected the post.

Alex, you are a learned and holy man.

However, your explanation of the Filioque is completely at odds with Roman Catholic theology.

It is NOT the case that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "actively" and from the Son "passively." That is NOT the RC understanding of the Filioque.

In the Summa, St. Thomas explains the RC position quite well. As St. Thomas shows, the Holy Spirit takes its eternal origin "from the Father and the Son, as from a single source and a single spiration." The Father and the Son both spirate the Holy Spirit. The "passive spiration" is the Holy Spirit Himself.

This does NOT contradict the Council of Constantiniople's creed, in which I confess the Holy Spirit "proceeding from the Father." The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father, but in virtue of the Father's generation of the Son, the Father gives EVERYTHING that is His to the Son, his Word. Indeed, if the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Son.

This and much more is to be found in Summa Theologiae, I.38. As a matter of fact, all the doctrinal objections to the Filioque that are posted on this forum are set out and refuted in the Summa.

LatinTrad

I meant I.36 of course!

So, LT, are you saying the Pope erred in allowing BC churches to follow the text of the councils and not Acquinas?

If your assertion is correct, I think the pope needs to send some latins to correct the EC priests and bishops who quite publicly teach otherwise.

I'm hoping that LatinTrad is only using the term "source" in a loose sense here, and not as the "fountainhead". If indeed he means that the Son "proceeds" the Spirit (and not just the Spirit proceeds "through" the Son), then this would not be an acceptable position to the Orthodox at all. The Father is the unique source of the Son and the Spirit.

Quoting Fr. Thomas Hopko...

Priest Thomas

Christ is risen!

Alex, I'm always impressed about your knowledge!! Thank you very much for everything you have taught me with your posts. Now, hoping not to say any real nonsense, I've been thinking that one of the first things that has to be done by the Roman Catholic Church is to make the Latin people to distinguish the role of the Pope as Patriarch of the Latins and Pastor of the Universal Church. A BIG issue among Latins is the way we equiparate the Latin Church with the Universal Church; this is very clear when you hear some Latin Traditionalists (No ofense Latintrad) say that the Tridentine Mass is the sole true liturgy for the Universal Church.

I know everyone has experienced that feeling when a Latin friend attends a Divine Liturgy and immediately says "you are not Catholic! this is not the Mass" and trying to explain the fact Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope is a big problem.

I truly believe that one of the first steps for reunion is to make the people conscious aobut the treasure of diversity within the Church.

Dios los bendiga.

Bernardo

Bernardo,

I believe you've hit upon a key observation - the true role of the Pontiff in relationship to all Catholics. I've always understood the Holy Father to possess a three-tiered level of authority:

1. He is the Bishop of Rome;
2. He is the Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church;
3. He is the Pastor of the Universal Catholic Church.

This, in fact, is the significance of the three-tiered tiara that a new pontiff is coronated with (at least that's what I've been told).

His official actions in the role of Pastor of the Universal Catholic Church (those actions that impact all Catholics) are fairly miniscule when compared to his responsibilities as Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, I've heard that his Pastoral duties toward all Catholics account for no more than 5% of his total authoritative responsibilities - yet this is the only one of his three roles to which the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility applies.

Please don't misinterpret - I'm not at all attempting to minimize the importance of that 5%. On the contrary, it is of vital importance to the Church Universal. But the brunt of his resopnsibilities fall within the governance of the Roman Catholic Church only, and are not within the realm of those areas in which infallibility applies.

Please, my learned brothers and sisters... is this correct? If not, please set me straight.

a pilgrim

Dear Bernardo,

A very important and insightful point!!

The Pope has, as we know, nine titles among which differentiate a number of "levels" of his jurisdictions.

So he is Bishop of Rome and as such he legislated that in the Diocese of Rome people are NEVER to receive Holy Communion in the hand.

He is Metropolitan of the Roman Province and Primate of Italy as well.

In fact, most Roman Catholics themselves are under the Pope's jurisdiction ONLY as Patriarch of the West and Supreme Pontiff and not as Bishop of Rome etc.

