|
0 members (),
89
guests, and
25
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Both sides already agree that "Begetting" and "Proceeding" are distinct but how they are cannot be known by us. Beware the madness! Saint Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzen) refers to the difference between begetting and proceeding... "You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how" [Orat XX, 2] "You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" [Orat XXXI, 8] The Fifth Theological Oration "On the Holy Spirit." by St Gregory Nazianzen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
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 This topic was discussed in some detail in a thread a few years ago. Below is a link to that thread: Canon Law question God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Dear brother lm, 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. Thank you for your response. I accept what you are saying here. But I am also saying something more. We can certainly speak of the Pope apart from an Ecumenical Council. What I am saying is that when one speaks of an Ecumenical Council, one can't speak of the Pope as if he was not part of it already. This would lead to the mistaken idea that the Pope, in the setting of an Ecumenical Council, is somehow separate from it. The idea of a Pope approving an Ecumenical Council is ludicrous. It could not be called an Ecumenical Council in the first place without at least a majority of the bishops within the Council approving it (which already includes the head bishop). Why is there a need for the Pope to approve something already approved by him as a member of the Council? The Ecumenical Council is a collegial event. The Pope alone does not determine the validity of an Ecumenical Council. In that setting, he deliberates as a member of the Council, not apart from it. Blessings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Brother mardukm, You write, Why is there a need for the Pope to approve something already approved by him as a member of the Council? Weren't many of the early Councils held without the Bishop of Rome's presence? So his approval (or confirmation) is not really ludicrous. But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor." See the catechism supra. Pax, lm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 |
Maybe the Filioque could be moved from the Creed to the Litany of the Saints. Imagine:
"Sancte Filioque, ora pro nobis!"
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
The Pope alone does not determine the validity of an Ecumenical Council. In that setting, he deliberates as a member of the Council, not apart from it. I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Again, thank you for your response. Weren't many of the early Councils held without the Bishop of Rome's presence? So his approval (or confirmation) is not really ludicrous. I don't think a Pope not being physically present at a Council is no indication that he is not part of the Council, is it? (forgive me for all the negatives in the statement  - I hope you know what I mean. But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor." Granted. The quotation is merely stating the condition for a convention of bishops to be regarded as an Ecumenical Council. This is different from stating that an Ecumenical Council needs the approval from the Pope. The former statement (your quotation) demonstrates the collegiality of an Ecumenical Council. The second statement destroys that collegiality by assuming the Pope is separate from the Ecumenical Council. Does that explain my viewpoint better? Blessings
Last edited by mardukm; 01/12/09 05:12 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 |
Thanks for posting the link - the article is both moving and worth reading.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56 |
Here is another relevant quote from the Council of Florence. From the Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence: For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. So the Church has defined that it does not teach "two spirations" for the Holy Spirit. So how can Anthony Maas S.J. write about the "dogma" of "double procession" in his Catholic Encyclopedia article of 1909 on Filioque? Here is my speculation (can someone fill in the facts)? Perhaps the phrase "double procession" was first made as a divisive phrase for use in anti-Latin polemics by someone like Gregory Palamas or Mark of Ephesus? The phrase seems to have been later adopted by some Protestant theologians as though it was dogma. As an example of a Protestant teaching "two spirations" in opposition to Florence - Here is American Presbyterian theologian William G. T. Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, 2nd ed., vol. I, 1894) There are two spirations, because the Father and the Son are two persons; but there is only one resulting procession. The American Protestant theologian Philip Schaff (died 1893) uses the phrase "double procession" frequently in his "History of the Christian Church" http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.ii.htmlI have not seen Catholic theologians teach the phrase "double procession" before this 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article. Is it possible that Anthony Maas S.J. had been reading too many books by American Protestants?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56 |
Re [quote]I would definitely like to do some investigation in the original Greek of the Eastern and Oriental Fathers who have stated that the very Being of the Spirit proceeds through the Son, such as St. Cyril,...[/quote]
The Greek of St Cyril of Alexandria's teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit can be downloaded here. http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0370-0444__Cirillus_Alexandrinus__Thesaurus_de_sancta_et_consubstantiali_trinitate_[1]__MGR.pdf.html
Here is thesis 34 from St Cyril's "Treasury of the Holy Spirit"
[quote]Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it.[/quote]
(translation by Jurgens)
Protestant theologians in the 19th Century were saying this and similar instances in the Church Fathers were teaching "double procession" of the Holy Spirit, but it is obvious that St Cyril is emphasising unity and does not use a word that implies duality. The same thing applies to the teaching of St Augustine etc. on the Filioque (none of them use the word "dual" or "double" for this procession).
Other Greek Fathers are available here (in Greek and some other Languages) http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/20_30_Ecclesiae_Patres_Graeci.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 56 |
Can anyone post the original Latin for this extract from the Union of Brest:
[quote]Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son. [/quote]
Or provide a reference for where the original Latin can be found?
|
|
|
|
|
