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

Bless, Father Steele,

Yes, I accept your explanation of the procession of the Spirit!

However, there is disagreement among the Churches as to the meaning of "through the Son." There does not seem to be any Patristic evidence in the first millennium to confirm that "through the Son" refers to anything more than to the temporal sending of the Spirit into the world.

And there is nothing in RC theological discussions with the Orthodox that indicate they disagree with this position or do not find it problematic enough to be open to further elucidation.

If we are only courteous toward the Orthodox by keeping the Filioque out of the Creed etc., then who is being political, if not we Catholics? I think that would rather be the height of political correctness and ecumenical insincerity.

As for the Petrine Primacy, the position of Orthodoxy is that the Pope of Rome held that primacy while he was inerrant in faith and was in communion with the Churches of the East.

According to Orthodox ecclesiology, having separated himself from Orthodoxy through heresy, the Pope of Rome lost the position of "First among Equals" and the First among Equals in the East, the Patriarch of New Rome assumed that position. Certainly, the Primacy has nothing of the jurisdictional implication that it does in the West.

We disagree with that, but it is important, nevertheless, to understand it. Rome certainly disagrees with it - but does it not respect that position? I would say it does indeed. There is nothing in the words of the recent Popes of Rome or RC theologians engaged in the discussion with the Orthodox that would suggest a hint of anything otherwise.

During a visit to Rome by the EP, Pope John Paul II made it a priority to ensure that the two were seated on an equal level - an ancient tradition, to be sure.

If, as you are suggesting, such overtures are entirely out of courtesy et al., then I think your position lacks ecumenical integrity.

Certainly, Pope John Paul II was an ecumenist. And certainly his sincerity and openness to reevaluating issues were beyond reproach and had nothing of the political in them.

As someone who works in the world of politics, I would say you would make an excellent politician.

But by refusing to understand AND respect the positions of the Orthodox, well, suffice it to say this Forum will NOT be approving any application of yours to join any Catholic-Orthodox Theological Commission!

I don't want to end on a negative note, so I will just say, "Congratulations on the glorification of your Order's Founder!"

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing (which you have yet to give, I might add . . .)

Alex

Bless, Father!

Is it not true that there is a debate within the Catholic Church today about the style of Petrine Ministry to be exercised and even about possible exaggerations of interpretation with respect to juridical power of the Pope?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Gregory wrote this letter to the bishops of the region of Dalmatia, a Greek speaking Roman province. In this letter he advises them not to ordain anyone a bishop without his permission. This is a clear expression of universal jurisdiction.

Father,

I forgive you.

Joe

Alex,

You are right. It was sufficient and accurate to say that Rome does not accept Constantinople's claim to the Petrine Ministry. And, it was an excess on my part to say that Rome does not respect Constantinople's claim to the Petrine Ministry. For that I do apologize.

As regards the retention of filioque, this in fact is a delicate political question. There are many Catholic traditionalists who would flee Rome were it definitively dropped at this time, I suspect. In relation to the East, its retention may provide a future gift to the East should a reunion come to pass, as the creed is acceptable to Catholic theology without it.

I suppose being a politician is a two edged sword. On the one hand one is accused of being too conciliatory and on the other one is accused of being to firm. It is never an easy place to be when one is between historic enemies. Peacemaking is messy, and no I am not very good at it.

Actually, after trying so hard to be conciliatory on this forum without much success, I have tried to assume a thicker skin and be more direct in my approach. As you can see I haven't been entirely successful at this approach either.

As for the blessing, it is only for lack of knowing the exact protocol for communicating electronically a blessing that I have not expressed one. But be assured you do have my blessing.

God Bless,
Fr. J.

Father Bless!

I think Father Serge just writes "The Blessing of the Lord!" When he replies to people who start their messages to them with "Father Bless!" or for those who savvy Ukie: "Blahoslovy!"*


* I'm not really one of them, I just know some Liturgical catch phrases.

Generally, as regards Rome, there are always difficult political issues. Theology and politics are never easily separated except in books.

For instance, Rome is taking seriously the need to "reform the reform" with respect to the liturgy. The return of the ancient form of the rite means a lot of things depending on the context. To the modernist, it is a slam. To the traditionalists, it is an olive branch. To the East it is a mixed sign. Clearly, it is closer to the liturgy of the undivided Church of the first millenium. But it is also the liturgy of Trent and the divided church in a time of great polemics against the East. Many Catholic traditionalist want the ancient form of the mass, but they also want the East be be called heretics and for all ecumenical dialogue to be stopped.

So, HH Pope Benedict is always working toward a future that is not the same as any particular moment in the past, offending everyone in one way or another. The future he is leading us toward is liturgical fidelity to the ancient rite, ecumenical fidelity to Christ's sacerdotal prayer, and the Gospel as critique of modernity.

Surely, not all will be happy, especially the great majority of theological liberals in the US, Catholic and otherwise.

All bishops are successors of all the Apostles, including Peter. The Eastern Churches have never accepted the idea that Rome holds primacy by divine revelation. The primacy accorded the bishop of Rome among the patriarchs is founded upon the canonical decisions of the ecumenical councils.

The filioque as formulated by the Scholastics is unacceptable to the East because it involves a confusion of the Spirit's hypostatic procession (ekporuesis) of origin as person, which is from the Father alone, with His (i.e., the Spirit's) eternal manifestation (pephenos) or progression (proienai) as energy, but not as person, which is from the Father through the Son.

Apotheoun, Thank you for stating clearly the issues I avoided discussing in detail. Every one in the west thinks the filioque is not a big deal, but as I noted above, "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...In a word, as far as the EOC is concerned, the nature of the Trinity does not fall into the realm of speculative theology." More bluntly, the EOC's view are cast in concrete or, if you prefer, carved in stone. Although many in the Latin Church may see this as a polemical/political issue, it is a major theological issue inn the eyes of the EOC. the debate on the issue will go no where until both sides can agree on a common set of definitions for discussion and until the west recognizes how serious the issue is. Father Steele's comments on the topic exhibit the views that one normally sees in comments made by most of the Latin clergy I know. it can be summed up in the words, what is the big deal? I am not finding fault with this view, but it is unfortunately the norm. I think many don't understand why the east is so concerned with the issue. Ironically, the issue goes back a 1000 years. We certainly won't solve it here.

Todd,

As I said before, the scholastic formulations are entirely relevant at this time as they are purely speculative and without force. This is why I avoided scholastic terminology in my post.

It is clear that you have invested a great deal of time in studying scholastic sources and your intelectual grasp of them is admirable. But, it is clear that much of scholastic theology is unfitting in the modern era as many of its presuppositions are no longer held.

So, scholastic formulae, and no there is not just one, of the filioque matter are not entirely helpful, nor are they authoritative. The precise meaning of filioque is undefined and will not likely be defined until it is done so by the reunified Church at which time it may be rejected as a formula or as a theology. For now it remains speculative, except for the revision of the text.

Yep, that list makes me want to just sign right up.

-- John

John,

I will thank you not to "sum up" my positions in any way, and certainly not as "What's the big deal."

I have given my understanding of the matter, it stands on it's own. Disagree with it, critique it. But do not make a caricature of it. Would you like me to caricature your point of view? If you would like me to, believe me, I will. Please withdraw this statement.

JOhn,

You have made my point. Rome is damned either way. It is damned for being too conciliatory and holding an idea of ecumenical dialogue which calls everything "no big deal." It is also damned for being too specific in its claims.

Critique it. Hate it if you must, John. But be consistent. You cant have it both ways.

It is interesting how the conversation switched to the filioque when proof of Roman jurisdiction in the first millenium was provided. It has not been addressed.