Ryan,

I am indeed concerned about your salvation.

The teaching of the Second Council of Lyons is indeed true. Latin and Greek Fathers believed the same thing, but used different languages to describe the nature of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps you are unaware that many Eastern, and Oriental Orthodox did attend the Council of Florence, and accepted a reunion with Rome and the Filioque. However, most of the Eastern Orthodox bishops later cowardly repudiated their acceptance of the Union.

By the way, according to your reasoning the only truly "ecumenical" council would be Nicea. The Oriental Orthodox broke away at Chalcedon, disqualifying the council as being truly ecumenical according to your own standards.

You can NOT be a member of the Catholic Church and deny the filioque. Why should you care whether or not the schismatic Orthodox attended ecumenical councils? Since when do schismatics have any say in the teaching or governing of the Church? Certainly, if the Eastern Orthodox ever managed to hold an "ecumenical" council, they WOULD NOT CARE what the Catholic Church would say because they consider Catholics to be schismatics!


Make up your mind, are you Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox?

I pray that you will accept the truth of the Filioque for the sake of your salvation.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#5

Council of Florence
Session 11

First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons; unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; the Father is not the Son or the holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the holy Spirit, the holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; the Father is only the Father, the Son is only the Son, the holy Spirit is only the holy Spirit. The Father alone from his substance begot the Son; the Son alone is begotten of the Father alone; the holy Spirit alone proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity, and everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this. Because of this unity the Father is whole in the Son, whole in the holy Spirit; the Son is whole in the Father, whole in the holy Spirit; the holy Spirit is whole in the Father, whole in the Son. No one of them precedes another in eternity or excels in greatness or surpasses in power. The existence of the Son from the Father is certainly eternal and without beginning, and the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, he has not from another but from himself and is principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father and is principle from principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.

This history of Orthodox participation in Florence is not accurate. Given the Orthodox Byzantines approached this "reunion Council" under duress (they also wanted military support in the ongoing fight against the Muslims) it is not surprising that they repudiated their acceptance. We should note that the leading supporters of acceptance of this reunion included both the Emperor John VIII Palaeologus and Patriarch Joseph II, and that is clear that both were putting issues of their survival before anything else.

Much of the rest of podkarpatski's post is written in an insulting manner. He speaks insultingly of the "schismatic Orthodox" so he must reject Pope John Paul the Great's teaching that even the term schism is too strong to describe the remaining separation. Anyone who is serious about theology can see that we are in a new period where we put aside the "us vs them" hatreds and instead concentrate on accurately understanding one another and moving forward together in prayer and repentance to find the unity the Lord desires.

haha, that was a funny comment. So much so that I just repeated to an SSPX that I often butt-heads with, and here is all he said in reply:

"Cardinal Siri, from Italy, 1960...

http://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml

Eric"

The SSPX are the best arguement against Pastor Aesternus that I have come across.

Here's something else I was just thinking.

The CCC speaks of "legitimate complementarity".

The complementarity idea is good, I think, in and of itself. The problem is that when look at the two creedal statement, i.e. "who proceeds from the Father" and "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", the idea of complementarity falls a little flat. (That kind of "complementarity" might be compared to someone saying "We're complementary, you and I: I talk and you listen.")

But if the EC creedal text is change to "who proceeds eternally from the Father", then I think a real complementarity will be possible: on the one hand you'd have the RC text saying "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", without specifying eternal procession, and on the other hand the EC text saying "who proceeds eternally from the Father", but without specifying the role of the Son. Each statement leaves room for further elaboration, and neither statement contains the other. (And, of course, neither one contains the "doctrinal development" that took place in the west, i.e. the formula "who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son".)

Blessings,
Peter.

I am laughing. I have heard that repeated by many of them. I just tell them that my Scottish male ansestors wore kilts. Jesus didn't wear pants either.

Well said!!

The filioque – as formulated by the Western Church at its local synods – is unacceptable to the East because it involves a confusion of the Holy Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin (ekporeusis) as person, which is from the Father alone, with His eternal manifestation (phanerosis) or progression (proienai) as energy, but not as person, which is from the Father through the Son.

