I think you have it Bob. The Union IS the basis of communion between the Church of Kyiv and Rome and until our Synod and Rome re-negotiate that communion, if they ever do.

It is a binding covenant of communion, and for either side to unilaterally change it is first of all uncharitable, and second of all could be taken as breaking the covenant and subsequently the communion between the Churches. Rome still very much honors this Union, as the late Holy Father John Paul II clearly stated in his Apostolic Letter (a Magisterial document) on the 4th centenary of the Union of Brest. From that document:



Furthermore, if this relationship becomes a crisis of faith for any faithful, if they feel that the ambiguities are too great through the covenant their particular Church has with Rome through the Union of Brest, they are free to go to the Latin Church. In my entire life I have never known even one such case based solely on those factors.

Hi Apotheoun,

I have a pretty clear idea of your position on the theology, per se, of the filioque, but I'm not so clear about your take on Fr. Hopko's proposal.

Do you agree with him that the Pope should "insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son” only in relation to God’s saving dispensation in the world"? Or do you the proposal should be tempered with a bit more tolerance of the Latin approach? (Or none of the above?)

As a member of the EOC, I will respond to Robster's comments because me thinks he doth protest too much and takes too much of a hard line. I am sure he meant to say in the first paragraph ""I think Fr. Hopko's suggestion, as well intended as it may be, is really a non-starter. IN MY OPINION, Catholics simply cannot be expected to abandon any normative, immutable part of their faith in order to accommodate non-Catholics." Note my addition to the sentence. The EOC would respond to the second sentence, sure we do.

He then notes, "While creed-tampering is to be disapproved of, and it is most unfortunate that it occurred..." If he is referring to Rome adding the filioque in some local councils at Toledo as he must be, how can he say with a straight face, "such misconduct simply does not change the truths of the faith.." To use an old cliche,that is like saying two wrongs make a right. the EOC would say, "whose truths of faith?"

Next he notes,"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." I will be charitable and assume he has forgotten the fact that the framers of the Creed of 381 said only another RECOGNIZED ecumenical council could make changes in the creed. The last time I checked the EOC only recognizes seven councils and, unless those two councils are among those seven councils(he does not name them), his comments would not impress the EOC. I suspect his so-called ecumenical councils would be considered local councils in the EOC's eyes. If he were to make the contention that one of the two councils is the council of Florence, I would remind him that the Byzantine east quite properly repudiated it under the influence of ST. Mark of Ephesus. To use the words of our administrator, "The Creed itself as proclaimed by the A.D. 381 Council is our common Symbol of Faith and needs to be proclaimed and understood according to the original text and intent of the A.D. 381 Council Fathers. There is absolutely nothing wrong about asking the West to return to the original Creed. "

Robster would do well to go read the Administrator's full text. I have taken a hard line here because both the east and the west claim to be the true repositories of faith. We all know the rhetoric and its implications. I know Robster was applying his comments to the catholic east, but those comments were and are short sighted. As Ryan has noted about Robster's comments, "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.." If some find my comments out of line, I apologize but I call them as I see them.

I think you've quite misunderstood what Robster was saying in that paragraph. As I read it (and Robster can of course correct me if I'm wrong) when he says "the filioque as a truth of Catholic teaching" he's not talking about the word "filioque" being or not being in the creed, but rather about the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son as well as the Father.

I believe that the filioque should simply be removed from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.

Now as far as Fr. Hopko's proposal is concerned:


I agree completely.


I do not believe that there is any need for this so-called "pastoral" concession. The filioque should simply be removed from the creed.

That said, I basically agree with Fr. Hopko's theological position, except when he says that the manifestation (phanerosis) or progression (proienai) of the Spirit from the Father through the Son is limited to "God's saving dispensation in the world." The manifestation of the Spirit through the Son is an eternal reality within the divine energy, just as the glorification of the Son by the Spirit is an eternal reality.

Ultimately the filioque must be removed from the creed because it posits the false idea that the Son participates in the procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit as person (hypostasis), and this idea destroys the monarchy of the Father, who alone is the source, principle, and cause of divinity.

So Todd, in your view, what precisely is the revelatory value or limits of any economic manifestation of the Trinity? How would you propose going about differentiating between what is purely economical (temporal accomodation) from what is truly theological (eternally revealed truth about the Holy Trinity)?

I ask this because it seems that the strength of the arguments in favor of the Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father through the Son is that there traditionally has been an intimate connection between economia and theologia.

Here is the CCC treatment, which I personally believe expresses this very well:



I'm just trying to determine why you and Father Hopko seem to see the value of the procession as purely economical and not theological. What is the rationale for this and what would prevent someone from taking any other revealed truth of the Trinity in the same manner?

God bless,

Gordo

Huh?

I don't think he ever actually said that, although he did neglect to mention "eternal manifestation through the Son", perhaps indicating an unduly polemical approach.



I see. You consider Fr. Hopko's proposal to be too lenient toward the Latin Church. I respect your opinion, of course, but I believe just the opposite: that he asks too much of the Latin Church.

