www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Roman Catholic or Orthodox ?

You assume an awful lot about us Byz. Catholics not being in good standing with The Church.

We also need no help from RCs here either. Share by all means but dont come here to lecture.

Originally posted by Pavel Ivanovich:
A good article on the topic presented at a Thomas Moore Lecture in Melbourne.

Of course the statement was interpreted by the Church before the Bulla was issued and has been interpreted variously since.

It is quiet likey that someone leaving the Catholic Church for anywhere else would believe that where they were heading off to was The Church and would be worried if they did not go in that direction their soul was in jepardy.

You assume an awful lot about us Byz. Catholics not being in good standing with The Church. We also need no help from RCs here either. Share by all means but dont come here to lecture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_Nulla_Salus

Originally posted by ebed melech:

Mike, so in what sense does Vatican II refer to Orthodox Churches as "particular" Churches? An ecumenical council has defined them as true Churches - expressing our Catholic patrimony, albeit not in full communion with us. I do not leave communion with Rome, not merely for fear of schism, but for love of the Petrine ministry residing fully in the Bishop of Rome...the servant of the servants of God at the service of communion! Where the Eucharist is, there is the Church. Why shoud we doubt that these Orthodox churches are true churches and united with us although imperfectly through the visible bonds of the hierarchy?

Gordo

Originally posted by ebed melech:
Todd, thanks for the quote from the Patriarch. I'm not convinced that the differences are ontological, even on matters pertaining to subjects such as Petrine primacy and filioque.

I don't think any of the posters has thought about the DEEP implications of the question(s) posed or the eternal consequences of the moves that many seem to toss about so easily....

I dont believe the few western rite "Orthodox" are actually trying to be Roman Catholics but in union with the "Orthodox" communion for nothing doctrinal, and only for unity purposes. I am sure they accept the position of the "Orthodox" communion in every way possible.

Originally posted by Apotheoun:


As far as the filioque is concerned, I believe that the West is confusing the Spirit's hypostatic procession (i.e., the existential origin of the Holy Spirit as person) from the Father alone, with the eternal manifestation of the Spirit, not as person, but as energy, which comes from the Father through the Son.

Originally posted by Highlander:

Quote

Originally posted by Apotheoun:
[b]

As far as the filioque is concerned, I believe that the West is confusing the Spirit's hypostatic procession (i.e., the existential origin of the Holy Spirit as person) from the Father alone, with the eternal manifestation of the Spirit, not as person, but as energy, which comes from the Father through the Son.

Or, from the other viewpoint, a westerner might allege that the East was making a distinction into a dichotomy.

I was taught about the filioque and the Schism about 1959 in (RC) Junior Seminary, and it was taken for granted that the Orthodox view of the Father as ground of all being is not only correct, but fundamental. Any dispute about filioque stemmed (in this view) from the sense in which we should understand the references to "the Spirit of Christ" in the NT.

[. . .] [/b]

St. Maximos the Confessor on the Filioque

The interesting thing about the letter from St. Maximos the Confessor to Marinus is that he does not support the filioque doctrine as it was later defined at the Council of Florence. Here is the pertinent portion of St. Maximos' letter:

". . . they [i.e., the Westerners] have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence."

Now here is what the Council of Florence taught about the filioque:

"In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father."

Clearly these two doctrines are not the same, and the most obvious difference is in connection with the idea of "causation" within the Trinity, because St. Maximos says that the Father is "the only cause of the Son and the Spirit," while the Florentine decree says that "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, [and] this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father."

The difference between these two doctrinal positions is centered upon the existential origin of the Spirit as hypostasis (subsistence), because for St. Maximos the Father is the sole cause of the Spirit's hypostasis. In other words, when St. Maximos talks about a "procession" (or manifestation) of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, he is signifying the communion of essence that exists between the triad of divine hypostaseis, and as a consequence he is not talking about the origin of the Spirit as hypostasis, which he holds is from the Father alone. Now the teaching of the Western Scholastics at the Council of Florence is very different, because the decree of that Council holds that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being (i.e., the existence) of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and -- as I already indicated -- this teaching is not conformable to the doctrine of St. Maximos the Confessor and the Eastern Church. Clearly then, St. Maximos is talking about what the East calls the energetic manifestation of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, while the West is asserting that the Father and the Son together cause the existence of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis, and not that He (i.e., the Spirit) is simply being manifested through the Son as divine energy.

