www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Eastern Schism

The following text from Father Joe Gill in Chapter V, in his history The Council of Florence should be required reading for all. The Latin position was eventually rejected but one must continue to ask and to be permitted to ask...on what grounds?

Mary

Dear Pseudo-Athanasius,

Well, when lm made that final comment about the papacy and the Filioque, it seemed as if he really was saying that - and if I'm wrong, then I am happy to be wrong!

At no time did Todd accuse anyone of Sabellianism - he accused the particular system that he was dissecting as tending toward Sabellianism and he is certainly not alone, historically, in saying that.

I think the Filioque can be explained in a way to make it compatible with what the Orthodox Church has always believed about Triadology. I don't think Latin theologians today tend to appreciate the issues involved - and there are many, if this thread alone is any indication.

Fr. John Meyendorff himself, in assessing Florence, said that if church unity is what was really being sought after there, then unity could have been achieved if the Latin Church agreed to unilaterally remove the Filioque from the Creed and both sides could agree on the "Through the Son" according to him.

My Redemptorist EC prayerbook itself states that the "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from One Principle."

I agree with you that there is more to it than that, and this is not the same saying that the Father and the Son are One Principle - but it is confusing at the best of times.

Besides, and even at the risk of having Todd disagree with me (on the other hand, I'm not at all in the same theological league as you learned guys - don't you get out much? ;)), I think that Aquinas himself probably explained the Procession better when he was articulating his view of the Greek perspective than that of the Latin. I believe his insistence on the Filioque in the Creed was more of a defence of the papacy's right to do it (or anything for that matter) than a theological one.

But please consider that none of what I've written has the weight of an "ex cathedra" pronouncement!

I believe the best thing here would be for all Churches (including the Protestants) to adhere to the original Creed without the Filioque, and for everyone to affirm a version of the "Through the Son."

That way everyone's happy, lm and Ghosty can get on with other things, and the international ecumenical movement for Catholic-Orthodox reunion may continue unabated by the Forum!

If you are a Melkite, a happy St Joseph's Day to you tomorrow!

Alex

Nobody here is dismissing the Byzantine position, that I can see. If anything is being dismissed, it's the notion that the two views are incompatible in their essence.

I also disagree with you that the Latin position is merely being said to "tend towards Sabellianism". Todd has said flat out that the Latin notion of "a single principle" is Sabellian. He said it here:


and:


"Single principle" is the Latin theological expression, and it's being said here to be Sabellian. Such an accusation is unwarranted without a lot more evidence than what has been presented, not to mention it flies in the face of the actual theological tradition of the Latin Church which asserts that the single principle is the Spiration, not the Persons themselves.

It is one thing to say that one doesn't accept or use the Latin theological model and language, another entirely to say it is heretical. It is also one thing to say "this is how the matter appears with Byzantine eyes, and why the discussions are difficult", and something else entirely to say "this is how it is, it's heretical, and it's unacceptable". The latter position is warranted if it is true and proven, but that hasn't been demonstrated. It's also a shaky position for a Catholic to hold, as these different traditions are in full Communion with eachother. Can we share the Eucharist with heretics?

As someone who worships in the Melkite Church, I recite the Creed without the filioque, and it's not an issue to me. If the Latin tradition weren't being accused of heresy, and frankly being misrepresented in the process, I wouldn't jump in at all. If we don't at least recognize the orthodoxy of the different Catholic traditions, and there are more than just Byzantine and Latin (and, incidently, the other traditions use different creeds as well; it's not just the Latin Church that's unique in this regard), then we do not have Communion, we have a farce.

Living "between worlds", worshipping with both Dominicans and Melkites, I know that our Communion is not a farce. Having sat down and personally discussed these issues with Sayedna Cyril, I know that we can not hold different Catholic traditions as heretical (we were actually discussing the Medievl Latin councils specifically, in fact), so I'm merely defending the unity of the Church.

So I'm not at all trying to bring down the Byzantine tradition that I love and worship in, I'm merely defending the equally Catholic and orthodox Latin tradition from what I see as unwarranted accusations from a fellow Catholic.

I hope that clears things up!

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

We are at a theological impasse, because -- as a Byzantine Christian -- I cannot in good conscience say that the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit as a "single principle." The very notion that the Son could possess a hypostatic property of the Father (i.e., the power to process the Spirit as hypostasis) leads inexorably to the heresy of Sabellius within the theological framework of Byzantine Triadology as it has been set forth by St. Athanasios and the Cappadocian Fathers.

