www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What west and east really believe

Moreover, nowdays, the greeks like a lot the idea the ecummenicity of a council is established when its decisions are aproved by the whole church and not simply by the signing dignitariries in the council. Example, they say, the council of Ferrara Florence.
If it is so, then, the decrees of Chalcedon not to change the symbol of faith, remain beaurocratic and non ecummenical, as long as in far western europe the doctrine mono ek patros was invalid, moreover that Constantinople I was recognised as ecummenical only in Chalcedon, nearly a century later. Now we can imagine how much later it would reach the far corners of west.

The Catholic Church also has come around to the conclusion that reception is what makes a council ecumenical. See the Ravenna Statement, Para.35-39.

I am honestly puzzled as to what Stuart feels I have rejected of the "Supreme Magisterium" of the Church in the post of mine to which he is responding. If he is referring to changes made to the creed at Toledo, yes, I view the Orthodox condemnation of this as extreme literalism, and a misapplication of what the Council meant. As I pointed out, "Deum de Deo" is an addition also, but this is rarely or never mentioned. While it is true the "Filioque" was an addition to the words of the creed, I feel it is a real stretch to call the thought behind it heretical. While I do not have sources on my fingertips, I know there are contemporary Orthodox theologian who would concur, and it is my impression that this is the view expressed by most at officially sanctioned national and international dialogues between Catholic and Orthodox. I do not know that the Toledo creed was rejected by Rome as you state. The use of this altered creed was simply not used liturgically by the Roman church until long after it had been in use by the Franks. That is quite different than rejecting or condemning it. If its use is discontinued in the Latin rite, it will not be because the west has repudiated the thought behind it, but because the west has come to a unity with the east that it cherishes more than the words used to express belief. Having been the original wording of the creed proclaimed at Constantinople I, it rightfully belongs to the west also.

No, I mean you do not accept the clarification published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit [ewtn.com] , which does indeed state:


The inclusion itself was divisive, even within the Western Church, and prone to misinterpretation, to the point of saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "as from a single source", and denouncing as heretical all those who disagreed. We'll leave aside the double-standard of condemning those who do not accept an innovation as being heretical, while objecting to the objections of those standing for the Tradition of the undivided Church. The truth is, if you read through the clarification, on every substantive aspect of the Filioque issue, the Latin Church has backed away from its earlier extreme position and now says that "and" is basically synonymous with "through" (dia), an expression used by the Greek Fathers, but previously rejected by the Latin Church.

Given the inherent confusion and irritation the Filioque causes, it should be removed from the Latin Creed and all vernacular translations, bringing the liturgical use of the Latin Church into line with the statement from the preface of the Clarification given above.

The history of the Filioque issue is summarized nicely in the 2003 Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation, The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? [usccb.org]

Among other things, it notes:


It also points out that the spread of the Filioque was due more to political than to theological considerations:


Pope Paul VI recognized that subsequent reunion councils failed because they were attempts to dictate terms to the Eastern Church and simply assumed that the Latin theology and ecclesiology were correct--and normative for all:


So, Pope Paul, as far back as 1974, indicated that the issues supposedly closed by Lyons II (and by extension, Ferrara-Florence) were still open to discussion; i.e. were not actually dogmatic expressions of the Catholic faith.

When looking at the theological reflections of the Agreed Statement, we see a very different tone than that taken at Florence:



The Agreed Statement and the Clarification are thus in agreement of the essential of the issue. It also makes some substantive observations:


and


The Agreed Statement went beyond the Clarification in offering up some recommendations:

Since Pope Paul VI is one of my heroes, I take to heart this final recommendation of the Commission, but I still fail to see how what I have written in my post fails to acknowledge what the Pontifical Commission wrote. In fact, my whole point affirms what they wrote, namely:


The Toledo creed in use in the Latin liturgical tradition does NOT contradict, if properly understood, the expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church. I acknowledge that my proper understanding may be deficient, but, on the other hand, words and concepts concerning the Trinity are at best analogous and always, by their nature, deficient. But thanks for the long lesson.

