Those interested in understanding my position on the filioque better, and why I reject the Latin Church's position as set forth at the Council of Florence, may click the link below:

The Filioque Controversy

Perhaps it is opportune to once again link to Fr. Paul Babie's good article of which I as a member of the Kyivan Church am in complete agreement:

http://catholicukes.org.au/tiki/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=7

For me the statement of communion between my Church and Rome is quite clear on the matter in Article 1 of the Union of Brest.

He already is if you have read recent comments by Bishops Fellay and Williamson. Back to the future...

X. B!
C. I. X!
Diak,
Thank you, that link was the most concise rendition of the Union without prejudicial bias I have read. Just the facts and ramifications no damnation or canonization.

I think Fr. Hopko's suggestion, as well intended as it may be, is really a non-starter. Catholics simply cannot be expected to abandon any normative, immutable part of their faith in order to accommodate non-Catholics.

While creed-tampering is to be disapproved of, and it is most unfortunate that it occurred, such misconduct simply does not change the truths of the faith. That includes the filioque as a truth of Catholic teaching and a defined, immutable dogmatic part of the faith as defined at two ecumenical councils. My understanding is that all Catholics, including all Byzantine Catholics, have an obligation to affirm it as part of their Catholic faith, regardless of the how it's handled liturgically. That certainly appears to be the Church's constant teaching witness on the matter, and is reaffirmed by the Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law in conjunction with Ad Tuendem Fidem.

Best to all,
Robster

Well if that's what is to be imposed on Eastern Catholics, then so much for our special mission vis-a-vis how the Orthodox can come into union with Rome and continue to be Orthodox.

Ryan

Then how is that Rome signed the Treaty of Brest, which stated that the "Holy Spirit does not have two origins, nor a double procession"? It could be that I am misreading the Treaty, so please clarify.

The (Roman) Catholic teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in a single procession-a procession from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

Athanasius TL:
If one is an Eastern Catholic, I'm unclear why the immutable, authoritative teachings of Catholicism are viewed as an imposition. If something is good, true, authoritative, and Catholic, I'm not clear why there should be a problem. Having certain forms of expression and having a certain focus, I believe, should not mean that one is establishing an alternate, parallel faith within the Catholic Church.

As for having a mission to non-Catholics, I would respectfully submit that such a notion may need to be revisited, at least to some degree. It's not always clear to me that Byzantine Catholics understand that they're supposed to have the same, exact, identical faith with Roman Latin Catholics, and all other Catholics, not necessarily with Eastern Orthodox. I think a first obligation has to be upholding the fullness of a common Catholic faith.

ByzBob:
Leaving aside that I don't think Brest is an authoritatively binding teaching Church document that is binding on the faithful, I don't see anything there that contradicts the filioque, repeals it, relegates it to anything less than the immutable dogma that it is, nor establishes that Byzantine Ukrainian Catholics have a right to deny, reject, or withhold assent from it as part of their Catholic faith.

Saying that there is no double procession is compatible with the filioque dogma, and, I imagine, that compatibility explains why it is cited in both the Ecumenical Council of Florence, as well as the Brest agreement.

Pope Benedict XIV's statement in Etsi Pastoralis in the 1740s clearly states this as well, which, I believe, is that last, explicitly referenced, authoritative Magisterium pronouncement on Eastern Catholics and the filioque.

Best,
Robster

Athansius, this is true. Thank you for that. I just think that since they referred back to the Greek Fathers, rather than the western councils, that they had something different in mind then what the Latin Church had taught at Florence & Lyons.

"we not be constrained to a different confession [of faith], but that we remain with the one that we find expressed in the Sacred Scriptures, in the Gospels, and also in the writings of the Holy Greek Doctors [i.e. Church Fathers], namely that the Holy Spirit does not have two origins, nor a double procession, but that He proceedes from one origin, as from a source."



Leaving aside the juridical aspect of what is 'authoritatively binding,' would you not be troubled if Rome went against an agreement that they had signed in good faith? Or is the word of the "mother and teacher of all Churches" not binding?

Your wording strikes me as artificial and contrived. Why not say straightforwardly: "All Catholics, Eastern or Western, are supposed to have the same faith [as each other]"?



Yes, that's exactly my objection to it as well.
What I'm trying to do here is to determine whether Fr. Hopko's proposal is fundamentally a "package deal" that one must simply accept or reject (in which case I reject it), or whether it's possible to strip away the objectionable part (the implication that Catholics would have to change their beliefs) but still work with the underlying idea (that saying "who proceeds from the Father and the Son" in the creed doesn't necessarily have to refer to eternal procession).

-Peter.

Nichoho, brat' Mykhayl.

As the Union and our Synod are silent on the Roman councils between the 7th and Vatican II, so will I be.

The fact that the Holy Father used the original Creed for Dominus Iesus is indeed remarkable and a great sign of hope.

The Spirit receives His eternal subsistent being (i.e., His hypostasis) solely from the Father by ekporeusis; while as energy, but not as person, the Spirit is made manifest, both temporally and eternally, from the Father through the Son.

Sadly, the Florentine decree confuses these two distinct realities, and that is why I, as an Eastern Catholic, cannot subscribe to the Latin Church's teaching on the Spirit's procession (ekporeusis).

The Union of Brest, article one states:



In the Summa Theologia, Prima Pars, Q. 36 article 3, Thomas Aquinas, the Latin theologian of the West, states:



Never does Aquinas maintain that the Latin position is that there is a double procession or a procession from two sources.


Ut omnes unum sint.

There appears to be a consistent connection between an overly Palamite influence in theology, a rejection of the Fathers' teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son and a rejection of the authority of the visible head of the Church in the successor of Peter.