www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West filioque and papal authority

Dear Professor Daniel,

You've put your finger on the real crux of the issue of the "Great Divide" between East and West here.

Ultimately, what divides West from East is NOT the Filioque or other doctrines, including the papacy.

What is the real sticking point is the relationship between papal authority and conciliar authority - all other doctrines/dogmas have to do with that relationship as viewed by the RC Church and Orthodoxy.

For Roman Catholics, the $64,000 question might be that if the previous (seven) ecumenical councils have been ratified by previous popes (and thereby made, by that fact, to be "infallible"), how may contemporary popes override the decisions of those Councils (i.e. the Filioque or other tampering with the Nicene Creed)?

Would that not constitute an attack on earlier papal infallibility? We are not talking development of doctrine, but of doctrines decided on by Ecumenical Councils, approved by popes and accepted by the RC Church.

For me, that constitutes a real problem.

Alex

Indeed so. When I've placed that question to them all I get is either silence or obscurantist comments. I don't pretend to know how to resolve this issue, which is as much to do with Philosophy as it does Theology, but it is the heart of the matter. It is paradoxical and perhaps it's the best we can do. What I would wish is that all Roman Catholics would be faithful to the Church and vibrant in the faith and let the paradox alone unless they have some magical answer for it. Their supposed infallible attitude is as illogical as the Orthodox answer and perhaps ours as well.

CDL

Yes, I would assume so.

My view remains that "ecumenical" councils are called such for what they attest to. No single bishop, or even group of bishops, themselves simply by their proclamation or acceptance of a council can give a council ecumenical or infallible status.

It seems a lot of folks here assume the Pope can run counter to doctrinal decisions of an Ecumenical Council. According to Catholic dogma, it is simply impossible for him to do so. That is what infallibility is all about.

There are many things that the Pope cannot do in the Catholic Church, his inability to change the Faith just being one of them.

Blessings

Dear mardukm,

But that is exactly what caused the break in 1054 AD - the view that the pope of Rome then, and also afterwards, did indeed "change the Faith" by:

1) the Filioque - thereby changing a creed that was meant to be an expression of Faith of the entire Church;

2) papal authority, jurisdiction and later, infallibility;

3) Marian dogmas etc.

That is the problem - when Rome has announced these, they are seen, by the Orthodox East especially, to be changing the Faith and going against Ecumenical Councils and their decisions (which were also affirmed and approved by Roman popes, as you know).

Alex

This is true but I doubt that you con convince some of this. Still if this were universally believed we might be able to take some major steps toward reunion.

CDL

For Ukrainian Greek Catholics, the Union of Brest is the basis for our communion with Rome, ratified by both the Kyivan hierarchal signatories and Rome herself, and later commemorated by several Popes on its anniversary, never with any comment or correction to this particular covenant of communion.

Article I clearly states:

There has never been any formal correction to this covenant, either by our own Synod or Rome. We believe what has been handed down to us. Obedience to Rome out of respect for this agreement of communion is not the same as submission and assimilation. Our obedience and sacrifice of fidelity to this covenant has been sealed with the blood countless martyrs, even in the last century.

Dear brother Alex,

Copts don't normally engage in all the theological debates about filioque between Latins and Easterns. Our main (perhaps sole) concern is the addition of the text. I believe the fact that filioque is only local to the Latin Church will eventually sink in with everyone (with prayer). I also personally don't find anything heretical, heterodox, or erroneous about filioque used with procedit. I'd have a definite problem if filioque was used with ekporeusai, though - but it is not.

I don't understand why the issue of papal authority and jurisdiction would be a cause to say Rome changed "the FAITH." And I sincerely do not understand why papal infallibility is a change in "the FAITH" either. I mean, we all believe in the infallibility of the Church. The dogma of papal infallibility only states that papal infallibility is merely the Church's infallibility exercised in the office of the papacy. What is particularly opposed to the Faith of the Father's about that?

As far as I know, no one has a problem with the Assumption. When I was not in communion with Rome, I did not believe in the dogma of the IC, but I never called it a heresy, and I never knew a Copt who went so far as to call it a heresy (though I knew a few EO who translated to Coptic Orthodoxy and liked to try to convince my fellow Copts that it was/is a heresy). I do not understand why the dogma of the IC is a heresy or a FAITH-dividing issue. I have asked EO, but have never been given any satisfactory answers. Perhaps that is a topic for another thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Mardukm,

You ask important questions!

It is important for Eastern Catholics especially to take seriously the Orthodox objections to these issues, even if we, and I in particular, would be tempted to say, "What's the big deal?"

They are truly such with our Orthodox brothers and sisters.

There can be no doubt that the Filioque, both the theology behind it and the addition to the Creed, caused the breaking point between East and West. Perhaps if Humbertus and Caerularius lived today, that split would not have occurred - don't know.

Pope Benedict has gone on record as suggesting that one model of church unity might be if the Orthodox Churches (Byzantine and Miaphysite) would consider seeing the "later Latin additions" as not constituting heresy then etc.

IF the Holy Father is serious about that, THEN a further suggestion in this regard might be that, given this estimation of the Latin additions, they might be left as Latin theologoumena with the Filioque left out of the Creed permanently.

After that, papal jurisdiction could be "tweaked" so that it remains within the Latin Church with the papal prerogative exercised only when another Particular Church calls on the pope to intervene - and the definition of papal infallibility is "completed" to underscore that, apart from canonizations, such infallibility is exercised only when the pope ratifies the decisions of an Ecumenical Council after the entire Church has debated and agreed on them.

Alex

Deacon Randy,

Thank you for posting this, it really puts things into perspective.

I have often thought that some things the Holy Spirit allows to "slip through" are as important as the big proclamations. In this case, the obstacle of the three dogmatic proclamations of the filioque by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445) seems to be effectively side-stepped.

("For man this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.")


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Florence says the same thing. That wording is not a side-stepping at all (nor could it be).

AMM,

I saw that we both had the same thought. Here are texts from each of the Councils cited. The Union of Brest is consistent with each of them. Imagine that!

Union of Brest

Second Council of Lyons



Council of Florence




4th Lateran Council

Fr. Deacon,

That's a very good reminder that there is nothing inconsistent with faith of the East with that of the West and, as we all must know, even though we may not agree on the particulars, that there is but one faith.

Peace, good will to men.

lm

Amen.

WOW! I did not know the Union of Brest specifically rejected the term "double procession." In the Catholic Answers Apologetics Forum, I recently made a call to all my Latin brethren to stop using that heretical term in its apologetics.

Blessings