I can see how my own proposal might seem like a "have our cake and eat it too" plan -- i.e. it wouldn't mean removing the filioque (at least for the time being) nor would it involve making any concession on the teaching that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son". Nevertheless, I think that my proposal, Fr. Hopko's proposal, and yours, Apotheon, all agree on the one most essential point: that the teaching that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" need not, and indeed should not, be part of the creed.

Blessings,
Peter.

I make a real distinction between theologia (i.e., the inner life of the Trinity) and economia (i.e., the manifestation of God outside of His ineffable essence and tri-hypostatic existence), which is the traditional position of the Eastern Fathers. God is essentially and hypostatically incomprehensible; while He is communicable – at least to a limited degree – in His energies, which manifest His power and glory in the world.


The idea that the economia reveals the inner life of God is a Western – and particularly a Scholastic – notion, which I do not accept. The essence and tri-hypostatic existence of God is discursively unknowable, for God is utterly transcendent as it concerns these things, which are the proper realm of apophasis. While, on the other hand, His energies are unique because they transgress the diastemic boundary between the uncreated and the created, acting as a bridge between theology (i.e., the inner life of the Godhead) and the divine economy by imparting God's living presence to man.


As I indicated above, the procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit as person from the Father alone is purely theological, while His eternal manifestation (phanerosis) or progression (proienai) as energy through the Son is both theological and economical. Sadly, the West has confused the Holy Spirit's procession of origin (i.e., His ekporeusis) as person, which is solely from the Father, with His eternal manifestation or progression as energy (i.e., grace), which is from the Father through the Son.

No I knew what he argued. I was looking at the logic of his statement. I am well aware that he was only speaking very narrowly and that I broadened what he said to a larger context than he intended. I was addressing a broader issue. You can rightly say I took his words out of context for my own purposes. Look at the posting that came after his (Robster) by Ryan.I was also directing my comments at the implication of Robster's mindset as I read it. My comments were much gentler than Ryan who noted,"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.." I was bothered by the certitude of Robster's statements that he had gotten it right and his apparent mindset so I decided addressed the issue the way I did.

Todd,

Thank you for your explanation. I need to reflect a bit more on what you have said here.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Todd,

My concern is that, with the approach to the essence-energy distinction coupled with the assertion of the almost complete unknowability of God that you have personally outlined and ascribed to the whole of the Eastern Fathers, there appears to be the risk of driving a wedge between God and His self-revelation in history. How do you avoid the slippery slope of either modalism or, worse yet, Islam?

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

I am simply being faithful to the teaching of the Eastern Fathers, who held that it is utterly impossible to know anything about the divine essence.

That said, there is no danger of modalism in the fact that the Triune God cannot be essentially or hypostatically known, because He condescends to communicate Himself to mankind through His energies, which reveal His life-giving presence in the world. In other words, a Christian experiences the tri-hypostatic God through His natural and enhypostatic energies, and this experiential knowledge transcends any form of discursive reasoning about God, because it is a gift of grace beyond created nature.

Finally, the essence / energy distinction of the Eastern Fathers cannot be compared to the false doctrine set forth in the Qur’an and the Sunna, because the true God – unlike the false "god" of Islam – can be known experientially through His energies, which are His living presence within creation. Thus, no comparison can be made between the false "god" of Islam, who is only transcendent, and the true God revealed through the incarnation of the eternal Logos, who is essentially transcendent, while simultaneously being energetically immanent.

God bless,
Todd

Although I don't always agree with Apotheon (Todd), I do find this to be offensive:



especially the second sentence.

Heavenly King, our Advocate and Spirit of Truth,
You are everywhere present, and fills everything.
Treasurer of blessings, Bestower of life,
Come and dwell within us, cleansing all our defilements.
O Gracious One, save our souls.

Don't forget the “WEARING OF THE GREEN”.

Well how could King Charlemagne have know his password for acceptance into Western Christendom would fester so long, even on this BYZANTINE FORUM. Enough with the mentality behind Archbishop Ireland's elusive quote being researched on another thread "The loss of a few souls can't compared with the benefits of uniform discipline..”, which is almost as logical of a justification as Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s for the starvation of 10 million Ukrainians in 1933 “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs”, as attributed by New York Times Pulitzer winner Walter Duranty. Well it has caused economic ramifications in the physical world beyond the mystical realm. Two words, "and Son" as a facade lost my grandparent's parish and its properties from the majority of believers to a minority in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court property dispute. A half century later the remnants of both groups are uniformed in the Creed’s usage but not in recoupable charity. Remove the Filioque addendum (that’s ADDITION) from the Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed and you remove the monetary profit margin, the economics related to the body count for any retentive worldly validity. It does NOT negate the Filioque sparing debate which humans will never be able to prove. It is faith but is it necessary for salvation? Let us fight over something we can understand like the date of the Vernal Equinox, not the mystical Holy Trinity.