That being said, Westerners need to take into account the actual teaching of St. Maximos and stop trying to simply score points with a quotation taken out of context, because when one examines the doctrine taught by St. Maximos and the doctrine taught by the Council of Florence, it becomes clear that they are not talking about the same thing, and that they are in fact teaching Triadological doctrines that are fundamentally opposed to each other on the question of the filioque.

My opening post: AN EASTERN APPRAISAL OF THE VATICAN'S "CLARIFICATION ON THE FILIOQUE"

The Vatican's "Clarification on the Filioque" is an attempt to resolve the problem of the filioque, but sadly the text of the "Clarification" is theologically ambiguous as far as the monarchy of the Father is concerned. Here are a few examples of the problems present within the Vatican's "Clarification":

1. "The Father alone is the principle without principle of the two other persons of the Trinity." [Quotation taken from the "Clarification"]

The problem with this statement is that the Father, rather than being described simply as the "principle of the two other persons of the Trinity," is described as the "principle without principle," which can imply that the Son is a "principle with principle" within the Trinity (i.e., that the Son is a secondary principle within the Godhead). The idea that there can be a "secondary" principle in the Godhead is contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Church, and would ultimately destroy the monarchy of the Father, replacing it with a diarchy of the Father and the Son.

2. "The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner." [Quotation taken from the "Clarification"]

The problem with this statement is centered upon the concluding portion of the formula, that is, where the text says that the Spirit comes from the Father alone in a "principal, proper, and immediate manner," because this modifying phrase implies, or at least allows for the possibility, that the Son is involved in the existential origin of the Spirit in a secondary, received, and mediate manner. This kind of secondary or mediate causation is incompatible with the Triadology of the Eastern Fathers, and in particular with the doctrine of the Cappadocians, because as St. Gregory Nazianzus said, ". . . all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality" [St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 34:10]. Now, in order for the ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to advance, the Latin Church is going to have to issue a document that cannot be read in an equivocal manner on these issues. In other words, it must say that the Father is the principle of divinity, period, end of sentence, with no modifying phrases or clauses added on. Moreover, the West will need to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without adding modifiers like "principally, immediately, properly, etc.," which can imply that the Son Himself participates in the hypostatic origination of the Spirit.

3. "In 1274, the second Council of Lyons confessed that 'the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle.'" [Quotation taken from the "Clarification"]

The Western theory that says that the Father and the Son are a "single principle" in the spiration of the Spirit is unworkable in Eastern Triadology, because the fact that the Father is the principle of divinity is held to be a hypostatic characteristic of His person, and so it cannot be shared with the Son, as St. Gregory Palamas explained:

"We do not say that the Son is from the Father in as much as He is begotten by the divine essence, but rather in as much as He is begotten by the Father as person. For the essence is common to the three persons, but begetting is proper to the Father personally. That is why the Son is not begotten by the Spirit. Consequently the Spirit is also from the Father; He possesses the divine essence, proceeding from the person of the Father. For the essence is always and absolutely common to the three persons. Therefore the act of spiration is proper to the Father as a person and the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, for the Son does not have the personal properties of the Father." [St. Gregory Palamas, Logos Apodeiktikos I, 6; this quotation from Palamas' writings was taken from M. Edmund Hussey's dissertation "The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas," page 25]

In saying this St. Gregory Palamas is simply following in the tradition of the Cappadocian Fathers, because within their Triadology it is not possible to call the Father and the Son a "single principle," since that would be to confound the person of the Father with that of the Son, which would entail falling into the heresy of Sabellian modalism. Thus, the Western notion that the Father and the Son are a "single principle" is incompatible with the doctrine of the Eastern Church.

Sadly, the insertion of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed shows that the West has confused two distinct -- but inseparable -- divine realities: (1) the existential procession of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis (person), which is from the Father alone; and (2) the Spirit's eternal manifestation as divine energy (i.e., as uncreated grace), which is from the Father through the Son. In other words, in the theology of the Eastern Fathers the Holy Spirit proceeds as hypostasis from the Father alone, but He is manifested -- both temporally and eternally -- from the Father through the Son, not as hypostasis, but as divine energy; and this energetic manifestation expresses the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostaseis within the Godhead. Now, as is clear from what has been said, it is vital that the Spirit's energetic manifestation through the Son not be confused with the hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, because that would ultimately lead to Sabellian modalism.

It should be noted, of course, that these are only a few of the problems with the "Clarification on the Filioque," and so, even though it is a valiant attempt by the Western Church to make the filioque more acceptable to the East, it ultimately highlights the differences between the two sides as it concerns the doctrine of the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I do not want to give the impression that the document is an utter failure, because it at least shows that the West realizes that the filioque is a true obstacle to the restoration of communion, and that further dialogue on this issue will have to be carried out if there is to be any chance at all of resolving this doctrinal disagreement.

