www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papacy and the Eastern-rite

Even assuming that this argument is true, namely that the Popes have usually been ignored in most cases (and I don't think such an argument can be stoutly supported anyway) it doesn't prove anything against Papal claims. Just as the vast number of sinners doesn't disprove the law, the number of dissenters doesn't disprove the Papacy. There are numberous cases that show unity and obedience to Papal decrees, and countless Fathers who spoke of the unique authority of Rome in upholding the Petrine Ministry and the unity of the Church. It doesn't wash to simply say "but many people didn't go along with it". Rather than show disobedience or dissension, you must show early arguments and statements that are as widespread against these constant assertions from Rome as there are statements supporting them. Show us when Rome's own allies rebuked the Pope for his actions, not just those who were directly being corrected.

If the Papal claims were so exaggerated and even heretical, there should have been a strong response on the part of a significant portion of the rest of the Church, but instead we seem to see complaints by those who are being directly affected in any given case, which is to be expected when someone is reproved.

Peace and God bless!

Theophilus,

Whatever may be said or intended in any Catholic work, I believe it's what the councils themselves proclaimed that is authoritative, infallible, immutable Catholic truth:

"We, in our desire to close the way to errors of this kind, with the approval of the Sacred Council, condemn and reject those who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son..."

-- Ecumenical Council of Lyon II


"We define that this truth of Faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration ...We define in addition that the explanation of the words 'Filioque' for the sake of declaring the truth and also because of imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed."

--Ecumenical Council of Florence

The teaching here seems to be that there is no double procession, as it says that there is one principle and one spiration. It also is rejecting Photian theological claims that the Son plays no role in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.

Regards,
Robster

Ghosty,

Any possible way that you can translate "double procession" into Greek carries the clear meaning of two sources and two origins. It may be just a misunderstanding, but "procession" = "source" and the use of AND instead of THROUGH just adds to the problem -- let alone the issue of "adding to the creed".

Yes, Brest refuses to use the Latin terminology because it is heretical. It should be then obvious that Byzantine Catholics can keep their own theology and even deny the Latin "dogmas" because there is a deeper understanding and agreement.

Perhaps you can provide the name, date and location of an ecumenical council which authoritatively and explicitly declared it as such.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

See the above denials that Rome teaches "two sources" of the Holy Spirit. Everyone agrees that two sources is a heretical statement. Rome, for whatever reason, still insisted on using terminology that means "two sources" which both Orthodox and Eastern Catholics rightly reject. Rome attempts to solve the issue by introducing a single spiration: two sources that are somehow really just one source.

In my opinion it is really a distinction without a difference. Even if one says "single spiration" it is still a fact in Latin theology and in the teaching of Lyons II that the Holy Spirit received His substance from both the Father and the Son. Whether the Father and the Son be considered as two sources or one is immaterial. And, it seems to me that this is where there cannot be agreement between the Orthodox churches and the West. That the Father spirates the Spirit through the Son is something that is acceptable. But that the Spirit's hypostatic reality has its origin in the Son (even if secondarily) is heretical.

Joe

JSMelikteOrthodoy,

Unity is still possible. Orthodox do not need to accept "one spiration". Rome now clearly says that it does not mean anything contrary to the meaning of the original Greek Creed (where "procession" = "source"). Rome is no longer attempting to theologically justify a linguistic mistake. The recommendation of the joint Catholic/Orthodox dialogue is for Roman Catholics to simply drop the filioque in the Creed just in case it might imply something heretical.

Brest allows Eastern Catholics to deny the "double procession" without accepting "one spiration"

Theophilus,

This is good news.

Joe

Theophilus: It is not at all true that any way to translate "procession from the Father and the Son" into Greek ends up with two sources. Only the Greek work "ekporousis" means procession from a source, and though the early documents incorrectly translated into Greek using that word it was not the intention of the Latins to express that meaning, as can be seen by the fact that those very same works deny such a meaning in the same breath.

The more proper translation of "proceeds" is actually "proinai" in Greek, and that term does not imply source. It is that meaning that the Latins have been asserting since the beginning. The fact that it's been often translated as "ekporousis" is simply a difficulty in language, something St. Maximos the Confessor expressed in the earliest known "clash" over the filioque, and the Union of Brest implies such a difficulty (as well as sheer stubborness on both sides) in its decrees.


It was a consultation between theologians, not at all authoritative. What's more, though it recommended dropping the TERM, it did not recommend dropping the theology. It would be impossible for the Catholic Church to deny the theology of it, though it may express it in more correct terms.

Ghosty,

You are correct, but if the Fathers of Nicea said "ekporousis" and not "proinai", then it is heretical to say "and the Son" because it will always mean two sources within the Creed. If the Latins mean "proinai" then all is fine, just simply stop putting it into a Creed that was written to express "ekporousis". The Greek is the standard. A Latin translation should not be used to correct the original.

The word ekporeusis concerns a "procession of origin," i.e., an existential or hypostatic procession from a source.

While the terms proienai, proodos, pephenos, etc., concern a "progression," "emanation," or "manifestation" of something already existent.

Thus, the Father alone is the source, origin, and cause, of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because the Spirit receives His existence only from Him, but the Spirit -- as already existent -- is made manifest through the Son, and this progression expresses the consubstantial communion of the three divine persons (hypostaseis).


For more information on this topic consult the following sources:

A. Edward Siecienski. The Use of Maximus the Confessor's Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438�1439). Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.

Aristeides Papadakis. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283�1289). New York: Fordham University Press, 1983.

Aristeides Papadakis. The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994, pp. 232-238 and 379-408.

Richard Haugh. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975.

David Bradshaw. Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 214�220.

The Greek is the standard, but the Latins have their own liturgical Creed. When these additions were made the significance was not understood because of the differences in language (Latin lacks any word that means "ekporousis", or procession from a source). Given the Latin meaning and understanding, however, the addition is not at all heretical. It has already been clearly defined in Council that there is one Source in the Trinity, and that is the Father, and the Latins have never understood nor intended the filioque to infringe on that, but rather have upheld the intention of the Greek even while using their own language and theology; fighting over words is unbecoming of Christians and we should avoid it.

Apotheoun: Perhaps it would be better to cite specific paragraphs, if not by quoting then at least by references. If you're seeking to prove on a discussion forum (or in any setting, really) that the terms mean what you're saying, it behooves you to give citations that are more helpful to the readers.

Peace and God bless!

It appears that at least on the question of purgatory, the doctrinal authority recognized at Brest was Rome, not the Eastern tradition.

What we see here is not a provision for Eastern theological hegemony but a mix of authoritative sources. As I understand it, the question of filioque is not theological, but liturgical. Thus, looking at the question of purgatory, it seems that the doctrinal authority is Rome with the liturgical traditions of the East observed.

God Bless,
Joey

It seems a bit disingenuous to insist on complete Eastern theological independence from the West while simultaneously claiming some right to approve and disapprove Western translations and liturgical texts.

God Bless,
Arthur

With two of the sources that I cited I gave page numbers, and those pages deal specifically with the topic in question; while in the case of the other three references I did not give specific page numbers because the entire book deals with the topic under discussion (i.e., the meaning of the Greek terms used in the creed and the distinction between "hypostatic procession" and "eternal manifestation").

I know that it is hard to hear, but sometimes in order to understand a subject one must read an entire book (or many books).