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

Father Steele,

With respect, I will briefly note that several points that you made were, at the very least, questionable from the Orthodox perspective. You have noted, "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."

Although many Orthodox would agree that there was some component ofecclesiastical politics involved, they would disagree with your blunt assertion it was mostly politics. They would argue that if one misunderstands the nature of the Trinity, the foundation of all Christian belief, the remainder of one's belief system collapses. In most sections of the EOC, the matter and nature of the Trinity is a closed issue and the EOC believes/knows it has a lock on the issue. St. Mark of Ephesus would clearly disagree with your comments. He was canonized precisely because he rejected (to use your words) "...formulations of the filioque that have been acceptable to both east and west.." and stood up for the formulation which was that of the framers of what we call the Nicaean Creed. In a word, as far as the EOC is concerned, the nature of the Trinity does not fall into the realm of speculative theology.

You also noted,"The theological meaning of the filioque has never been precisely defined by the Catholic Church and so remains speculative....I suspect that the filioque has been left doctrinally open through the centuries precisely to leave open the door to reunification."

Your last comment would appear to imply that because the theological meaning of the filioque has not been defined by the RCC is remains an open issue. You seem to assume that, since Rome has not spoken, the matter remains open. Are you arguing, "Roma non locuta est, causa non finita est?" The Orthodox Church considers the issue a closed matter. You are holding up Rome's stance as the yard stick against which the the issue should be resolved. Why should the EOC consider Rome the yardstick? Why should the Church of Constantinople give up what it has believed to be the truth for the last 1000 years?

I agree with the statement made by Harmon 3110, "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."

Dear Lawrence,



Alex

There is no Patristic evidence for a Petrine ministry at Constatinople. And Rome does not at all accept or respect such a claim.

From a Catholic perspective the creed is acceptible without the filioque. It is a clarification, not a necessity.

Both Eastern and Western theologians at various times and places have agreed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father actively and through the Son passively such that both side can agree to the formulation: The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Son is not a principle of the procession, but mediates the procession.

While filique as stated in the West is not acceptible itself as a formulation in the East, the theology it seeks to express is.

We have seen here recently admissions that other theological topics were not problematic in themselves but are problematic because they have been defined by the pope. In recent discussion on this forum it has been admitted that the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are not so much problems in themselves as the fact that they were asserted by the Pope without consultation with the East.

There is a similar reality with the filioque.

The pope likely life the filioque out of the creed in Greek as a conciliatory gesture. Conciliatory gestures and attitudes are necessary to improve relations. Some however misunderstand such gestures as giving up Catholic teaching. They are do not.

We have to define "Petrine ministry." There is plenty of patristic evidence that the Petrine ministry is not limited to Rome. Many fathers hold that all of the bishops have the Petrine ministry and some would even say that all believers have the Petrine ministry. St. Pope Gregory the Great states that the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch have the same Petrine ministry that he does and the same authority that he has.

Joe

It seems, John, that Jesus' will that we be one as the Father and the Son are one, is inconvenient for your desire to escape the Catholic Church. I hope, only for your sake, that the ecumenical dialogues between East and West fail. However, for the sake of Christ himself, I hope that they succeed in one day bringing about the unity that is his constant desire and prayer before the Father.

Is this theologically diverse enough for you?

All snarkiness aside, associating sectarian violence with theological discussion is like blaming Christianity for the death of Matt Shepherd. Mere theological disagreement is never a justification for violence as Pope Benedict has so ably stated with all clarity. But, theological difference is never an excuse for divisiveness in the Church either, which you seem to claim is the Orthodox position. While many Orthodox may think this way, there is also agreement among many in the Orthodox hierarchy that respect for Christ's desire for organic unity is an essential leading them to engage in the ecumenical dialogues. Catholicism has been changing. And the mood among the Orthodox hierarchy is changing as well, the Ravenna document being the latest evidence of this.

You seem to think that I and Catholicism oppose theological diversity. This is a mischaracterization. There is great theological diversity in Catholicim and much of that diversity, when appropriate, is embraced by the universal church as well. Liberation theology is itself legitimate within the church, provided that certain errors not be espoused, such as the advocacy of violence. Many themes of Liberation theology have been included in the Church's teaching as well, including the preferential option for the poor. So, Rome does not oppose theological diversity but embraces truth wherever it is found, including and epecially the East.

However, the Church does also affirm that truth is not divided but is one. So the Church does abhor contradiction. In the case of the Z-Initiative, the problem is not a matter of embracing the East, but of contradicting some essentials of Catholic theology.

I suppose you can find anyone in the past to assert any position one wants.

I would like to see the actual quote of Pope Gregory in context.

What an absolutely rude and uncalled for post.

Epistle of Gregory to Eulogius:

Gregory to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria.

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter�s chair who occupies Peter�s chair. And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus 229bfrom petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi. 17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself stablished the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside , whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee that they also may be one in us (Joh. xvii. 21).


For the full letter:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xxvi.html

Joe

I would be careful about quoting Pope St. Gregory the Great as his understanding of Roman jurisdiction is abundantly clear in his many letters. This one is to the bishop of Larrissa, a see in Northeastern Greece:



It is clear from this letter that not only did Gregory understand his immediate jusrisdiction to extend to the East, but so did Adrian, the bishop of of Thebae, himself a Greek.

While the evidence is mixed, the Eastern claim that Rome never held jurisdiction in the East prior to the schism is patently false.

Well, since we are playing the quotes game, let me add another. this is from another epistle to Eulogius of Alexandria. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.viii.xviii.html

Your Blessedness has also been careful to declare that you do not now make use of proud titles, which have sprung from a root of vanity, in writing to certain persons, and you address me saying, As you have commanded. This word, command, I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I did not, then, command, but was desirous of indicating what seemed to be profitable. Yet I do not find that your Blessedness has been willing to remember perfectly this very thing that I brought to your recollection. For I said that neither to me nor to any one else ought you to write anything of the kind; and lo, in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For as for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. But far be this from us. Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.

As for the quote you posted earlier, it is perfectly compatible with the view that St. Gregory considers other patriarchs to have the same authority. The patriarchal sees carried a great deal of moral authority and influence over the lesser sees. Yet from the whole context of his writing wherever St. Gregory deigns to assert authority, he does not presume that this authority is his alone.

Joe

This quote is pretty weak. It sounds like the kind of flowery language demanded of ancient protocol as it is not a thoroughly articulated position but a kind of polite mention in passing.

While he recognizes the fact that Peter was at these places, he does not in any way say that in fact jurisdiction is shared. If he had wanted to say that, I would expect that there would have been boundary set for the three "Sees of Peter" and their jursidiction. As pope, Gregory is very clear about and uses effectively his universal jurisdiction which he exercised in both the East and West. So, it is not clear how he would see this jurisdiction being shared in practice by the other two sees.

Joe, I thought you'd be giving us something more convincing than that.

Father, why are the insults necessary? I am through discussing this with you.

Joe

Again, Joe,

The language of the letter to Eulogius is one of flattery and diplomacy, not one of legal import. This was common in the ancient world. If you are familiar with classical literature, you will see that even enemies wrote to each other often in these kinds of flowery terms.

Make no mistake, however, that all of Gregory's letters were written in such a flowery tone. When writing on administrative or theological matters, none of this language is present. Gregory himself speaks in clear authoritative tone when writing on matters within his jurisdiction, a jurisdiction which embraced the church East and West.

Joe,

I apologize for insulting you. This was not my intent. As you say, this is a difficult medium for communicating tone.

Fr. J.