And EC's are ONLY under his jurisdiction as Supreme Pontiff.

So the distinction you raise is VERY crucial indeed!

Alex

Dear Latin Trad,

Thank you for your superlatives, but I am neither - at best, I try and at worst I'm sinful.

I somehow manage to offend people here on a regular basis.

And I'm positively adept at offending the Administrator who has ONLY shown me kindness, graciousness, generosity and constant forgiveness and understanding throughout my entire sojourn here.

And yet I still manage to offend him and to be a perfect (you know what).

Your quote from Aquinas does NOT contradict in the least the passive spiration of the Spirit from the Son.

It cannot be otherwise, Big Guy, since the Father is the Fount, as Fr. Thomas wrote, of the Trinity and its "Monarch."

And Dominus Iesus recently reiterated that.

You might want to visit your local seminary library, if you haven't already, but you might want to go and look up some of the very nicely done study booklets that they produce for seminarians on various subjects.

These booklets, I find, "cut to the chase" and explain a great deal in very clear and concise language.

You'll find the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the Active Spiration of the Father and the Passive Spiration of the Son there and it will explain to you better than I how Aquinas himself asserted this.

For example, Aquinas himself affirmed the perfect orthodoxy of the Eastern view "From the Father through the Son" and if you just turn to that section where he does this, I think you will see what we're talking about.

He says, if you can't find it, that "The Father breathes the Spirit through the Son" to indicate the "Active" activity of the Father and the "passive" activity of the Son etc.

The notion of Procession from the Father and the Son as from one Principle was meant, by Aquinas, to convey the idea that there are NOT two Founts of Origin in the Trinity, as Fr. Thomas wrote as well.

In fact, there were Orthodox, as Fr. John Meyendorff wrote, who were actually taken by Aquinas' explanation of the Trinity and found that it was, in most respects, acceptable to their own.

A number of Orthodox even privately venerated Aquinas as "Blessed Thomas."

In short, you err, Big Guy! NOthing personal!

Alex

Excellent points, Pilgrim!

Alex

I was hoping not to have to do this.

What I have posted below is taken from the online edition of the Summa at New Advent. [newadvent.org]


Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son?


Objection 1. It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say anything concerning the substantial Divinity except what has been divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles." But in the Sacred Scripture we are not told that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears from Jn. 15:26: "The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 2. Further, In the creed of the council of Constantinople (Can. vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified." Therefore it should not be added in our Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and those who added such a thing appear to be worthy of anathema.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 4. Further, Nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But the Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St. Andrew: "Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 5. Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our breath [spiritus] does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our word. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 6. Further, the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the Son.

Objection 7. Further "the actual and the possible do not differ in things perpetual" (Phys. iii, text 32), and much less so in God. But it is possible for the Holy Ghost to be distinguished from the Son, even if He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says (De Process. Spir. Sancti, ii): "The Son and the Holy Ghost have their Being from the Father; but each in a different way; one by Birth, the other by Procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another." And further on he says: "For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Ghost distinct, this alone would suffice." Therefore the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, without proceeding from Him.

On the contrary, Athanasius says: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

I answer that, It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above (28, 3; 30, 2). For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (28, 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a "principle," and of what is "from the principle." Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.

Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (27, 2,4; 28, 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible.

Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

Reply to Objection 1. We ought not to say about God anything which is not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of Scripture, especially where the Son says, speaking of the Holy Ghost, "He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine" (Jn. 16:14). It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations, whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other. For when the Lord says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded; because as regards being the principle of the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son are not opposed to each other, but only as regards the fact that one is the Father, and the other is the Son.

Reply to Objection 2. In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another council [Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

Reply to Objection 3. The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.

Reply to Objection 4. When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (Jn. 1:33).

Reply to Objection 5. The Word in God is not taken after the similitude of the vocal word, whence the breath [spiritus] does not proceed; for it would then be only metaphorical; but after the similitude of the mental word, whence proceeds love.

Reply to Objection 6. For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father.

Reply to Objection 7. The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other, as explained above, and in 27.