www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque?

Is that declaration disponible on internet?

Is this what you're looking for?

http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
Saint Paul�s College, Washington, DC
October 25, 2003

Thank you, Wondering! But I was looking for this: http://www.geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/filioque.html

The document you linked to is not a "joint declaration" of the two Churches or the two Church leaders mentioned in the introduction; instead, it is an attempt by the Western Church to "clarify" its position on the filioque.

God bless,
Todd

To Apotheoun;

you are exactly correct that it is not a join declaration but as you said a somewhat murky clarification by the Western Church.
In the beginning of the article the Western Church even roudaboutly admits that the ' filioque' was something added into western theology by a Spanish king and later Charlemagne.
Toward the end of the article they assert that the creed of 325 AD is the correct one.
In the end the way I see it is ; the Western Churche's argument comes down to something like" well we have been doing this for so long and now it is part of our theology, then we will just keep it."

God bless you all.

And I think that this is just the problem. It is the same problem with Vatican I, with indulgences, and with other western innovations. They've been a part of the tradition so long, and the authority of the western Church is so dependent on them, that they can't renounce any of them without introducing chaos among the faithful. They have backed themselves into a corner. This is the biggest obstacle to our ecumenical relations in my opinion. The steps that Rome would need to take to reunite with the Orthodox would be the very steps that would would western Catholic Christians the leeway to dissent even more and introduce more chaos. Imagine what would happen if the Pope came out and said that Vatican I was a mistake and that the Pope is not infallible. All of the dissenting Catholics would throw a party. This is a real problem. I realize that Pope Benedict XVI is in a very stressful and difficult position. I pray for him regularly and I admire him much. I just don't know how the Roman Church will work through this, but if gets the western faithful in line and instills discipline into the Church, that will make things better.

Joe

It is not really advisable to simplify things to the point where all reality falls away and all that remains are the usual and habitual fairy tales and mystique. At that point, nothing can be said to be real, not even our religion....Mary

Fairy tales? Who is telling fairy tales? I read nothing of the sort in this thread.

Ryan

I just reread the document myself and I still think that the Latin theology is confusing and, perhaps, even contradictory. I noticed that at the end of the document, all of the biblical exegesis that was supposed to support the notion that the Spirit is the gift of love from the Father to the Son had to do with the Spirit resting in the Incarnate Word Jesus. This of course has to do with the Spirit proceeding through the Word in the economy of salvation and not the "immanent Trinity" as some theologians would use the term.

When I get the time, I am going to have to go back and read through the fathers cited in this document to see if the Pontifical Council's interpretation is really accurate.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I agree with you - but why is it that I get beaten up worse than you for saying the same things?

Alex

I think maybe the reason Eastern Catholics get beaten up on for this is because a lot of Romans percieve these weaknesses themselves and they feel like they're in a very fragile glass house at times;

On the filioque, oiur parish priest uses this quote to refute the Orthodox: "But when the COmforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father" (first part of John 15:26, KJV)

But of course you read on from that and get "...even the Spirit of Truth, which PROCEEDETH from the Father";

if that doesn't affirm the Orthodox distinction between procession and mission I don't know what does;

Ned

This can't be the solution because the western Church makes the same distinction, only in two separate statements and not one.

They affirm the reality that the Father is the pirme cause of the Holy Spirit...and they did that multiple times in council.

and

They affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son...and they've done that multiple times in council too.

So most of the time that I see this argument occur, I see Orthodox lining up their theology, and the west lines up hers, then the east denies half of the west's theology by saying that it simply can't be, because it all doesn't come out in one word from the Latin west and their Creed emphasizes...without denying the other part...one part over the other....and the fight is on.

Now you really don't want to insist on ONLY ONE version of the Creed. Not really. I have a whole history book on Creeds here and a whole bunch of liturgical books with different expressions of the Creed, so the idea that nothing can be added to the Nicene Creed is not applicable since the Nicene Creed says nothing about the Holy Spirit coming from anyone at all actually.

Whole thing seems silly to me.

Mary

Dear Mary,

I agree that the whole thing is silly.

That is why the entire West should just return to the original Creed and stop making trouble!

Alex

Ned,

You are correct.

The Eastern Churches differentiate between "sending" and "proceeding," because "sending" (based on the Greek word used in the text) does not concern the Spirit�s existential origin; instead, it concerns the giving of the Spirit as already existent. In other words, the term "sending" concerns the giving of something that already has subsistent being, and which is then "sent to," "carried to," or "thrust into" another, while the word "proceeds" (in the Greek) involves the "going forth from" or the "departure from" something that is its cause. Moreover, it is important to note that not only does scripture attest to the Son "sending" the Spirit, but the Spirit also "sends" the Son (cf. Luke 4:18), and so it is clear that "sending" does not concern the existential origin of the divine persons, or one would have to say that the Son receives His existential origin (i.e., His generation) from the Spirit, since He is "sent" by the Spirit, and that notion is clearly false.

Thus, in Byzantine Triadology, taking into account the distinction between "sending" (pempo and aposteilai) and "proceeding" (ekporeusis), it follows that the Spirit is said to "proceed" only from the Father, since the Father is the sole existential cause of the Spirit as person, while � in addition to the Spirit's procession of origin � He is "sent" by the Son into the world, but this "sending" of the Spirit concerns only His manifestation or shining forth as energy, and not His coming into existence as person.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - It is the Cappadocian Fathers who limit the use of the term ekporeusis to describing the Spirit's origination as person from the Father alone, and they do this based on the text of John 15:26.

Dear Apotheoun,

Could you explain further what is meant by "sending forth the Spirit as energy?"

Alex