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

I am absolutely certain brother Carson understands all that already, brother. I think his point, if I may be so bold, is that there are Latins who are just as unwilling to recognize the distinction and complementariness of the two Traditions as there are among the Easterns.

Blessings

Happily, but I limited the discussion to a private sub forum which you aren't even supposed to know exists. If you let it be known that you know it exists I'll have to do you bodily harm. (wink wink) But I am serious about that secret nature of that forum. It was causing such a commotion on the regular board that they moved the discussion. Hence, I can't link you to the actual discussion.

However, I think a newbie could get away with starting such a discussion. There is another Eastern Catholic on the Board but he seems preoccupied just now.

Here's the link to Catholic Convert forum http://forums.catholic-convert.com/index.php I suggest that that you introduce yourself in the Welcome forum before you jump into a discussion. They are fine people and they've put up with me for nearly 10 years with only one minor break about 5-6 years ago. After you've introduced yourself the discussion might fit on the Lyceum. They don't wish it to be published in Catholic 101 because I don't believe they think these Eastern ideas are truly Catholic.

BTW You are correct that I do understand the distinctions and complimentariness of the issues. Thanks for commenting.

CDL

In other words, while Eastern Catholics are accepting Papal authority and leadership, lay Roman Catholics are insisting that they no better than the Popes of the last three centuries who is Catholic and the content of Catholic teaching?

While I'm at it, it seems blasphemous to me to suggest that the Holy Spirit has so failed to guide the apostolic churches that one or more (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) is in catastrophic error--it can only be human failure to comprehend.

If these three cannot be teaching the faithful heresy, the question is how to reconcile without rejecting.

Given this, the path to Union seems to be a little clearer. The question is not *whether* there is a Papal infallibility, but what the *form* and *requirements* are. Offhand, my layman's guess is that it is not consensus among the Catholic churches that is necessary, but among the apostolic churches.

Similarly, a council of the apostolic churches, unified or not, could clarify the councils of east, west, and the orient (are there any?).

I rather suspect, but this is speculation, that the council would be able to either find that past infallible statements either truly expressed the Truth as taught by the universal church, or weren't actually infallible statements.

I also suspect that any formula for union that requires the conclusion (or admission) that the prayerful acts of any churches nonetheless left it in error for a millennium or more is necessarily wrong.

hawk

That's how I understand it.

CDL

Well, then I don't understand Carson's remark below:



CDL,

Please clarify. What did you mean by that? Who are the "we" that are disagreeing? I have no problem disagreeing with anyone except Rome when it comes to matters of faith and morals.

The First Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican I states:



It appears that a Catholic cannot appeal to an Ecumenical Council to contradict the Pope. It would seem equally true that the infallible teachings set forth in an Ecumenical council and recognized by a Pope as such, can never be contradicted by another Pope. That would just be theological relativism. So perhaps the the "Defenders Forum" is simply proposing that something can both be and not at the same time and in the same respect--and that, of course, is impossible.

In Christ,

lm

Luke,

As far as I can tell some on the Defender's forum believe that a Pope can interpret or override a Council at any time. It makes no sense to me. I've tried to clarify this with them but I can't get any other answer than the pope can do what he wishes.

CDL

Alex,

I have come to believe, the more I have studied the issues involved, that the East and the West do not mean the same thing when they refer to the progression (proienai) of the Spirit from the Father through the Son; and that is why the addition of the "per filium" to the creed – at least from an Eastern Orthodox perspective – causes just as many problems as the addition of the "filioque."

God bless,
Todd

I also wish it could be left at that, but I doubt that it will be.

I definitely agree with you there brother. I think this is the fault of the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia. If you've been lurking in the CA Apologetics Forums, you might have noticed that I recently put out a call to my Latin brethren several days ago to stop using the heretical formula "double procession." The Councils of Lyons and Florence explicitly rejected it, and no other magisterial document of the Catholic Church uses that term. However, the grandly popular old Catholic Encyclopedia, the staple of traditional Catholics, very unfortunately does.

As you stated elsewhere, it seems there are Catholics who think they know better than the Catholic Church.

