www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West filioque and papal authority

Is this correct or not. Please, especially note this assertion: "Moreover, the East, both Catholic and Orthodox, understand that once a Council decides something not even a Pope can change it." Is this a defense of Eastern Catholicism or is this heresy?

Eastern Catholics do not recite the filioque. I don't know how to insert the Greek lettering, so forgive the clumsiness of the words I'm using. Since the West wishes to make the Greek pempho "to send or dispatch" mean the same thing as ekporeumetai "proceed from someone" then so be it. See John 15:26. But the Greek is much more specific than to mean that. Jesus dispatched or sent the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the very Being of the Father. That distinction may not mean as much to the Latin tradition as it does to the Greek but the distinction is still there and quite distinct. To the Council Fathers and to the Eastern Church both Catholic and Orthodox the proper understanding of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity are of the utmost importance. Both the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed eternally from the very Being of the Father. The Son dispatches the Holy Spirit "who proceeds from the Father" to aid us.

Moreover, the East, both Catholic and Orthodox, understand that once a Council decides something not even a Pope can change it. Only a Council can change a Council's action. Since both Nicea and Constantinople agreed that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" then that is the way it must remain until a new Council decides otherwise. The Council of Florence may well have decided to allow persons to understand single procession as meaning double procession it should not be understood that this "fuller" "different" understand is mandatory upon all of Christianity. In fact we have discussed this before. Pope John Paul II has agreed that the filioque because of its confusing implications need not be used when reciting the Creed. Hence Eastern Catholics, at least Byzantine Catholics, do not use it.

CDL

Many, even the vast majority perhaps, of Eastern Catholics may not currently include the filioque in the Symbol of Faith, but is it not true that historically most did eventually (even if they were not required to initially upon their union with the Catholic Church) and that among some Eastern Catholics (e.g. the Maronites) the filioque is just about in universal use? (Hows that for a complicated question? Sorry! )

I also understand that Eastern Catholics are bound to accept the filioque doctrinally, even if they do not say it in the Symbol of Faith. They are, after all, Catholics. The Catholic Church holds that there are twenty Ecumenical Councils and that the Pope is an infallible doctrinal guide in the Church. Is this not so?

Fr David Straut

Carson,

I would say neither. It seems to be a statement from someone who has read a good book or heard a good lecture on the subject and is trying to make sure he understands it.

This is actually a fairly recent development. In my parish, we only dropped the filioque from the Creed in 2001, while our neighboring Ruthenian parish kept it until about 2005!

Rome understands this too, except that they regard Florence as an ecumenical council.

I think the meaning here is "to understand double procession as meaning single procession ..." In other words, the Roman contention is that being consubstantial, the Father and the Son are able to act as a single principal in the procession of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know if it is necessarily due to "confusing implications," but he did affirm that the filioque can legitimately be excluded by Catholics, which was a major step towards our exercising our right not to include it. It is also possibly a first step towards the West excluding it as well. (Note: don't look for Rome to do this until it seems that reunion is really imminent!)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

What do you make of the distinction between "sent" and "proceed" in the Greek of John 15:26? Is the writer naive to this that this is why the filioque was left out of the Councils?

CDL

Bless Father David!

After all the pages and many postings on the Filioque on this Forum over the years, I've finally come to my own conclusion on the Filioque.

If a Roman Catholic should ask an Eastern Catholic if he or she accepts the RC teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit, the EC should always respond, "Just as St John of Damascus does in his De Fide Orthodoxa which is recognized as orthodox by us both."

That way we are free to be both "Orthodox" and "in communion with Rome" at the same time!

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

How is ekporeumetai pronounced?

Father Deacon Richard,

I'm not so sure the RCs would limit the power of a Pope in the way that you suggest.

Here's one response on a Catholic forum to: Moreover, the East, both Catholic and Orthodox, understand that once a Council decides something not even a Pope can change it.

"How can such a proposition be held by a Catholic, when the Church teaches that "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered"? (CCC 882)" And that is just the beginning. Others call the position that the Pope is limited by a council a "heresy."

CDL

Ek-poru-metie or something like that. You do better with these languages than I do.

Or this:

Pope´s possess the full authority of the councils and over the councils in their person alone when exercising their extraordinary power. The pope´s jurisdiction is universal over every Christian, Eastern or Western. While true that his ordinary power is more extensive over the Latin Church, with patriarchs enjoying jurisdiction that in the West is reserved to the pope, even the patriarchs are under him. He can, in fact, establish or abolish patriarchates, a power of the apostles held only by the bishop of Rome now. The idea that a pope is not over a council is heresy.

Second, the filioque is not about the missions. It is a dogma, binding on the East and West, that the Son proceeds from the Father. That is not the same as the teaching that the Son sends the Holy Spirit, which is the missions. That in Greek the word used for procession has a further determination so as to be used more restrictive is a valid reason not to add the filioque in the Greek, but not a valid excuse to compound to separate dogmas together

Try ek-por-e-vo-me-non (accent on vo), which the verb given in the definition of Constantinople I and still used in the Creed.

Fr. Serge

Father,

Am I correct that the Latin West translate both the verb for "sent" the same as the verb for "proceed from" but that is not what the Creed actually says?

Let me be frank. The original post is mine. It is not a quote from elsewhere and the RC forum I post on considers my post to be heretical. I need to know specially what our position is. Am I flirty with heresy? Am I accurately reflecting our Theological understanding? If they are correct and I am correct in what sense are we in communion with Rome?

CDL

Shlomo Abuna David,

You stated:



As a Maronite, I have to correct you. Many times in my posts I have stated that I do not use the filioque. Further, our Patriarch and Holy Synod have stated that our Church will use the ancient formula, but at the present time pastors can determine if the filioque will be used. When our new Liturgical Texts are published the filioque will not be there based on the decision of our Holy Synod.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I don't quite understand those who are adamant that the Creed cannot be clarified once Nicaea and Constantinople have concluded. The fact is, the Pope of Rome did not insert the word 'filioque' alone, but that it was inserted by the decision of more than one local Synod of the West - later accepted by the Patriarch of the West universally [for the West].
The general Synod convened by Patriarch Nikon of Russia also clarified the Creed, the version recited by the Old Believers is slightly varied.
As did Synods convened by the Armenian Church, when it clarified the Creed by including elements of the Athanasian Creed to the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

If the 'clarifications' are heresy, then most (if not all) the Apostolic Churches are in heresy or in Communion with heretical Churches.

Brother Carson,

Good point! I think a principle can be applied here that is used for interpreting Canon Law, namely that the law is to be interpreted as broadly as possible, except where absolutely necessary. Following this principle enables us to accept the foregoing statement from the CCC without necessarily coming to the conclusion that the Pope's authority is above that of an ecumenical council. (What does the CCC say about ecumenical councils, anyway?)

Another way to counter such a contention is to ask, "why then have councils at all?"

I think the problem here is that many good Catholics have adopted an "ultramontanist" view by which the Papal office is seen as the source of all orthodoxy. They also tend to view anything that isn't strict traditional Catholicism as equivalent to Modernism. This often puts them in a position of being "more Catholic than the Pope," since they naturally regard ecumenism suspiciously, despite the wholehearted endorsements of it made by JPII and even Benedict XVI.

I know that there was a heresy in the West called Conciliarism, in which people defied the Pope's authority on the grounds that a future council might prove him wrong. This led to a number of statements re-emphasizing the scope and magnitude of Papal authority, but I don't think the RCC has ever officially stated that the Pope's authority is greater than that of an ecumenical council.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Father bless!

Thank you.