www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What Will It Take to Reunite the Churches?

I have posted this comment on the filioque at another forum, but I thought I would post it here as well:


Eastern Triadology, unlike the Scholastic philosophical theology of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle (arche), source (pege), and cause (aitia) of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their subsistence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are � as a consequence � �homoousios� with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word �homoousios� itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the term �homoousios� involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person (hypostasis) from the Father alone by generation (gennatos), and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father�s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit, because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father�s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which � as I already indicated � is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, �Logos Apodeiktikos� I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal subsistence and their co-essential nature.

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis) proceeds from Father and the Son �as from one principle,� thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son, by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.

The distinction between active and passive spiration is a part of the Scholastic theory that posits four Trinitarian relations within the Godhead, and according to this theory active spiritation is common to the Father and the Son, while passive spiration (i.e., procession) applies only to the Holy Spirit. In other words, St. Thomas taught that the Holy Spirit passively proceeds (as person) from the Father and the Son, who together form His (i.e., the Spirit's) active source or cause.

Of course, the whole idea that the persons of the Trinity are reducible to four relations of opposition within the divine essence is foreign to the Byzantine Triadological tradition.

Father, your post brings me sorrow. It tells me that you take nothing of what I say at face value.

Joe

I don't think that's what he's saying, nor do I think he is advocating something akin to Protestant denominationalism.


It is virtually impossible. It will take a miracle. What I find surprising is the tendency to think otherwise.

The real obstacle is and remains not the perception of the issue however. The obstacle is the doctrine which divides the churches.

Dear Todd,

Excellent as per your usual.

If EC's can accept what you have so brilliantly explained as Catholics - then we really are ahead of the unity game!

Scholasticism is just so, well, scholastic . . .

But I see you as a kind of EC Mark of Ephesus. If we had a union council here on the forum (with the Administrator as "acting Pope") and during the discussion on the Filioque you got up and walked away, I can hear the Administrator echo those famous words, "We have accomplished nothing . . ."

And that would be true enough.

It seems to me that both Catholics and Orthodox accept as a priori that the Son is eternally Begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father - and that these two unknowable relations establish the distinctness of both the Son and the Spirit within the Holy Trinity. If this is correct, then what further is needed to affirm our common unity of faith?

It is always great to read your posts and your in depth scholarly (I almost said "scholastic" but I wouldn't do that to you! ;)).

It is a blessing for this Forum to have you and the high calibre of your theological breadth of knowledge.

It just goes to show that there is great hope for all Roman Catholics . . .

Pax vobiscum!

Alex

Fr. Steele,

With all due respect, Father, I don't want to be in union with your Church. I don't believe in certain Catholic teachings, such as the papacy and the filioque (to name just two). I also dislike participating in the (Novus Ordo) Catholic Mass. Therefore, I am in the process of leaving the Catholic Church. And, I am in the process of joining the Orthodox Church because I believe in what it teaches (mostly) and I prefer its form of worship.

Discussion threads like this often proceed from an assumption that I do not share. Namely, that there should be outward or visible or organizational unity in the Church. Jesus' prayer "Let them all be one, Father, as You and I are One" is often cited as support.

This might make me a heretic in Catholic and Orthodox eyes, but I don't believe this means that the Church must be one organization. I think the Church is Christ and all who are united with Him. The denominations are simply man's doings, not God's. And, there will probably always be denominations because people are different and they like being different. Popes and patriarchs don't make the Church One; Christ does.

You wrote, "Why work for unity when it is easier to excuse division?" I don't want to work for unity. I want to work for morality and compassion and reverence -- and the freedom to be separate and different within the greater community.

-- John

John,

Actually, you have just affirmed my statement. It is common among many Protestants, particularly pro-WO Anglicans, to say Jesus never meant an organic unity in the Church, that the Church is greater than the "mere organizations" which make it up.

This is a very convenient argument for those who wish to ignore sacred tradition and sacred scripture to do whatever they please, such as WO.

In the case of actual historical churches, Catholic and Orthodox, this does not work. The church is not just an administrative organization but is the organic and sacramental reality of Christ's body manifest in the world through the ministry of the Apostles and their successors, your personal feelings notwithstanding.

However you might personally feel about communion with the Catholic Church, John, the Petrine ministry, however defined, is a constitutive dimension of the Church, Catholic and Orthodox. As evidenced in the Ravenna Document, there is a will toward unity among both the Catholic and Orthodox churches which you will not escape by becoming Orthodox.

The attitude that the Church can exist perfectly without the Petrine ministry, however defined, is unbiblical and anti-historical.