Within the Byzantine tradition the Father is the sole cause, source, origin, and principle of the other two persons of the Holy Trinity. Thus, the Father as person spirates the Spirit giving Him His existential being and co-essential nature; and the Son, because procession (ekporeusis) is a hypostatic property of the Father, cannot be involved at all in the procession of origin of the Holy Spirit as person. Nevertheless, the distinction between essence and energy in God allows for the manifestation of the Spirit as energy from the Father through the Son, and in this way the consubstantial communion of the three divine persons is affirmed.

That being said, for me to embrace the Latin position on the procession of the Holy Spirit is to cease being Byzantine.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Perhaps I have been wrong over the past five years in thinking that it is truly possible to be an Eastern Christian in communion with Rome.

Todd,
Do you find it difficult to live out your faith at a parish level? Do your priest or you fellow church members disparage you as being anti-Roman? Do they require you to say the filioque or to practice Roman Catholic spirituality or theology?

If not, I would not judge your faith life on an Internet conversation.

If I may quote Treebeard, let's not be hasty!

I think it would be a good idea to take a stroll through Roman declarations on this subject, with an eye to determining exactly what is taught, and what is not. I may start a thread on that.

I'm thinking of Thomas More in "A Man for All Seasons" desparately looking for the exact words of the oath, to determine whether he can sign it or not. Oaths mean what the words say, and no more--so do doctrines. I think a close examination will be useful.

I would also note that the rule that doctrines mean what the words say, and no more, is also true of Byzantine teachings on the Trinity. Before making a judgment that two positions are incompatible, and then changing communions because of it, we need to find out what exactly we are bound to believe. I ask this, because I don't know: what are the authoritative statements on the creed in the east, and exactly how authoritative are they?

I hope you'll stick around--I think this could be a good discussion.

Nobody is asking or telling you to embrace the Latin position. I'm simply suggesting that you can't reject it as heretical since it's a valid, accepted Catholic theology. Just as Latins can't reject Byzantine theology as heretical and truly be in Communion with the Church.

We need to be clear on this distinction, because you seem to be seeing this as a battle that it's not. There is no forcing the filioque on anyone here, just an explaination of why it doesn't have to mean a contradiction between Byzantines and Latins, merely a theological difference (and further, why it doesn't mean what some polemicists claim it means, often by selectively ignoring certain points, and distorting others). Seeking to harmonize without diluting is dialogue, not an attack, and is one of the many benefits to the Catholic Communion.

If you feel that, as a Byzantine, you have no choice but to condemn Latin theology as heretical, then how can you be in Communion with the Latin Church which upholds these teachings? If being a Byzantine means, for you, to not only embrace Byzantine tradition and theology, but decry other Catholic traditions as heresy, then how can Communion be justified? Trying to discuss these differences in order to see where the Saints coincide despite their differences is a truly Catholic endeavor, not merely an ecumenical effort.

Peace and God bless!

Hi Alex,

I have given your post to the poster of the article from the New Advent website about the Eastern Schism and I would like to share his reply:


To quote people, yet you don't provide links/citations of the sources of such information (i.e., what article, encyclical, letter, etc.), that is just unfair to one seeking enlightenment. You say that the article is out-of-date by even contemporary RC scholarship standards, yet you fail to provide what these standards are (on the Eastern Schism) and what it got to say about the Eastern Schism.


Be careful where you quote. The declaration Dominus Iesus has this to say:

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity � rooted in the apostolic succession53 � between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: �This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as �the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him�.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that �outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth�,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that �they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church�.57
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60


They became saints not because of their writings. As for the De Fide Orthodoxa, this book provides a spirited defense of the Blessed Virgin's claim to the title of "Theotokos". He vigorously dealt with Nestorius for trying to substitute the title of "Mother of Christ" for "Mother of God". Unfortunately, I cannot find the phrase 'we never say the Spirit proceeds from the Son'.


Theologians could be wrong, They may contradict each other. They may offer differing opinions. Yet, in the Catholic Church, the teaching authority lies in the Church Magisterium - not on her theologians or saints. Aided by Sacred Traditions and Sacred Scriptures, the Magisterium is infallible in matters of faith and morals.


