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

But the filioque is an addition, not a taking away.

To speak of a "double procession" is both theologically inaccurate and unfortunate. If we accepted a "double procession," we would be in heresy. The Treaty of Brest, which is found in the document section of this site, states:



The most western of western theologians, Thomas Aquinas, would have no difficulty with this treaty. He writes in the Prima Pars:



Quoting the authority of St. Augustine, he also writes:

But something has been removed from the Creed of the RDL!

Really? What?

Man oh man open your eyes and see!

I first went very irregularly to a UGCC liturgy that was half in Ukrainian. Then my regular worship was in the BCA that was apparently using the RDL, it was in a different city and was a year ago. Now I have been stuck with a Novus Ordo parish that is meh at best.

So please inform me.

* yes it is a real word, it was just included in the dictionary.

But do they have the right to add to a Creed without a Council? That is what is contended on the Defenders' Board. Does the authority of the Pope based upon Papal Infallibility give him such authority or is this just an extrapolation by some ultramontanists? Is this as big an impediment to any future reunion as I think it is? Why is this not an impediment to our continued union?

CDL

Sounds like the Pope of Rome could indeed make more additions to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Not that the Holy Father would do this, but the power of universal jurisdiction enables such an action...


The Dogmatic Constitution from Vatican I
"Pastor Aeternus"

Session 4 : 18 July 1870

Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

Source: http://www.fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

Question: When this document refers to the Church, is it just the Church of Rome? Or is this document referring to the Churches of Holy Orthodoxy too?

Yet, if it is true that an Ecumanical Council has promulgated this can it be that this pronouncement gives a Pope the power to override the decision of a Council once that decision has been supported by a Pope? This is the question for which I cannot find an answer.

CDL

I cannot see how the first millenium Church would ever countenance that the Pope of Rome could ever over turn or trump a dogmatic definition of an Ecumenical Council.

I can't imagine that either. I don't know why one would bother having a Council if it were. Very troubling.

CDL

Has a Pope has ever definitively declared that he could turn or trump a dogmatic definition? Could a Pope contradict the truth? To think that a Pope could contradict the truth is to misunderstand papal authority.

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) put it this way in 1991:



The entire talk can be found in the link below, and is well worth the read.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

AMM,

Thanks for that link. I had read this document a few years ago, but at the time I didn't realize the momentous nature of this recommendation: it is actually nothing less than a call for the RCC to decree that the Second Council of Lyons (1274) is non-ecumenical.

For Catholics who regard this council as ecumenical, and its decrees therefore dogmatic and unreformable, this could be a major problem.


With regard to the addition of the filioque, this could be explained as a "clarification" of the dogma of 381; with regard to declaring 1274 to be non-dogmatic, it would be hard to beat the rap of contradicting established dogma.

Peace,
Deacon Richard

I've been under such an attack on the Defender's Board by some of the members there that I've decided just to back off and not share our perspective on ecumenical councils, the authority of popes, and Filioque. Thanks for the help. We will keep trying until we can no longer carry on. But this avenue is for now closed.

CDL

A wise decision.