Blessings

Dear brother lm

I seriously am not saying against you. It is a general comment, and I beg you forgiveness if it sounds insulting. I do not mean for it to, but I don't think there is any other way to put it:

I really do not understand statements like the one highlighted above, to the point that it really bothers me. It demonstrates a mentality that seeks to separate the Ecumenical Council from the Pope. As an Oriental, it is inconceivable to me for a synod or council to not have a body and a head. When Orientals speak of a synod or a council, it is ingrained in us - it is automatic - that it includes every member of the synod/council. We would never say "The Synod and the Patriarch" or "the Synod and the Metropolitan." It is simply the Synod/Council period, which is always and invariably comprised of a body of bishops with a head bishop. I seriously believe the phrase "Ecumenical Council and the Pope" is an oxymoron. Is there another head bishop in the Ecumenical Council that we do not know of? The existence of a head bishop within an Ecumenical Council (which is the Pope) is already a given. Is there another Pope out there besides the one that is already and inherently part of the Ecumenical Council?

I find that a lot of Latins unconsciously make this unfounded distinction, (and also that a lot of controversialists purposely make this unfounded distinction). That is unfortunate. The effect is very subtle but it is powerful. One hears it often enough, and one begins to believe that the Pope is truly separate from the Church. I know Catholics do not teach that, but that is the effect of using such language.

Forgive me if I have insulted anyone.

Dear Coptic Brother,

You have certainly not insulted me. But I don't know your chronological age, so please forgive me if I assume that you are significantly younger than I am.

During much of Vatican II, many people, including particularly the ecumenical observers, were shocked that the Pope was not there (he was watching the Council via closed-circuit television, and actually came for certain major occasions, such as the opening and closing, the lifting of the mutual anathemas between Rome and Constantinople, and so on). When asked what possible reason there could be for the Pope's absence, Blessed John XXIII responded that if the Pope were personally present, the Council Fathers would feel so intimidated that it would be impossible to have a free discussion!

That may or may not have been true in 1962-65. It definitely would not have been the case since then: the Pope normally presides at the sessions of the Synod of Bishops, and nobody seems to feel particularly intimidated. Even such a Pope as Benedict XVI (the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not to the will of his enemies) does not inspire (nor does he seem to want to inspire) the sort of "holy terror" that would prevent the bishops from speaking their minds, even though he is a brilliant and highly regarded theologian in his own right, regardless of the office he holds.

Anyway, such phenomena are tied up with the somewhat anachronistic language to which you quite properly object.

Fr. Serge

Dear brother mardukum,

No offense taken. I think it is important to test one's thoughts and the expression of them against another's insights. I like these kinds of discussions. And I sincerely thank you for your comments.



I would say not. An oxymoron is "a combination of contradictory or incongruous words." But I think what you are saying is that the Council and the Pope are complementary--so much so that you cannot have one without the other (and in your opinion it's insulting to refer to the Pope when speaking of a Council--a point well taken). But for a Roman (and I would maintain as a Catholic) the Pope can act without a Council. As you have indicated, there can be no body without a head, but where the head goes (and when he speaks infallibly), the body must follow. And hence, I guess we all agree that should anyone attempt to set up a Council against the authority of the Pope, such would be impossible.

In my experience as an Oriental, I have also met many (and have some as relatives) and have even heard clergy who are somewhat inclined to think that they are not bound by the authority of the head on any matter after the first seven Councils. Some of these think that the head cannot act without a Council, but I am quite confident that the head can. I cite the new Catechism which was proposed for the universal Church:



The positions which I have discovered among many Orientals (and dissident Westerners who look to the East to divide the body from the head) do not appear to me to be just an anomoly. It is perhaps at the very heart of the problem of modernity for the Catholic Church--and the fact is, modernity is like the very air we breath. Soloviev, the great Orthodox Russian author, saw the problem of not having a universal father from a refreshing angle, and I find him immensely interesting.

For an interesting article (by a western patristic scholar) which touches upon the issue with a view to the East, I refer you to this one which I have posted before:

http://www.balkanstudies.org/1998/barber.htm

Peace to men of good will,

lm

For the West, procession would cover both "begetting" and "spirating". For the definitive argument see Aquinas' Prima Pars, Question 27. The procession of the divine persons.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1027.htm

He writes:

These citations from the catechism have already been discussed and they really do not address the question raised by my original post. "Can a pope change a decision of a council approved already by a pope?" That is the issue. The catechism, at least in these citations, do not address that question. If Rome should insist upon such a monstrous idea the question must be asked "why would any person let alone an Easterner remain loyal to the pope?"

CDL

I am confident that Rome has never insisted upon such a monstrous idea. Cardinal Ratzinger considered a similar issue this way (from the link I referred to above).



One last note. I would address the issue of the authority of the papacy vis-a-vis Councils apart from the filioque because the filioque is not in opposition to any Ecumenical Council. Popes have recognized the Creed with and without the filioque, because they are not in opposition to each other. I think we can agree on that.

Peace to men of good will,

lm