www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Cardinal Kasper's Question.

In his 1989 book, Theology and the Church, Walter Cardinal Kasper posed the following question after commenting favorably on declarations of consensus reached by Paul VI and John Paul II with "two ancient oriental[non-Chalcedonian]Churches":

"So what we have in these consensus declarations is evidently unity in the truth of faith, although the one church does not force its own **formula** of faith on the other. Would it not therefore be possible to arrive at a similar agreement with the Orthodox churches about the Filioque?"

In the intervening years, no similar agreement has yet been forged, events in Eastern Europe having hampered theological discussion.
If he still thinks along this line, how would you inform his continued consideration of this issue?

[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

I don't know how relevant what I have to say is, but I'll give it a shot, having had my Apple Jacks this morning...

It may be true that no agreement on the Filioque similar to the joint Christological declarations between Rome and the Syrians and Armenians (?) has been made with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and certainly such is to be hoped for.

Since Rome has (if I'm not mistaken) issued a clarification on the Filioque, affirming the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and not from two sources, it would seem that the doctrinal part is there. And even some preliminary steps have been taken, such as omitting the Filioque when sung in Greek, or in the presence of Orthodox hierarchs, or in countries with an Orthodox majority (I thought Greek Roman Catholics didn't use the Filioque...). Nevertheless, I don't think an agreement could/would be hammered out unless it was removed completely at all times, no matter what.

Who has the right to add anything to the Creed?

Here I speak as an amateur, but I suspect only an Ecumenical Council could add something to the Creed, as the Second Ecumenical Council did when adding the part about the Holy Spirit to the Creed of Nicaea; since the Creed belongs to the whole Church, I suspect only the whole Church could alter it in any way (and when Card. Kaspar says that the agreements between Rome and the Oriental Churches don't force the formula of faith of one Church on another, I don't think that's quite true; it may be true with regard to Christology, but an addition to the Creed of the entire Church is just that: an imposition of one Church's particular "formula of faith" on the faith of the entire Church).

Yet, the addition of the Filioque was done, not by any Western Council calling itself ecumenical (at least this would've given some semblance of legitimacy). However it managed to get there, it stayed there because the Popes of Rome eventually approved of it; and because Roman teaching is that the Pope is the head of the Church, and because of this he has the powers Roman teaching says he has, it seems Roman teaching would agree that he can do it unilaterally, and that's that.

And that, I think, is the problem. The Filioque issue, to me, has much to do with papal authority, and its powers and limits. These powers and limits, from the Roman Catholic side, have more or less been dogmatised; all Roman Catholics are required to believe those things in order to call themselves Roman Catholics.

Hence, even if both sides agree on the fact that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone, there is still not "unity in the truth of faith", as Cardinal Kaspar writes, because the "dogmatic" teachings on the papacy are part of what gave the Filioque legitimacy (even if they weren't fully defined as dogmas until Vatican I), and they still haven't been dealt with; they still stand untouched and in force in all their Vatican I splendour.

If we have to deal with anything, perhaps East and West should deal with the papacy, and once something is agreed upon by both sides regarding the office and its authority and limits, perhaps the rest will be easier to deal with.

Just this amateur's thoughts on a bowl of Apple Jacks...

From over a cereal bowl or not, yours is a quality commentary. Thanks for the thoughts.

I agree with your conjecture, but the whole Catholic/Orthodox "Dialogue of Love" assumed from the beginning that discussions would "ramp up" to the most intractable issue (i.e., papal primacy)in the apparent assumption that preliminary agreements will facilitate dealing with the big enchilada.
(I believe the American Catholic-Orthodox bilateral adopted the Filioque as their current study theme.)

Thanks, Durak.

I suppose there is wisdom in settling lesser issues first, and then moving to the main issue. Assuming agreements are reached, it boosts morale and confidence in the dialogue.

My only concern is that, at least with the Filioque, it seems to have as much to do with the exercise of the papal office as it does with single v. dual procession of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure how many of the other issues that separate Catholics and Orthodox have this in common; I don't know how many there are that have as much to do with the papacy as they do with the issue proper (the RC dogma of the Immaculate Conception, for example), but I suspect quite a few of them may be like this.

