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

Good to know.


No need for such comments. I agree that sometimes entire books must be read. I also know, however, that in such discussions it's inappropriate to expect others to have the time to read them in order to appreciate your argument, and while recommendations are helpful and appreciated they don't make for a convincing discussion. If a lecturer simply said to just read their reading list, for example, it would hardly be worth it to listen to them at all.

In this particular matter I've never seen anyone present any solid examples or evidence of "ekporousis" being the only term that can apply to hypostatic realities of procession. I've read some suggested works on this topic in the past (Papadakis included, though I don't recall if it was from that work, though what I read was particularily weak in this regard), and I've always found that they don't provide any evidence either but merely make similar assertions. I'm curious to know which works specifically point to this fact about "ekporousis", and to see at least some examples. Since you posted page numbers for a couple of the works I'm hoping that they provide such examples, rather than just make the same assertions over and over.

Thanks for those recommended readings

Peace and God bless!

Since you have read some of the texts that I recommended in my post, perhaps we should have a discussion that specifically addresses the points brought up in one of those sources in connection with this specific issue.

Which text do you want to begin discussing?

I would think the question should be what is the dogmatic truth of the matter, and that language should not have to be a salient issue.

By that I mean, the Catholic Church has defined and affirmed the matter at the Ecumenical Council of Florence (and Lyon II). Are we going to affirm what the Catholic Church teaches?

If so, then I trust that Greek is a full-fledged language like most any other, and there will be an accurate way to compose the dogmatic truth of the filioque in Greek, making proper and discerning use of words like ekporousis and proinai, even if we have to wind up using dozens of Greek words in order to get it right.

Best to all,
Robster

So robster,

In other words by your reasoning the Union of Brest is not worth the paper it is written on? Interesting!

Secret Squirrel (is there a story behind this name?)

I don't think I would go that far, though I'll acknowledge that I would not categorically rule out your categorization of the matter.

What I can say with some certainty regarding my present viewpoint is that 1) Brest is ambiguous to some degree, 2)the Vatican bears a measure of culpability for the present situation, 3) Omission and ambiguity cannot be construed as changes to church teaching, 4) All that is in Brest (and SVC's Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches) is compatible, reconcilable, and non-contradictory with all of Catholicism's infallible dogmas from all 20+ ecumenical councils, 5) Agreements, compacts, and treaties are subordinate to authoritative, infallible, immutable Holy Tradition and the Deposit of Faith, 6) developing one's own particular theology can be no more than a particular focus and emphasis on certain elements of a common, universal faith, not an alternate, parallel faith, and 7) that all Catholics, including all Eastern Catholics of all stripes, are required to give a basic assent of faith to all that the Catholic Church definitively and infallibly teaches, as witnessed by the Code of Canons for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Best to all,
Robster

robster,

If you could back that up by any part of the Union agreement, I would say you are right. If not, your implication is that the Vatican's word is not worth the ink it applied to the treaty. I do not believe that any statement by the Vatican can back that up. Your claims in essence back up why the Orthodox have been reluctant to enter into any such agreements.

Robster,

I would assume that you would include in the phrase "all that the Catholic Church definitively and infallibly teaches" all that is contained and explicitly affirmed or implied in the liturgies of the Eastern Churches. Correct?

In ICXC,

Gordo

Secret Squirrel: I can say that the Vatican has not done the best, or most responsible, job in this area. But I don't think I said anything in my last post that directly contradicts anything said in Brest.

Gordo: I would include in my statement all that the Church Universal has always held in all times and places. While I haven't given the subject any real thought, off the top of my head, no, I would not necessarily be affirming that everything found in every Eastern liturgy, especially every non-Catholic Eastern liturgy, is necessarily an immutable, infallible part of the faith.

Regards,
Robster

Yes, but it does not support it either. Either the agreement is valid or it is a sham.

Robster,

By that approach, you will have to in fact exclude filioque, since it was not held to everywhere and in all places and at one point was explicitly rejected (at least the idea of inserting it unilaterally) by the papacy despite Western imperial pressures.

I'm not asserting that the filioque is heretical, BTW. It is just that I think you are not giving the East its magisterial due.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I AGREE!!!!

Gordo and Secret Squirrel:

I think you may have misunderstood the full scope of what I was saying.

While I did reference what was held to everywhere in all places as one criteria of immutable infallibility, I was not saying that it was the only criteria. I do also hold a dogmatic definition in an ecumenical council to be such a criteria. On that basis, as opposed to the first one, the filioque is included by virtue of Lyon II and Florence.

I was, tenatively off the top of my head, excluding liturgy in and of itself as a basis for such.

I should also point out that I do not have a problem allowing that perhaps certain aspects of Eastern thought that should be at this threshold have negligently not been placed there to date. I'm simply saying that any new immutable dogmatic developments that the Magisterium judges as sound from the various Eastern perspectives would, I think, have to be fully consistent with and non-contradictory with what has already been established as immutable and infallible.

Regards,
Robster

One other brief point or postscript:

I have been talking with a few Maronite Catholics recently regarding these matters. The ones I've corresponded with don't seem to have any differences with me on these issues.

While one can talk about what a Byzantine Catholicism purportedly should or should not consist of, I might suggest that sweeping statements that seem to equate the Catholic East with Byzantine Catholicism may be based on a faulty premise as to the full flavor and scope of the Eastern Catholicisms.

Best,
Robster

The liturgy is theology par excellence, i.e., it is living theology, the very experience of God Himself; and so, it cannot be excluded.

To me, this is the fundamental difference between western theology and eastern theology. In the west, the liturgy is a source of theology, in the east, it is the theology. This is also why, in the west, the liturgy can be changed at will because there is nothing intrinsically divine and untouchable (except maybe the words of institution, but even there, the Western Church has allowed them to be altered to say "for all" instead of "for many,").

Joe