Posted on 05/27/2008 8:03:16 PM PDT by Petrosius
It is my understanding that the title “Metropolitan” in the Eastern churches is similar to what we in the west would call an “Archbishop.”
Although in the Orthodox world, they do not have anyone higher up on the organizational flowchart (i.e. The Pope), so they probably assign more meaning and responsibility to the term Metropolitan.
In the Eastern Catholic churches, Metropolitans are the top bishops of their rites and many, like the Chaldean patriarch Emmanuel Delly in Iraq, are also Cardinals.
And I just want to let you know that I just went off the top of my head, and after reading what others wrote, I can say that my explanation likely contains many errors.
By "sua sponte" do you mean without the East, or without a future Council? Seems to me the same authority that the Fathers of Constantinople in 381 had to elaborate on the original Nicene Creed of 325 must also extend to future Councils as well, or else we are denying the power of Councils altogether.
I don't think there is any precedent for making one particular Council a sort of super-Council whose canons override all the rest. That's what our folks are trying to do with Vatican II, and it ain't pretty! :)
And of course the "cutting the filioque out" argument is now shown to be ridiculous, historically, but I wonder if it didn't seem that way to the West because we had always implicitly understood the filioque in the Creed to begin with--even when it wasn't explicitly stated.
Actually, I had checked out Wikipedia first, and didn’t know whether Romania would count as Hellenic or Slavic.
This morning, I happened to catch the end of CTV's live coverage of the pope's general audience. It is customary for the Holy Father to receive visiting bishops and cardinals. Hot on the heels of a Maronite bishop was an Orthodox prelate. The only photo I could find is from the Catholic Press Photo web site.
Unidentified Ortodox greets Pope Benedict XVI as he leads his weekly general audience in Saint Peter's square at the Vatican. May 28, 2008
“By “sua sponte” do you mean without the East, or without a future Council?”
Without a future ecumenical council which necessarily means with the East since by definition the council must be of the Oecoumene, the commonwealth of God’s people on earth, The Whole Church. But even then, all such a council could do would be to elaborate, not change. Could “filioque” be an elaboration? If one is honest, of course not. To accept that the filioque means something other than what it clearly says is disingenuous, for example, to say that it means “from the Father through the Son”, which is of course true. It is also true that filioque doesn’t say that. Filioque, per se, denies the monacrhy of the Father and that’s heresy. Now we can all pretend that filioque in Latin and English or French means “...”from the Father through the Son”, but doesn’t that just bring contempt on The Church? Rome was wrong in the filioque formulation. It should simply admit it and scrap the fig leaf.
“we had always implicitly understood the filioque in the Creed to begin with—even when it wasn’t explicitly stated.”
I don’t believe that for a minute. Neither did centuries of popes, which is a good thing because, as I said, if filioque means what it actually says, as opposed to what one might wish it says, its a Trinitarian heresy.
“One could argue that the filioque does represent a different faith—but I don’t think the Fathers really dealt with the issue of the procession of the Spirit, and who knows whether they held it or not.”
What? Of course they did. “And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father; Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.”
“In any case, an equal cannot bind an equal.”
What is the equal to the Ecumenical Councils at Nicea and Constantinople which could not be bound and thus free to inject error into the Creed?
“So even if this canon did prohibit any additions to the Creed—it being a disciplinary matter and not part of the received and unchangeable Apostolic Tradition—any subsequent Council could easily revoke the prohibition.”
A dogmatic pronouncement of an ecumenical council accepted by The Church is not a disciplinary matter nor are concilliar prohibitions of any change in dogma. Were that to be true, we could simply call an ecumenical council, invite Rome, have Rome foolishly accept and then, frankly quite easily, abrogate all of Vatican I and Trent as local councils dealing with disciplinary matters. We could then move on to demote Rome to the lowest level of patriarchate in recognition of the apostasy into paganism of the West. Constantinople wouldn’t be far behind and Moscow would assume the position of primus.
Oh, I dunno all that. Look, I don't want to rehash this argument, particularly as I'm of absolutely no theological caliber to discuss it intelligently.