So while racking up victory after victory in lesser dialogues in order to boost morale and confidence working up to the great debate sounds like a good plan, I wonder if there would be any benefit in just going for broke, trying to solve the papal issue, and then letting everything else filter through after that is dealt with.

From Durak
With Quote Originally posted by Mor Ephrem:

>>>If we have to deal with anything, perhaps East and West should deal with the papacy, and once something is agreed upon by both sides regarding the office and its authority and limits, perhaps the rest will be easier to deal with.<<<

Apple Jacks snipped...

>>...the whole Catholic/Orthodox "Dialogue of Love" assumed from the beginning that discussions would "ramp up" to the most intractable issue (i.e., papal primacy)in the apparent assumption that preliminary agreements will facilitate dealing with the big enchilada.<<

So that when we have extended courtesies to each other, such as in leaving the Filioque out of the statement of the Creed when the [easily offended] Orthodox Patriarchs are present, then we can perhaps delimit somewhat by a process of compromise the actual extent of Papal authority?

I really do think that it is an issue of authority, and the Roman Bishop has the same authority as any other bishop. Was it not bishops, after all, who were the sources of most heresies? From the Eastern perspective, the whole idea of one bishop having authority over all the others is simply nonsense. Anyone can err...

And for us to think that we can nibble away the consequences of such an idea through the exercise of courtesy in matters of dogmatic creedal confession, or even the resolution of the matter in some other way - Even if the Fifioque were to be abandoned by Rome entirely in the dialogues - This would not address the matter of authority which the Roman Church claims for Herself over the rest of the Churches. For such a matter to come into existence, it would have to be by unanimous consent of ecumenical council, and subject to review by subsequent councils.

And I just do not see any way that the western Church will confess Her sins of being headstrong and authoritarian and wrong, and then repent of them and return to the pre-schism doctrine, as Orthodoxy has kept ever since the schism. I really do not think Rome is capable of this, and I do not see any other way for reconciliation to occur.

It would be illuminating to me to hear from our western brothers what they see the Orthodox as capable of doing that would resolve the schism and bring healing to the whole Church...

geo

Dear George,

I am not trying to be provocative in my response to your request above.

Speaking for myself as one of your western (I assume you mean Latin) brothers, the vocabulary that you use in your first paragraph might be a place to begin with the healing. Here's why I think so.

If those words portray the conception among our eastern brothers of the nature of the Western Church and its teachings; it must be difficult for any Easterner to deal with her. On the other hand, dealing with those who see the Western Chruch alone in such terms might be difficult for some of your western brothers, don't you think?

Is the Latin Church headstrong, authoritarian, and wrong? Is she sinful? Of course she is.

I think that the Pope has confessed her sins out loud in front of God and everyone.

Is it really useful to healing to lift the first stone even when your prodigal sister confesses her faults?

Steve

[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Excuse me for inserting myself here, Steve, but I can just hear members of the Moscow Patriarchate say what they have been saying "paki i paki":

"Papal words of contrition are empty as long as proselytism continues to be practiced on our canonical territory." {Sigh}

[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

"Illuminating,"? yes, and interesting as well....But....authentic ecumenism is rooted in making oneself accountable to the question, "What can my Church do?" rather than "What should the 'other' do?"
I am Catholic, and I think what my Church can do is rethink the nature of papal primacy, with the help of fellow Christians.
This rethinking is what John Paul II has already embarked upon. In my book, this will be his greatest legacy.

Your move.

[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

George,

Perhaps the reconciliation will come once the Eastern Orthodox join the Catholic Church (i.e. being converted out of existence if you will). But I don't see that happening either.

Durak,

When Russia will stop kicking out Catholic priests and revoking their visasfor trying to care for the Catholic faithful in Russia, maybe some talks with the Moscow Patriarchate can begin. It seems to me, an uneducated onlooker, that the Orthodox, or at least the Russian government, are starving the Catholics of their priests, thus incorporating and converting them into Orthodox communities and parishes.

Soli Deo Gloria,
ChristTeen287

Dear Durak,

Of course, you're right!

I suggested the vocabulary as the beginning point because it stands for a vision of what the Catholic Communion is about.