But the history of the Latin Church's interpretation indicates that, in many instances, it was not properly understood:


Because the problem for which Toledo inserted the Filioque (neo-Arianism) is no longer a threat to the Church, the retention of the word is merely a continuing cause for misunderstanding of the nature of the Trinity, as well as a source of irritation with the Eastern Churches. Which is why the ultimate solution is that provided by the Agreed Statement:


Stalin used to say, "A man is a problem? No man, no problem". To paraphrase: "A word is a problem? No word, no problem."

If so, we can prove the case that, insisting that the Creed of 381 is ecumenicaly binding, because it was signed by the in the Council church dignitaries, despite that that Council was recognised as ecumenical only 70 years later, in 451, and despite that western communities had other understanding of faith from that time up to 11th century and on, the doctrine mono ek tou patros is not ecumenical.
The conscience of a considerable part of church has not aproved it. The signatures of the council 451 neither that of 381 are not enogh.

I'm used to Europeans writing in an elliptical manner, but I must confess you so excel at it as to leave me wondering about your point.

You seem to think, all we, forum members, have to do, is to read what you write and simply accept it.....

When you, Stuart, say above that Rome officially rejected Filioque in the 9th century, that is wrong.

When you say that the Creed of Co.ple I in 381 was sanctioned by Ephesus 431 (actualy was at Chalcedon abd not Ephesus) therefore is ecumenicaly binding, you simply give an argument brought forth so much by orthodox. My critique on that is:

If the orthodox believe that it is the conscience of the church accepting the decisions of a council that makes it ecumenical, and if we apply this not only to Ferrara Florence, then we will see that since a considerable part of western communion did not accept neither the symbol of faith nor the doctrine of the procession only from the Father of the Spirit, it means that is not ecumenicaly binding.

Apart of that, ecumenicity of faith, during first millenium, is much idealised in theory than it effected the reality. And there are different views as what exactely is ecumenical.

We could dispute the second half of your statement. The case can certainly be made that, from the fifth through the sixth centuries, the Creed of Constantinople was accepted as universally as any symbol of faith ever was. From the sixth through the 9th centuries, the doctrine of double procession began gaining favor on the margins of the Western Church, but even then had no formal sanction. The acceptance of the Filioque without reservation in the Western Church can be placed no earlier than 1014.

Not so among the germanic tribe churches of western communion. They continued to have filioque, despite being in communion with Rome and through it with the rest of the christian world.
If we wont see the franks as second class christians, the same as byzantines used to see them in matter of civilization, then we would see that the famous conscience, which determines the ecumenicity of a council, of that part of the church did not accept the same formula of faith, nor the doctrine of only from the father procession of the Spirit.
Ecumenicity of the symbol of Nicea Constantinople cannot be established for the entire west simply because Rome accepted it, as much as Union of Ferrara Florence was not to be accepted simply because official Constantinople adhered to it.

Today, especially in orthodox world, at least so seems it to me, we sort of abuse a lot with the theoretical idealization of ecumenicity in the first millenium, ignoring formality that reigned throughout that period.

That is why I opened for discussion a thread in this forum about what was oecumene and its real effect during the first millenium.

P.S While the Emperor had the de facto power to change the physical borderlines dividing church centres of the oecumene, without asking the permission of an ecumenical council, as he did with with southern Italy and in the Balkans, it seems the pope counteracted by deciding that he had the power to do so in doctrinal matters

Really? Which Germanic tribes would that be? The Council of Toledo, the first use of the Filioque, took place in Visigothic Spain at the end of the 6th century. And Toledo only adopted it because the Visigoths were very slow to abandon their Arianism. As for the Carolingian Franks, the Liber Carolini show they had a lot of peculiar views (mostly traceable to Charlemagne himself), including a pretty healthy dose of iconclasm.

You ask which german tribe would it be, mentioning yourself the visigoth, as if not knowing that visigoths are numbered among germanic tribes!!!!

Among these tribes, filioque has been part of the symbol of faith alongside the time they were part of catholic communion. They were in full accordance in doing so with the way the main latin fathers accepted filioque.


My point still stands. What we call ecumenicaly binding symbol of faith is only formally so. The conscience of the germanic tribe catholic church had not accepted it.

Besides, at the gradual formation of an legitimate western roman empire, another oecumene in its own right was created, legitimate to have de jure that symbol of faith it had de facto for centuries. No surprise the pope sanctioned it at the coronation of the western emperor in 1014.