Furthermore, it is completely disingenuous to insinuate that "morality, and compassion and reverence" are somehow in opposition to the unity of the church.

Father,

I don't think John was insinuating anything.

Joe

Thank you, Todd, for your very able explications. For over a thousand years there have been formulations of the filioque that have been acceptable to both east and west.

There are two important things to remember about this controversy. First, it is primarily a political controversy rather than a theological one. While there are theological differences between East and West on the matter, they have been theoretically resolved for centuries. However, the prerogative of the West to alter unilaterally the formula of the creeds is the more serious matter in the division. This comes down to, once again, the role of the pope which remains to be worked out in future dialogues.

The second thing to remember is that the scholastic formulations, which as you say are foreign to the East, remain in the realm of speculative theology. The theological meaning of the filioque has never been precisely defined by the Catholic Church and so remains speculative. As one could speculate on the veracity of the Immaculate Conception in the West until 1854, so the meaning of the filique remains. I suspect that the filioque has been left doctrinally open through the centuries precisely to leave open the door to reunification.

Disingenuous? Why, Father: forgive my lack of clarity.

And allow me to be very clear:

I think that the kind of unity you seem to want is often in opposition to compassion and reverence and, sometimes, even morality.

That's because you seem to want uniformity or agreement as a condition for being together.

Well, I think people can be good neighbors without being in agreement on beliefs and without being members of the same houses of worship. I'm willing to be a good neighbor. I'm not willing to be a Catholic. But, I think we can still get along: you being Catholic and me not.

But when people seem bound and determined for unity despite our real differences, it is an act of disrespect to what makes others unique and different and themselves. And that often leads to a lack of compassion, and that can even lead to a lack of morality. I am not directing that remark to you personally, Father. History is replete with examples of people killing, persecuting or just plain hating each other -- over different ways to understand and address the Prince of Peace.

And now if you will excuse me, I must step away from the computer for a while. Enjoy the weekend, and please accept my apologies if I offended more than ruffling some feathers.

-- John

Bless, Father Steele!

In your response to Todd, Reverend Father, you state that there have been formulations of the Filioque that have been acceptable to both East and West.

That is something I've not heard or read about before.

Could you explain this further for ignoramuses like myself?

In addition, you appear to equate the Eastern argument against the unilateral interpolation of the Filioque in the Creed meant to be an expression of the universal Faith of the one Church as part and parcel of the Orthodox East's denial of papal authority.

IF I have understood your point correctly, then why is the argument about the keeping of the Filioque in the Creed not simply dismissed as "Orthodox bias against the papacy" and why don't the RC theologians involved in the debate with Orthodox theologians not simply relegate this issue as a "subtopic" of "Papal Primacy" in the discussion?

In addition, if the inclusion of Filioque in the Creed was a prerogative of papal authority alone - and not a theological issue in its own right - then why did His Holiness Pope John Paul II insist on reciting the Creed without the Filioque when the Holy Father celebrated Mass in Greek? Was he contradicting himself in so doing?

Also, the fact remains that at Florence and at Brest (as well as during other union councils), those coming into union with Rome were not obligated to include the Filioque in the creed. If such inclusion were as intrinsically a part of the prerogatives of papal authority, one would think (at least I would) that the Latin Church would have seen such exclusion as an act of disobedience and therefore would have insisted on including it.

The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in Canada and elsewhere today has been steadily dropping the Filioque from the Creed and, as far as I can tell, not one of our Eparchs has done so from the standpoint of wishing to attack papal authority.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Bless, Father Steele,

While I as a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic certainly accept Papal primacy et al., I think we can do a disservice to our Orthodox friends when we make certain assumptions about their faith and praxis.

Orthodoxy certainly adheres to a belief in the Petrine Primacy. It is just that after the Schism, it affirms that the Petrine Minister is now the Patriarch of New Rome/Constantinople. We disagree with that, of course, but that is their faith and belief and I believe we are called upon to take it seriously and with respect.

Certainly, Rome does or else the Vatican wouldn't be going to all sorts of lengths to maintain ecumenical ties to Orthodoxy and especially Russian Orthodoxy. If you would like my view of Rome and her "ost-politik" in this regard, I will be pleased to email you privately.

So, at the outset, you appear to be surprisingly out of sync with Rome on this.

And on this forum, there are those who engage in theological discussions and also in discussions of ecclesial praxis and who, for various reasons, decide to become Orthodox.

I think that we need to respect that and even appreciate the spiritual depth of the search that such individuals undertake, their struggles with those in their immediate environment who dissuade them from taking this path, and the like.