Seeing her as a headstrong, authoritarian, wrong and REPENTANT sinner could lead to different conclusions about her behavior or at least open a different kind of discussion between the Patriarch of Moscow and the Pope of Rome. It might take a leap of faith to move in that direction, but isn't that what our Churches are supposed to be about? Faith.

It's hard to for a sinner to repent; harder for a sinner to confess; and hardest of all to behave as though the sinner means it. It seems to me that John Paul II has tried to do these things on the part of the Catholic Communion.

I think that it's equally hard for the one sinned against to hear the confession and assume that the repentence is real. Seeing the sinner as brother or sister who, despite relapses, is actually trying to change is harder still.

Like repentance it takes a change of heart.

It must be possible among us since Jesus prayed that we might be one. His prayers are efficacious. It takes us working together to make it so.

Being careful about how we talk about one another seems to me to be a workable place to start.

Now, if only I could control MY mouth!

Steve

[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dear ChristTeen287,

With all due respect, and I'm not trying to knock you at all, but things are a bit more complicated than you seem to think, on both sides of the Schism.

Your posts (that I've read, anyway) betray a deep loyalty to your own Church, and that is to be commended.

But, as I've come to learn here and elsewhere, the issues, whether they be the papacy, Russia, "the Eastern Orthodox joining the Catholic Church (i.e. being converted out of existence)**", or for that matter "Roman Catholics returning to the Orthodox Church", are more complicated than we often can give them credit for.

I know that as you stay with us here, you will keep yourself open to learning about us and our perspective on things, and begin to understand us. And understanding one another is always a good thing.

** Lesson number one. :p That was a poor choice of words.

The Filioque should just be dropped across the board even for the Roman liturgy. The particular circumstances of neo-Arianism in Spain and Gaul that precipated its use are long gone and it remains a lingering wound with an accompanying fabricated "theology" that should not pose a crisis of faith to any Catholic if it were removed.

Many RC's probably wouldn't even notice it, and if the historical and theological context of its use were explained I think many RCs would embrace its removal.

I beg to disagree. Neo-Arianism, and a much worse form, is still with us.

Please consider this suggested restatement: Many RC's and Eastern Christians would understand why it was formulated -- The Council of Toledo stood on substantial Patristic witness -- in the first place.

Returning to Cardinal Kasper's floated suggestion, the West should be able to keep its
theological conviction, without forcing the particular formulation of that conviction on anyone else -- as the Roman Church has not done so in the past few decades. (My Byzantine Catholic Church has not said it in the past few years, and that is O.K. for sure.)

[ 08-19-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Mor Ephrem,

Yes, I know it was a poor choice of words, but being a very uppity adolescent, it's easy for me to get steamed up when I hear others say what I feel to be putting down Christ's Church. Thanks for the friendly advice, I will try to act upon it.

Diak,

I also agree with you: I think it would be more helpful to ecumenical relations in Rome would drop the Filioque, as long as everyone recognized that the Filioque IS a legitimate and correct doctrine, whether it's used or not. That's the trouble, I think; if the Romans dropped the phrase, it would seem as though Catholicism is admitting it was wrong regarding the Filioque, when in fact it was a matter of deep misunderstanding.

Soli Deo Gratia,
ChristTeen287

I think the rub is that the creed belongs to the entire church, it is a sign or symbol, or seal, of our unity in faith. It's really hard to accept that translations of the creed in the same language would differ as between ritual churches -- that seems to go against the very aspect of the creed that it was intended to serve -- namely as a symbol and seal of the unity of faith among all local churches. Therefore I think that even if Orthodoxy is able to agree with the Vatican's recent "clarification" of the filioque (as explicated in Metropolitan John's responsa to it), the fact remains that it is very hard to countenance two versions of the creed. I think that is a very important symbolic issue. If the Roman Catholics wish to teach a very complicated pneumatology along the lines expressed in their "clarification", that seems fine (as the clarification seems Orthodox, or at least leading towards an Orthodox position), but the wording of the creed really should be the same in all churches, it is a symbol and seal of our unity in faith, and it belongs to all of us together -- we can't go around changing or adapting it on a local church basis without disrupting the visible unity of faith.

Brendan