I, for my part, consider conciliar theory (i.e., an ecumenical council is superior to the Pope) an innovation from the East. Early on, Pope Clement mingled with the affairs of the Corinthians in one of his letter and give judgment on the case. There was no uproar. The intervention was accepted. Were the bishops of Antioch, Ephesus, Jerusalem, or any other apostolic sees consulted? I have not read any record. Nevertheless, this is probably the earliest example where the Pope - far though as he is - is an authority above other church authorities. The conciliar theory is never in the Sacred Tradition of the Church. It may be a tradition in some sees but not in the whole Church.


Before an Eastern Council passed such a rule, where in the writings of the early Christians has it said that an ecumenical council is superior to the Pope? It is very difficult to prove this. Yet, enormous amount of writings have provided evidence that the Pope is the final authority. No one is higher than him on this earth. He speaks with the authority of Christ and with finality.


Has Pope Benedict been asked on that particular issue? I doubt that. You said he has not denied; yet, it doesn't mean he has confirmed. Nice play of words there!


Are you trying to be funny? What is moral about that? It is physical but, when you talk about the care (or lack thereof) of this embryo, you are addressing things about morality. Some theologians back then may have taught such things (maybe Aquinas or Augustine or both or even a Pope in his personal capacity), but does not become part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.



My question here is : did they teach heretical doctrine once they were elected pope? Unfortunately, for you, no. That is the supreme protection of God on the successor of Peter. The same cannot be said with the successors of the other sees.


Pope Benedict is very exacting in his theology, so I doubt your assertion. On your next foray on other forums, try to quote your sources for the enlightenment of your reader.


The doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445).

Let me quote from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm :

since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the nineth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.
First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the son and Father [St. Basil, Ep. cxxv; Ep. xxxviii (alias xliii) ad Gregor. fratrem; "Adv.Eunom.", I, xx, III, sub init.]
Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athan., Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; "De Incarn.", ix; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, "Adv. Eunom.", v, in P.G.., XXIX, 731; cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. xliii, 9).
Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Greg. Thaumat., "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufius, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphan., Haer., c. lxii, 4; Greg. Nyss. Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", ass. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

Oh, goodness. This isn't going to help. I think I will duck now.

I was saying what Orthodox Catholic understood me to be saying. That is what St. Thomas maintains.

This is rather simplistic, and I need to look at St. Thomas more carefully (because I am not sure I understand him perfectly), but if the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and not from the Son (who became incarnate and himself visible) as well, then one would logically tend to overemphasize the invisible work of the Spirit within the Church at the expense of the visible head of the Church. Or to say this conversely, the invisible work of the Spirit need not logically be connected with the visible head of the Church. The procession of the Spirit from the Father alone and the procession of the Son from the Father alone, leads to distinct and somewhat separate avenues to the Father.

As a practical matter, hasn't this happened? I give one particular example--Rome has spoken definitively that contraception is a moral evil. Orthodoxy holds that it may or may not be, and thereby maintains the "work" of the "Spirit" apart from the Successor of Peter. The boundaries of the work of the Spirit can never be known in particular and concrete fashion, except to point to the Ecumenical Councils which may or may not address a particular issue.

As to the real tendency to Sabellianism (albiet a slightly different kind)--If the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, are not the Son and the Spirit really no different? Their origin is the same. Hence, for the processions of the Son and Spirit to be truly different, they must have some difference in origin (which is the only diffference they can have)--the Son from the Father and Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

I would agree whole heartedly with Ghosty's comments above. There can be no real unity by accusing the Latins and the Pope of heresey--and since I am a Catholic, I cannot, in conscience do that without grave sin--without breaking my communion with Rome. The alternative then is that I must conclude that I share the same faith with the Latins and should seek to understand how East and West are complimentary--faith seeking understanding. This may of course make me consider that such distintions between God's essence and energies are not real, although they may be useful in a certain sense--that distinction is not, as Ghosty points out, clearly in the Fathers. Should we then call it a development of doctrine? And how should we know if it is a true development? Tough questions.

No one has yet to answer my question that if God is as unknowable as Apotheun states He is, then how do the words Apotheun wants to use about Him make any sense to us whatsover. How do they mean anything at all to us?

If, however, we can use human words (which is the only kind we have) to speak of Him and they mean something, then we need to ask how can there be any type of procession in God that is not material? Since we are made in His image and likeness, it may be worthwhile to explore processions which are akin to those of the intellect and the will (which are immaterial)--especially since, "In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God."