So would that include the Oriental Orthodox of the patriarchal Church of Alexandria, also part of the Orthodox Pentarchy? If so, we've had no Ecumenical Council since Ephesus.

Just wondering how far back we go in our denials of Ecumenical Councils based on the presence or lack thereof of the various Eastern Churches.

Four of the five great Patriarchal Sees represented at Chalcedon agreed to the deposition and exile of Dioscorus, and installed Proterius as Patriarch in his place. I accept that action by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, but you are free to dissent from it if you wish.

Now, as far as the Seven Great Councils are concerned, I accept them as ecumenical because they are commemorated in the Divine Liturgy; thus, they are liturgically remembered as kairotic events in the life of the Church.

How would my hypothetical dissent from Chalcedon differ from your actual dissent from, say, Lyon or Florence?

I do believe, as I have stated before, that the first seven ecumenical councils exercise a primacy of both honor and dogmatic authority (pertaining to the hierarchy of truths) in relationship to the other 14 identified by the Catholic Church (with the sole exception, perhaps, of Vatican II, whose import has yet to be fully explored - but that is a completely subjective judgment on my part). The commemoration by our Church of the first 7 indicates more than simply that these are "7" among "21" with 14 others on equal footing in every respect. The intent is clearly to highlight their import, otherwise, they would not be commemorated liturgically. One could also echo Pope St. Gregory the Great's sentiments regarding the first 4 councils as reflective of the First Four Gospels, so foundational were they to the establishment and growth of orthodoxy. But that does not in any way diminish the latter 3.

I believe that the later councils, called for the most part to deal with issues pertaining to the Catholic West, have limited ecumenical value, while they remain irreformable, infallible and part of the conciliar tradition of the Church. But they should only be read in continuity with the first seven.

The problem with counting the number of Eastern and Western heads at any council to determine its "ecumenical" canonical status is that it as a method assumes an East/West hermetically sealed ecclesiology that is in no way reflective of apostolic Christianity. There were patriarchal heads of major Churches, to be sure. But the overuse of the application of the "East/West" dichotomy, an historically contingent and altogether imperial framework, has little meaning now.

Again, it all goes back to the semi-Arian Eusebius' heresy of "Imperial Ecclesiology" as opposed to Apostolic Ecclesiology, such as that articulated by Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, the great defender of Christological orthodoxy.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Firstly, the particular synods of the Latin Church are not commemorated in the Divine Liturgy, which means that they are not kairotic events; and secondly, the teaching proposed by Florence and Lyon is contrary to the Triadological doctrine of the Eastern Fathers.

Alternately would you allow for Catholics of Oriental and Church of the East patrimony to accept only the first 4 or first two councils as kairotic?

I do not accept the ecumenicity of the later fourteen Latin particular synods, nor do I believe that they are infallible.

They are historically interesting to me as a Byzantine Catholic, but they are liturgically, doctrinally, and spiritually irrelevant to me.

No, because as I already pointed out Chalcedon replaced Dioscorus, which means that the dissent of the Copts was illegitimate both at the time of the council and since the events of that century. Ultimately, for full communion to be restored the Oriental Churches will have to accept the doctrine taught at the Councils of Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II.

As far as the Copts are concerned, if they are truly miaphysites as they claim, they should have no trouble assenting to the Council of Chalcedon.

Apotheoun's statement is very strange.

Yes, Pope Paul VI spoke of placing the later 14 Councils in a different category then the Seven Ecumenical Councils. He considered them as something like 'General Councils in the West'. This makes sense since they mostly dealt with issues of concern to the Christian West. Surely the Eastern Catholic Churches would not be expected to jettison authentic Eastern theology to replace it with that formulated at these later 14 Councils. But neither would (or should) they reject the theology formed by these later 14 Councils as invalid. As a Catholic one can say that a particular teaching (dogmatic or doctrinal) is really poorly presented and in great need of being presented more accurately. What one cannot say is that they are untrue. And what Gordo states is quite true. No council can be understood correctly except when read in continuity with the Seven. I'd have to check exactly what Pope Paul VI wrote but I think he spoke in terms of the Seven Ecumenical Councils being the foundation of all that followed.