All I can speak to is the history of it. And there I can advise you to just take a look and see how may of the pre-schism Western Fathers taught the filioque, including Ambrose, Augustine, and others. You know, Kolo, that I'm always ribbing the Anglos for telling Greeks what Greek means. Greeks should be allowed to say what Greek means, and I would hope that we Latins could be extended the same courtesy with our own language. One simply cannot assume that the Latin terms we use have the exact same semantic boundaries and the exact same philosophical implications.
To wit, here's what St. Maximos the Confessor had to say about it:
Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'I agree with you that a Council cannot change the deposit of faith, but I submit that this wouldn't be a change. We have always understood the procession of the Spirit in this context, and that is the context in which the Latin half of the Church (and the Pope too I'll wager) originally ratified and accepted the language of the Creed.The other deals with the divine incarnation.With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John.On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.
They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].
In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodal letters] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this.It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.
Anyway, didn't the latest joint document advise all parties to specifically refrain from calling the other heretical while we sorted all this out?
Any subsequent Ecumenical Council is their equal.
And I didn't mean inject error--I meant change the words by which the dogmatic truth is expressed. Totally different.
A dogmatic pronouncement of an ecumenical council accepted by The Church is not a disciplinary matter nor are concilliar prohibitions of any change in dogma.
Remember we are talking here only about the canon that apparently (I don't believe it did, but I'll grant the argument) forbade any change in wording of the Creed. The concepts within the Creed are dogmatic and eternal. But regulations concerning how or when those concepts are put into words can be changed. See the difference? If the words themselves were dogmatic and the Creed could not be added to, then by what right did the Fathers of 381 dare to add to the words given them by the Fathers of Nicaea?
I must admit I’ve never really understood how there’s a fundamental difference between the phrases “the Father and the Son” and “the Father through the Son”. At least when our understanding of the Triune God is applied.
After all, as Trinitarians, we don’t believe that the Persons of the Trinity were ever created. We believe they always existed. Thus, to say “proceeds from the Father through the Son” is the same thing as saying “proceeds from the Father and the Son”, as the Holy Spirit is the Person of the Love of the Father to the Son (and the Son to the Father). Thus, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father to and through the Son, and then back to the Father.
IOW, one way I think of the Trinity is as a circle, with two points at opposite ends of the diameter thereof representing the Father and the Son, and the circle itself is the Holy Spirit, flowing back and forth between the two. Thus, He (the Holy Spirit) “proceeds from the Father through the Son” and “from the Son to the Father”, (in the endless loop of the circle) and thus both notions are more accurately represented by the phrase “from the Father and the Son”. IOW, the phrase “from the Father through the Son” isn’t wrong, it’s just incomplete, since the Father is no more the “creator” of the Holy Spirit than the Son.
Kolokotronis:
I think the term “heresy” with respect to the filoque is a little strong. The Western/Latin Fathers even before St. Augustine (e.g. St. Ambrose, St, Hillary of Potiers) and going back to Tertullian while he was still an orthodox Catholic, all taught the filoque. The Filoque is consisent with Sacred Scripture (c.f. John 16: 1-15; Gal 4:6; Phil 1: 19; 1 Pet 1: 11) and is also clearly taught in the Athansian Creed (400 AD) in line 23, which suggests that the great Eastern Doctor St. Athanaisus taught the filoque.
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
While the Athanasian Creed is no longer used in Liturgy in the Catholic Church (Nicene and Apostles are the two Creeds used in Liturgy), it is still used as part of the dogmatic theology of the Catholic Church and is still recognized as such as the article from Cardinal Avery Dulles points out
http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1232
The article reminds us that at the Western Council of Toledo in 589, the filoque was first used. While it did not come to use in Rome till much later, there were no charges of heresy at this time by anyone in the East. Cardinal Dulles does an excellent job of summing up the issue on pp. 44-45. Dulles points out that the Eastern/Greek theologians argued that the filoque was an addition that violated the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) which said “no one should profess, or write, or compose any faith other than what was defined by the holy fathers gathered at Nicea with the Holy Spirt”. At the Council of Florence, the Latin Fathers responded that these words meant the faith could not be changed, not words. Dulles points out that the Latin Fathers intepretation was correct as the Nicene Creed which the council fathers at Ephesus were referring to did not have the words that “were added” at the Council of Constantinopile (381 AD) and this version of the Nicene Creed was not actually approved until the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).
