Viva il Papa!
(After reading two biographies about this pope of blessed memory, I have a lot of respect for him.)
Posted on 12/09/2008 5:52:09 AM PST by TexConfederate1861
There must be a point that you’re trying to make...
Absolutely.
The point is that in spite of all the “kumbaya” going on between Constantinople & Rome, there will be NO reunion unless doctrinal differences are solved.
Good reminder, TC. Thanks!
Orthodox ping
Thank you for posting this incredibly important document!
How are you this season my Brother? :)
That won't happen until the East actually tries to understand what the West is saying in their theological discussions rather than erecting strawmen and burning it down in an encyclical...
5. The new doctrine, that "the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son," is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering "which proceedeth from the Father." (Symbol of Faith).
No effort is made to understand WHAT the Romans say here. Just the mere words is enough to send the East into a tizzy... When the East and West spoke on such issues, such as at the Council of Florence, the East found out that the West CONTINUE to believe there is only ONE PRINCIPLE and that the Filioque is refering to the Divine Economy, which the East ALSO believe is a sending by the Father AND Son (which the Scriptures also agree with). The Filioque is not an expression of what occurs WITHIN the Godhead, as the context of the Creed is NOT speaking about the Godhead, but of the Economy. This problem is not over differing theologies, Your holinesses, the Patriarchs of the East.
Once the East understands that people can use different words to express the same truth, we might get somewhere with a reunion. The Nicean Creed ITSELF was subject to development, for heaven's sake. It is not the final "say all" of our faith... For example, not a word is said about the Eucharist. Many would argue that the Eucharist IS the expression of the Church's unity. But not a word??? No, the Nicene Creed is not the "do all, end all" expression of our faith.
Regards
Viva il Papa!
(After reading two biographies about this pope of blessed memory, I have a lot of respect for him.)
The issue here, is not that we don’t understand, the issue is that the Latins nor the Pope had the right to make changes to the Creed, that was formulated by Holy Ecumenical Councils, and that ANETHEMAS were pronounced against anyone who did so.
The issue has and always will be Papal Authority that formulates doctrines without the consent of the Church as a whole.
“The Nicean Creed ITSELF was subject to development”
Only on the Authority of an Ecumenical Council of the ENTIRE Church. That hasn’t happened yet.
I am, as I notice more folks are saying these days, “well”, though its very cold and snowy up here. And you, my brother in the Faith, how are you doing? :)
Mourning the loss of my Patriarch, Alexy II, may his memory be eternal! I hope his successor can accomplish as much!
The anethemas were not against those who changed the words but the meanings of the words. We have already established that the words of "and the son" do not change our beliefs at all.
The issue, it appears, is that the West acted without consulting the East. It is the sense of insult that remains in the East that prevents the union. NOT that the West changed doctrine.
Only on the Authority of an Ecumenical Council of the ENTIRE Church. That hasn’t happened yet.
The Creed hasn't changed to express different beliefs! The filioque is an expression that addresses the Divine Economy - something that was necessary given the problems in Spain at the time. But no new beliefs are introduced, merely a different emphasis.
However, I think I can understand where you are coming from and it would have been preferable to have consulted with the East at the time. To my knowledge, the original Creed is still recited in Rome during Greek Masses. The Creed WE say is for US. You don't have to say it, as it is an expression of OUR faith.
Regards
“The Creed WE say is for US. You don’t have to say it, as it is an expression of OUR faith.”
Well, Jo, the one WE say was established by the Fathers in Council for ALL Christians in The Church and until Rome and Roman Catholics share the EXACT SAME FAITH as the Orthodox Christians of the other Patriarchates and autocephallous churches, there will be no reunion to be had...nor should there be one.
But Catechism 246 seems to say the procession from the son is also eternal:
246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75
The filioque certainly DOES change things. It changes the entire meaning of the Holy Trinity. The Local Council of Toledo added the filioque without even consulting the Pope!
And Pope Leo the Great condemned them for doing so!
There is one Creed. Not two.
I think that the Catechism wisely prefaces that with “In the Latin tradition”. If the Magisterium wanted to shut every door at this, they would not refer to a local belief.
Of course, Aquinas also taught the dual procession in the eternal realm.
The basis upon which this is to be resolved is to stop short of proclaiming the dual procession as dogma and rather recognize it as a Latin tradition, backtracking a bit from the Florence, which does nothing but harm to the East-West relations at this point anyway.
The dual procession, like Palamism, is something that is useful and each side should attempt to convince the other in its universal and dogmatic character; but it cannot be the basis of reunification. This discussion should follow reunification, all the more so that these ideas were introduced in a non-ecumenical fashion.
That depends what the Latin tradition is. Obviously, there is Latin tradition that pre-dates filioque, when the Latin Church was Patristic, and pre-Frankish. But I agree that it is wisely prefaced.
The basis upon which this is to be resolved is to stop short of proclaiming the dual procession as dogma and rather recognize it as a Latin tradition, backtracking a bit from the Florence
I guess it's going to be a horse-trade one way or another, the way the Church agreed to trade the Book of Hebrews for the Revelation.
The Church was theologically united when it canonized the Bible, met in first Ecumenical Councils and served Patristic liturgies. If the Latin Church wants to return to her Latin patristic roots, I don't see much in the way of a reunion by default.
It's not anything that the Latin Church did not profess or teach together with the Greek side. No morphing or lording is necessary. You can always appeal to tradition, wisely. Though, someone has to reset what the starting point is.
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.