I've been approached by those who want to become Orthodox and I've told them what the Catholic Church believes about the Pope et alia. I've done so with as much sensitivity as I can muster and when they come back with a smile to say they want to become Orthodox - I respect that and I remain good friends with them.

I have a former Episcopal priest who is a friend and who became a member of the Western Orthodox vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. He and his entire parish joined and they are all very devout people in whom there is not the slightest hint of wavering or liberalism or any such thing. In fact, they joined Orthodoxy to get away from the liberalism they saw in Anglicanism. And, truth be told, they didn't see all that much difference in Roman Catholicism, her Novus Ordo et al.

As for liberalism in Latin Catholicism, well, there's plenty of it up here. Apart from the moral issues that I don't want to get into because I upset Logos-Alex whenever I do, the Novus Ordo Mass is simply, well, not on with me or many like me. On the other hand, as an ECer, I don't ever have to participate in such liturgies where there are guitars and folk songs. When I go to a Latin Church, I go when there is a Tridentine Mass in Latin. (Why the Latin Church ever gave up such inexpressible liturgical beauty is another problem for me and others).

So I can well appreciate John's comments and struggles. I know a number who have become Orthodox (and EC) because of this problem in the Roman Church (even though it is true that Pope Benedict is addressing this today).

So I don't think it is fair, if I am reading you correctly, Reverend Father, to suggest that the Western Orthodox or John are tending toward Protestantism. Frankly, if the liturgy and some of the teaching of contemporary Latin and Eastern Catholic priests I've heard are any indication, we have a BIG problem with that in the Catholic Church.

And I think that sincere, prayerful individuals like John who are searching for a Church home where they can find true peace with God, even though it is Orthodox with its Petrine Minister in the person of the EP of Constantinople, can sometimes formulate their issues in ways that do not truly reflect what they feel and believe - only because when we are put on the defensive, as you have unfortunately done with John, we can say things that reflect our defensiveness rather than the faith of Orthodoxy to which these individuals aspire with all their heart and soul.

John and others who would know me here know I'm for the Pope of Rome. So was my great-uncle, Archbishop V. Sterniuk C.SS.R. who spent ten years in Siberia for his faith.

But if sincere individual Catholics (and others) are led to Orthodoxy - even if we disagree - let's support them in their prayerful openness and painful discernment that is never taken lightly by them and open our arms to them wishing them the best in the Church home that they feel drawn toward.

We Catholics, Father, have too many issues to deal with to ensure that we are doing the best we can to maintain and communicate the Faith in a way that is uncompromising, dignified liturgically together with the ascetical self-discipline that seems to be wholly lacking.

None of this is an issue in the Orthodox Churches, including, I might add, the Western Orthodox vicariates.

I would like to take this opportunity to affirm my love and prayerful support to John and those here who are going through similar spiritual struggles.

Kissing your right hand, Father, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Despite being a Traditional Latin (or perhaps because I am one) this is an area where I see the typical Orthodox perspective on reunion as being more much more realistic than my own Church's. The Latin Church, for over 40 years now has been in a conciliatory mode, where we're not supposed to say anything critical regarding the beliefs of anyone, because the unwritten 1st Commandment is now "Thou Shall Not Offend" While disagreeing on many theological issues with the Orthodox, I still applaud them for not accepting the idea that their is no such thing as black and white, because everything is really a gray area, or that up is just down from different perspective, and that our doctrines are all a little bit right and a little bit wrong, or that we sin terribly and rend the Body of Christ when we dare to say "I happen to think my Church is right."

John, I just want to say I really enjoy your posts, and your outlook and attitude has helped me a lot in my own spiritual struggles.

Lawrence, while there has been a more conciliatory mood among Catholics in the past 40 years, I do not think it is accurate to imply that the Church herself has given anything up of her teaching for the sake of being conciliatory. Evidence of the Church's commitment to her teaching despite unpopularity are plenty. Let's take a look at a short list of teaching which debunk the caricature:

*The Church's insistence that Protestant ecclesial communities are not churches.
*The insistence that the Church founded by Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
*The insistence that WO is illegitimate.
*The insistence that the Orthodox churches suffer a defect for their separation from the Petrine office.
*The reiteration of Apostolicae Curae which declared Anglican Orders "absolutely null and utterly void."
*The limitation of access to Catholic sacraments by the Orthodox to occasions of dire emergency.
*The complete rejection of the Z-Initiative
*The inistence on the teaching of Humanae Vitae

The general mood of "Thou Shall Not Offend" is more appropriately assigned the the "Spirit of Vatican II" while the Church herself is committed to the letter of Vatican II.