www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Papal Infallibility

The differences between East and West concerning an Augustinian-only view of OS has also been discussed ad nauseam on this forum. I suggest that you and anyone else interested in these differences conduct a search and look up some of the discussions. I don't see a need to be repetetive on such a widely discussed topic.

For instance: https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000595
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000756

I also don't think you are going to find a proper discussion of this topic on online catechisms. I would hope anyone interested in the subject would either go to their church, library, or book store and read. I have found online information, including information posted on this forum, to consisit more of personal opinion and/or more prone to casual error.

I also think this topic was on infallibility. My statement concerning the IC was a less than perfect example. I still don't see how Leo III didn't make a statement ex cathedra on the filioque. Were the popes wrong in accpepting the Council of Ephesus, which stated that no other words could be added to or subtracted from the Creed? If those popes were not wrong, how are the ones who now use the filioque right? It seems to me that one group of popes were wrong.

I disagree. If that were true, then that would mean all the progress made towards reconciliation with the Assyrians and the Copts is all for naught since they'll have to agree to the language used at Ephesus and Chalcedon. The Catholic Church (nor do most Orthodox Churches) does not insist that, for example, that the Copts must accept the Leonine theology of the Tome of Leo. What is sought in these ecumenical exchanges is an agreement on the meaning of the concepts involved.

The same holds true for the issue of the Immaculate Conception. What is essential is not the particular theology background in the declaration but the substance of the concept itself: that the Most Holy Theotokos has been pure and holy since her conception. Quotes to that effect are easily found among Orthodox writers.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[quote]Having myself found no Scriptural/Patristic support for the doctrine, that would explain why I now attend an Orthodox parish and will be baptized with in the next 6 months. {/quote]

Welcome back to the Forum, Daniel. Do Antiochians baptize converts from Catholicism?

I did the same thing as you're now doing and later re-thought what I'd done and returned to the Catholic Church. So, personal experience does not prove anything. As you said in another post we should look for "truth." On that we can agree. Just what is the truth on this subject is what we disagree about.

In Christ,

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

The Filioque was added to the Latin form of the Creed, not the Greek form. Since that action only applied to the Western Church it does not qualify as something that would be considered "ex cathedra." "Ex cathedra" statements must affect the whole Church.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Having contributed to those threads I suppose I have done my part to add to the nausea.

Of course, but I was referring to materials from official websites of the OCA, GOA, ROC. I am happy to learn more on the subject, but I don't think the sources that I quoted could be considered as prone to casual error.

I agree.


A fairly standard line on Leo III is "In the East-West controversy over the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Leo declared that the Filioque of the creed was dogmatically necessary but liturgically dispensable, and he recommended its omission in the name of East-West unity."
www.bartleby.com/65/le/Leo3-St.html [bartleby.com]
Did Leo III make a binding proclamation? Was anyone excommunicated by Leo alternatively for reciting or not reciting the filioque?

Fascinating. Also discussed here ad naseum. Since, ( http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-62.htm )the Creed at Ephesus was that of Nicea, not Nicea-Constantinople, then the canons as you assert them, are being violated by all parties who profess the latter Creed.

At any rate, there is no proscription on "words" added or subtracted at Ephesus. The issue is an alteration of the faith.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4Ephesus/Words.htm
This point is made clear enough in context of the pronouncement.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4Ephesus/Canon7.htm

ISTM that you are straining to create some baggage to carry with you. Why bother?

Dear David Ignatius,

Your Qoute

(The Filioque was added to the Latin form of the Creed, not the Greek form. Since that action only applied to the Western Church it does not qualify as something that would be considered "ex cathedra." "Ex cathedra" statements must affect the whole Church.)

What's a schism? Since when the filioque was introduced it certainly did effect the whole church. I think most Roman Catholics and Orthodox would agree with that.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

It did indeed. And I think a faithful Catholic can say that the introduction of the Filioque in the Latin form of the Creed was inopportune.

As to how this would apply to the subject of papal infallibility...For something to be considered an _ex cathedra_ statement it must be a definition that binds all the faithful...not just the Latin Rite. Adding the Filioque to the Creed was done only to the Latin form of the Creed so it would not qualify as an _ex cathedra_ type of statement.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear David Ignatius,

So then it stands to reason that NOT adding the Filioque to the Latin and the Greek form and engraving it on silver plates, in Greek and Latin, would qualify as an ex cathedra type of statement. Who could logically argue that Pope Leo III's definition did not bind all the faithful? Agreed?

Part of The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1895) on Reunion

VII
So then the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils believed and taught in accordance with the words of the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; but in the West, even from the ninth century, the holy Symbol of Faith, which was composed and sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils, began to be falsified, and the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son to be arbitrarily promulgated. And certainly Pope Leo XIII is not ignorant that his orthodox predecessor and namesake, the defender of orthodoxy, Leo III, in the year 809 denounced synodically this anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition, and from the Son (Filioque); and engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Symbol of Faith of the first and second Ecumenical Synods, entire and without any addition; having written moreover, These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).8

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

This was no "definition," no more than if the pope had engraved the Ten Commandments and hung them in the Vatican.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

If I may introduce a bit of Yuletide levity, the criteria offered for identifying an ex cathedra definition remind me of the chief criterion for determining whether or not food is highly caloric - in the case of the food, just ask yourself if you like it. The more you like it, the more calories it has. In the case of the doctrinal pronouncement, just ask yourself if you dislike it. The more you dislike, the "more infallible" it is! Incognitus

Dear David Ignatius,

First Ecumenical Council - Nicea, Asia Minor, 325 A.D. - Formulated the First Part of the Creed. Defining the divinity of the Son of God.

Second Ecumenical Council - Constantinople, 381 A.D. - Formulated the Second Part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

So you think the Nicene creed in not a definition of Faith?

What is it then?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Yes, the Nicene Creed is a definition of the Faith. And the Catholic Church recognizes that the Creed in its original form is the normative form in Greek. The recent declaration Dominus Iesus actually cites the Creed without the Filioque.

When Pope Leo III had the original Creed engraved he gave testimony to it. He was not solemnly defining a teaching of the Church. That had already been done by those Councils.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Your inferences do not stand to reason nor follow logically. While the temptation may be irresitible to spin this gesture in this way, one only needs to examine the actions of Leo III as a whole to see the shortcomings of such a posture, and to arrive at the view I posted above:
"In the East-West controversy over the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Leo declared that the Filioque of the creed was dogmatically necessary but liturgically dispensable, and he recommended its omission in the name of East-West unity."

If you nevertheless want to make an infallible proclamation of this gesture, then please support your contention with some probative facts: What churches were informed of this gesture? Was this information conveyed in some official manner? What specific actions were these churches expected to take in response? What "teeth" were provided for to enforce these actions? What penalties were actually levied by Leo for failure to comply?

Let me add that I mistakenly thought Cizinec was referring to the addition of the Filioque...so please read my earlier posts in that light.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Not so. The creed was adjusted by an Ecumenical Council, not a single bishop. The question is whether a single bishop has the right to do so in his or any other church acting alone. The pronouncements of the Councils seem quite clear on the ability of individual bishops to do this.

We all have baggage to carry, and I'm not straining to create any. Perhaps I should consider putting wheels on mine to make it easier.