Finally, the best solution put forward so far to resolve the problem of the filioque can be found in the "Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation," which put forward the recommendation that the Latin Church remove the filioque from all liturgical and catechetical documents. The use of the original creed by the Latin Church in its liturgical celebrations, and catechetical instructions, would facilitate ecumenical dialogue, while simultaneously removing one of the major obstacles to the restoration of communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

See the Tomus of the Blacernae Council (A.D. 1285) for more information on the Spirit's energetic manifestation from the Father through the Son: The Tomus of faith against Beccas [geocities.com]

See the "Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation" recommendations: USCCB [usccb.org] or SCOBA [scoba.us]


The first response to my post: Sad that a genuine attempt at reaching an understanding is outrightly rejected and the words twisted: "not as from two principles but as from one single principle.'" is turned into a claim that "that the Father and the Son are a "single principle"", as if the text didn't say "as from one ...". All of this to ensure that one "has been right all along", to avoid being "Christocentric", to protect the political machinations of a Patriarch long dead and buried.


My response: Yes, the Spirit as hypostasis proceeds "from one principle," i.e., the Father, and not from the Father and the Son. The Son is not a principle (secondary or mediate), a source, or a cause within the Godhead.


The second response to my post: But do not even Eastern Orthodox believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?


My Response: No, not if you are referring to the existential origin of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because as person the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) only from the Father. Now, on the other hand, as energy the Spirit is manifested (proienai) from the Father through the Son, but this manifestation must not be confused with the Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin from the Father alone. The Tomus of Blachernae (A.D. 1285), which rejected the "union" council of Lyons II, emphasizes the importance of this theological distinction. Moreover, this distinction is supported by St. John Damascene, who, in his treatise De Fide Orthodoxa, said that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, but "not from the Son" [De Fide Orthodoxa, Book I, Chapter VIII], and he confirmed this distinction yet again when -- in another treatise -- he wrote that, we speak of ". . . the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him [i.e., the Son] manifest and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence from Him" [St. John Damascene, Sabbat. 4:21-23], and elsewhere he said that, ". . . the Word is a real offspring, and therefore Son; and the Spirit is a real procession and emanation from the Father, of the Son but not from the Son, as breath from a mouth, proclaiming God the Word" [St. John Damascene, Trisagion 28:40-43].

Originally posted by Highlander:
I had understood that Rome had no desire to force the clause on the East, and that Constantinople had accepted that the Catholic position was not heretical. Is this not so?

St. Maximos the Confessor on the Filioque

The interesting thing about the letter from St. Maximos the Confessor to Marinus is that he does not support the filioque doctrine as it was later defined at the Council of Florence. Here is the pertinent portion of St. Maximos' letter:

". . . they [i.e., the Westerners] have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence."

Now here is what the Council of Florence taught about the filioque:

"In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father."

Clearly these two doctrines are not the same, and the most obvious difference is in connection with the idea of "causation" within the Trinity, because St. Maximos says that the Father is "the only cause of the Son and the Spirit," while the Florentine decree says that "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, [and] this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father."

The difference between these two doctrinal positions is centered upon the existential origin of the Spirit as hypostasis (subsistence), because for St. Maximos the Father is the sole cause of the Spirit's hypostasis. In other words, when St. Maximos talks about a "procession" (or manifestation) of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, he is signifying the communion of essence that exists between the triad of divine hypostaseis, and as a consequence he is not talking about the origin of the Spirit as hypostasis, which he holds is from the Father alone. Now the teaching of the Western Scholastics at the Council of Florence is very different, because the decree of that Council holds that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being (i.e., the existence) of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and -- as I already indicated -- this teaching is not conformable to the doctrine of St. Maximos the Confessor and the Eastern Church. Clearly then, St. Maximos is talking about what the East calls the energetic manifestation of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, while the West is asserting that the Father and the Son together cause the existence of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis, and not that He (i.e., the Spirit) is simply being manifested through the Son as divine energy.

That being said, Westerners need to take into account the actual teaching of St. Maximos and stop trying to simply score points with a quotation taken out of context, because when one examines the doctrine taught by St. Maximos and the doctrine taught by the Council of Florence, it becomes clear that they are not talking about the same thing, and that they are in fact teaching Triadological doctrines that are fundamentally opposed to each other on the question of the filioque.

Show me the acta from the Council of Florence? Show me that what you have posted here is a dogmatic definition of "filioque." Demonstrate for us that this is any more than part of the discussion. [/b]