wpk, Keithg29, brick22, BensGal, Lady Byzantine, Eli Akim, Kirk, Jerzy, Rusyn53, Lou, evergreen, old orthodox, PresJuliana, Heracleides, Addai
3135 Registered Users |
|
15 registered
(A Simple Sinner, Mykhayl, Fr David Straut, Dr John, Elizabeth Maria, Communion of Saints, MrsMW, Pani Rose, Stephanos I, Ung-Certez, Yuhannon, Wei-Hsien, Katie g, James Sofalvi, Athanasius The L)
and 187 anonymous users online.
|
|
The Byzantine Forum also hosts these private forums:
The Deacon’s Door (for deacons and deacon
candidates and their wives), the Orthodox Christian
Studies Forum (for currently enrolled students only of the distance education programs
offered by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America) and
the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Clergy Forum
(for clergy, religious, and clergy wives of that Church). Contact an administrator for
access.
|
|
3135 Members
20 Forums
21734 Topics
284021 Posts
Max Online: 1087 @ 07/16/07 01:09 PM
|
|
|
#288246 - 05/07/08 08:24 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Administrator]
|
Apotheoun
Member
Registered: 03/25/05
Posts: 1466
Loc: SF Bay Area, CA
|
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. 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. Apotheoun's statement is very strange.
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288285 - 05/08/08 09:37 AM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: ebed melech]
|
Diak
Moderator
Member
Registered: 03/24/02
Posts: 6192
Loc: Kansas
|
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288291 - 05/08/08 10:29 AM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Diak]
|
Mykhayl
Member
Registered: 02/16/08
Posts: 272
Loc: Pgh, PA USA
|
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288296 - 05/08/08 11:06 AM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Diak]
|
robster
Member
Registered: 04/12/06
Posts: 161
Loc: Minneapolis, Minn. USA
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288301 - 05/08/08 12:18 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: robster]
|
ByzBob
Junior Member
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 13
Loc: Pittsburgh
|
My understanding is that all Catholics, including all Byzantine Catholics, have an obligation to affirm it (the filoque)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.
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.
Edited by ByzBob (05/08/08 12:18 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288307 - 05/08/08 01:10 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Athanasius The L]
|
robster
Member
Registered: 04/12/06
Posts: 161
Loc: Minneapolis, Minn. USA
|
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
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288309 - 05/08/08 01:39 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Athanasius The L]
|
ByzBob
Junior Member
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 13
Loc: Pittsburgh
|
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.
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 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.
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?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288310 - 05/08/08 01:41 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: robster]
|
Peter_B
Member
Registered: 02/21/05
Posts: 272
Loc: New England
|
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,
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]"?
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.
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288319 - 05/08/08 02:46 PM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Peter_B]
|
Apotheoun
Member
Registered: 03/25/05
Posts: 1466
Loc: SF Bay Area, CA
|
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).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288351 - 05/09/08 12:33 AM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Diak]
|
lm
Member
Registered: 08/29/05
Posts: 778
Loc: usa
|
The Union of Brest, article one states:
Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
In the Summa Theologia, Prima Pars, Q. 36 article 3, Thomas Aquinas, the Latin theologian of the West, states:
Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning.
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#288352 - 05/09/08 12:45 AM
Re: Father Hopko on the filioque
[Re: Apotheoun]
|
lm
Member
Registered: 08/29/05
Posts: 778
Loc: usa
|
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).
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Hieromonk Elias, Alice, Father Anthony, Irish Melkite
|