Dulles lays out a clear case that the Western Church was not wrong in doing what it did. Dulles states that the “filoque” is “not the only orthodox way of expressing the procession of the Holy Spirit”, it does communicate an important truth. He closes by stating “the one faith may be expressed in different formulations that are compatible and mutually complementary.”
God bless our Orthodox friends and I hope this Catholic’s post has helped the discussion in a positive and charitable way.
Regards
No offense guys, but you’re off topic.
The topic of the thread is regarding the relations with the Romanian Catholic Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church and inter-Communion. Not the Latin Church and the Orthodox Churches on the filioque.
As for the subject, I would suspect that the Hierarchy in Rome would consider this an internal Romanian issue.
By the 7th century Rome was being excoriated throughout the East because of the filioque. It was at that point that the “explanation” that Filioque didn’t mean “and the Son” but rather “through the Son” started to gain currency. There never has been any explanation as to why Rome simply didn’t just say “through the Son”, which of course Latin, with all due respect to +Maximos the Confessor, is quite capable of expressing clearly and directly. I have my own ideas as to why but they are neither here nor there.
“As for the subject, I would suspect that the Hierarchy in Rome would consider this an internal Romanian issue.”
I agree, though perhaps they might wish that the incident never happened. I sincerely doubt Rome had anything to do with it and it is as likely as not that this Metropolitan, given his history, might simply have presented himself for communion and the presiding Latin hierarch gave it to him rather than make a stir.
Individual hierarchs sometimes do and say silly and troublesome things. Some years back a very holy and wise Greek metropolitan here in America announced after the successful close of a joint commission on the filioque that he had “ended the Great Schism and established communion with Rome”. Though those that heard the remark, Orthodox and Latins, were too polite to laugh, he did end up having to issue a retraction and an apology, so this guy in Romania isn’t all alone on this sort of otherwise meaningless stunt.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the Catholic Church will give the Holy Communion to any Orthodox when they ask for it. The instruction to the Orthodox is to obey their bishops, however, if they ask, they will be given Communion.
“Dulles lays out a clear case that the Western Church was not wrong in doing what it did. Dulles states that the “filoque” is “not the only orthodox way of expressing the procession of the Holy Spirit”, it does communicate an important truth.”
Dulles is simply wrong. Filioque does not mean “through the Son” which is an acceptable formulation and which many of the Fathers quite rightly taught; “per filium” does.
“Dulles lays out a clear case that the Western Church was not wrong in doing what it did. Dulles states that the “filoque” is “not the only orthodox way of expressing the procession of the Holy Spirit”, it does communicate an important truth.”
Dulles is simply wrong. Filioque does not mean “through the Son” which is an acceptable formulation and which many of the Fathers quite rightly taught; “per filium” does.
By the way, “filioque” might well be useful against Arianism, even if it is error, while “per filium” wouldn’t be particularly useful.
“I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the Catholic Church will give the Holy Communion to any Orthodox when they ask for it.”
I think you are right though around here that has been stopped after a complaint from the Metropolitan to the Cardinal.
“The instruction to the Orthodox is to obey their bishops, however, if they ask, they will be given Communion.”
I suggest that one hierarch giving communion to another hierarch is a completely different order of magnitude. For example, if you or I were to go to each others’ parishes and receive communion, we wouldn’t be establishing “communion”; that’s a relationship between hierarchs exemplified by actually receiving communion. But this Romanian thing is between hierarchs.
I don’t think Cardinal Dulles said that. On page 31 in Section 1 of his paper “Historical Background”, he clearly states “the addition of the filoque, that is to say, the assertion that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
In section II of his paper, he gives 3 suggestions as to how the Western Church could handle the filoque when discussing full communion with the Eastern Church.
Regards
Where does it say there was a Latin Rite Bishop even present?
It refers to the Presiding Romanian Catholic Bishop who was celebrating the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, therefore I assumed he was a Byzantine Catholic, not a Latin Catholic.
It would be a different discussion were it a Latin Bishop practicing intercommunion...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.