This seems to me a little silly because what is the difference between saying "and" or "through?" Example-- I went from the living room and the kitchen to the dining room. I went from the living room, through the kitchen, to the dining room. Imagine that the kitchen is between the living room and the dining room.

BTW I have no problems removing the filioque, IF I am not required to reject the West's position on the filioque. There's the rub.

The Orthodox perspective according to whom? The Fathers? That is what is in dispute.


Yep. And it cannot condradict the legitamte expression of the East nor can the East contradict the legitimate expression of the West.


I think I would prefer Rome's statement as set forth in the link above about what the authentic Byzantine expression is.


NO; I simply reject the idea that Rome and Aquinas or Augustine must be wrong for the Byzantine perspective to be right.


Again no. The real questions is, "What is the legitimate tradition of the East?" For that we need to go to Damascene, Athanasius etc. etc. and not the Neo-Palamites who want to tell us what the authentic tradition of the East is. There could be and probably is a difference.

Dear Elexie,

Thank you for taking the trouble to send my post to someone who is not a member of this Forum!

The difficulty I have is that that gentleman would take Eastern Catholics themselves to task for their perspectives, let alone Eastern Orthodox. Apart from his own affirmation that things are the way he says, there is nothing convincing in his argumentation (even though I would agree with much of what he said, but not in the way he arrived at it).

What is clear is that IF that is the "official" perspective of the RC Church, then we've got a HECK of a long way to go before East-West unity can be achieved.

In addition, that perspective puts pay to what appears to be "lip service" on the part of Rome that our unity with the Orthodox is "almost complete."

If the above is the normative standard approach to these issues, "almost" is almost laughable.

In addition, I myself took the point from St John Damascus on the Spirit not proceeding from the Son not only from the De Fide Orthodoxa . . . but also from the argumentation by St Thomas Aquinas himself where he proposes to refute the Damscene on this point (also quoted here once before by Teen Logo).

No, I fear the gentleman in question is more concerned with an almost ideological perspective on the Papacy than he is with anything else. He would be the last person Rome would choose to sit on an ecumenical relations committee with Orthodox theologians (and from what he has written, it is clear he has read positively nothing in terms of reports produced by RC/Orthodox commissions).

Technically, you may be in violation of Forum rules, as I understand them (and I've been in violation of them many times in the past).

Perhaps the Moderators could give a ruling on this.

Under other circumstances, I would have been pleased to have lunch with that gentleman and spend what I know would be an enriching afternoon discussing the many points raised, refuted etc.


Cheers,

Alex

Dear lm,

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to respond so comprehensively to my humble post!

I've only time right now to comment on the point on "And" and "Through."

The difference is that "and" does not do nearly as good a job of underlining the role of the Father as the Origin of the Trinity as does "through" (Aquinas admitted both, but, as elexie's friend commented, theologians can err in terms of emphasis and Aquinas's perspective talks past that of the East, prior to or after Palamas - who is, by the way, a saint recognized by Rome today as well).

For the East, "and" suggests the heresy of two Sources of Origin of the Spirit - and Rome itself would condemn that as heresy. It is a bad expression for perspectives outside of the scholastic one.

Both Churches agree that the manner of procession of the Spirit is different from the manner of begetting of the Son - it is just that we cannot know the difference and, on the basis of that unknowable difference alone, there Spirit is distinct from the Son.

And the Church, until much later, had no problem agreeing on this score - until the West not only introduced the Filioque to a level of doctrinal necessity.

Boss is calling now and I must go.

Alex

So, if I understand things correctly, the real issue is whether the procession of the Spirit is through the Son from all eternity and within the Trinitarian communion of love or whether the procession of the Spirit through the Son is in terms of the economy of God's revelation.

My understanding is that the Orthodox position rejects any notion of the Spirit proceeded from/or through the Son from all eternity, but that the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father alone from all eternity, is manifested, sent forth, through the Son when Jesus bestows the Holy Spirit on the Church, from the Father. Is this basically the real issue? Because if it is the issue, then I don't see eastern and western theologies as compatible. In the Orthodox faith, we deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son from all eternity, the Son being either a primary or secondary cause. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone from all eternity, but is then, in God's economy, given to us through the Son (hence the legitimacy of the expression "through the Son"). I don't see this as compatible with latin theology.

Joe