www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Lecture on the Filioque by an Orthodox patristic scholar

There will be a lecture on the "Filioque" by Dr. Peter Gilbert at The Lyceum in Little Italy in Cleveland on December 4th at 7:00 p.m. Dr. Gilbert is an Orthodox Christian and patristic scholar.

Please join us!

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/

http://www.thelyceum.org/

Should be interesting. Gilbert takes the view of the pro-Latin filioque which was taught by the unionist Patriarch of Constantinople John Bekkos. I read somewhere that he plans to publish a book on this Patriarch and his filioque views; the book will bring him to the attention of Orthodox scholars.

I'd be interested to hear what you make of his lecture.

How interesting, then, that an Orthodox theologian should adopt the Florentine position just as the Latin Church acknowledges the validity of the classic Orthodox position.

Does anybody know what his qualifications are as an Orthodox theologian? What academies was he trained in and who were his mentors? I vaguely recall that he volunteered to teach at an Albanian seminary in recent years.

One suspects that his upcoming book on Bekkos will act as his introduction to the world of Orthodox theologians and allow a critique of his theology by his peers.

I see that Gilbert has something to say about our discussion on global primacy...

"There are, indeed, specific problems in the relation of Catholic and Orthodox Churches that the present Ecumenical Patriarch’s very public role has made vividly evident to many Orthodox.

"The Ecumenical Patriarch’s role as senior hierarch of the Orthodox communion is far more fragile than his public image sometimes suggests. In Rome he may look like the Eastern counterpart of the Pope, and the vigour with which he has exercised and even developed his role in the Orthodox Church may give plausibility to that image, but the fact remains that he is not the linear superior of the chief hierarchs of other autocephalous Churches, but only the first among equals among them, and that is something very different. Orthodox tradition, moreover, has never recognised any hierarchical role above that of the local bishop as of divine authority. Any higher layer of authority and responsibility derives from Synodical or sometimes even state decision.

"There is nothing inevitable or immutable in the Primacy of Constantinople. Nor can the Ecumenical Patriarch assert his authority to guarantee the Orthodox Church’s acceptance of the policy he espouses. The same arguments that establish the ecclesiastical and human origin of the patriarchates are deployed by Orthodox to reject Catholic claims of divine institution for the Roman Papacy, and of course to reject any claims to Papal supremacy. (Not, of course, to the Primacy of Rome, that is a quite different and relatively uncontroversial matter.)

I don't know too many Catholic theologians who make claims of divine institution for the papacy.

Pastor Aeternus:

"If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. — let him be anathema"

From the CCC:

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls".

As I said, look not to what the Catholic Church says, but what it does. It is 2009, not 1871, and I think not even Pope Benedict takes CCC 937 at face value. Certainly, many of his bishops don't.

An interesting article by Peter Gilbert in Communio: [communio-icr.com]

Not as an Anthologist: John Bekkos as a Reader of the Fathers [communio-icr.com]

Gives an idea of his upcoming lecture. Wish I lived near Cleveland.

That would make Pope Benedict a heretic, Stuart. Do you have any documentation to support the idea that Pope Benedict rejects this doctrine?

I feel like I really must say that accusing the Pope of rejecting Catholic belief is scandalous when there is nothing concrete to back up the assertion.

Alexis

He doesn't have to say it, he just doesn't have to believe or act on it. You people want everything cut and dried. It isn't going to be, precisely because you all want it cut and dried. The real world, even the real Church world, does not and has never acted in that way.

I thought that Logos-Alexis had a valid point. I too cannot see how you can have a Catholicism expounded in papal documents and the Catechism and then a "real" Catholicism which may be out of step with them.

The Catholic Church has always operated thus. I am quite amazed that someone who represents a Church that boasts of how it eschews legalism can suddenly get so legalistic when it comes to the way another Church operates.

I really do not see that we can describe as "legalism" either your Church or mine adhering to doctrinal statements which have been carefully formulated and intended to present the correct belief of our Churches.

Of course, if you really believed that, Father, you would have concurred with me on the matter of non-sacramental re-marriage. I would think that the doctrine of marriage is fairly well defined in the Christian East, but apparently you choose to ignore that when it confounds your pastoral sensibilities. Why should the Latin Church be different? It has long been known that there are really three different types of "Catholic theology": 1) that which is formally espoused in various doctrinal proclamations and catechetical manuals; 2) that which is understood and discussed among Catholic theologians, which may diverge in significant ways from (1); and that which is actually believed by the ordinary pew-dusters, which bears little resemblance to either (1) or (2). All three of these coexist in relative peace, because the Catholic Church long ago learned to compartmentalize its consciousness.

The Orthodox Church is not really all that different. There are the various collections of canons, of which some are ignored, others heavily modified, and some applied with more or less rigorous literalism. Then there is the Orthodoxy of the theologians, which places these canons in their proper context, and thus conflicts to some degree with what "official" Orthodoxy does. And finally, there is the Orthodoxy of the people, sometimes described as Baba or Yaya theology--a combination of folk lore, misunderstanding and outright error. And again, all three of these exist side-by-side, because the various circles do not intersect that much. Bishops and priests are concerned with the day-to-day operations of their dioceses and parishes; theologians are concerned with rooting out the true patristic Tradition; and the people are concerned mostly with getting through their daily lives as best they can.