Rorate Caeli

Blasts from the past
Brest

1.—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.
...

5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.
Text of the Union of Brest  
["Articles on union with the Roman Church"]
June 22, 1595

26 comments:

  1. It is wonderful that the Holy See of Rome now accepts that Byzantine and Orthodox Catholics recite the Σύμβολον τῆς Πίστεως as it was originally written by the Fathers of the first and second ecumenical councils. Our Holy Father Benedict even drops the filioque when reciting it with them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Francis10:26 PM

    Sadly I believe that there are many more issues seperating the Orthodox from coming back to unity with Peter and the Catholic Church than just the filioque. Thomism, Papal primacy and infallibilty, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception among others. I pray for the conversion of the Orthodox back to the Catholic Church but I can understand some of their reservations when it comes to the affirmation of Catholic tradition, especially since the conciliar Church looks more like protestantism liturgically along with the other novelties that we Catholic trads abhor like ecumenism, collegiality, cremation, the Vatican II interpretation of "religious liberty" modernism including modernist bishops and priests etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It is wonderful that the Holy See of Rome now accepts that Byzantine and Orthodox Catholics recite the Σύμβολον τῆς Πίστεως as it was originally written by the Fathers of the first and second ecumenical councils. Our Holy Father Benedict even drops the filioque when reciting it with them."

    The Holy See has always accepted the recitation of the Nicene Creed without the Filioque by Eastern Catholics. Non-recitation of the dogma of the Filioque in the Creed has never been an obstacle to Eastern Orthodox reunion with the Church. The stumblingblock is that many Eastern Christians do not accept the Church's addition of the Filioque to Creed, and reject the Church's authority to add phrases or clauses to the Creed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eustachy Wołłowicz11:02 PM

    My guess is that NC posted this not to start a debate about the Fiolque, but rather to point out that the rift between East and West in the 16th Century may bear some similarity to a certain rift in the Church today.

    "Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and [SSPX] about the [Second Vatican Council], which greatly impede[s] unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another..."

    Just a hunch...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Francis, neither Immaculate Conception of our Lady nor papal infallibility were proclaimed as dogma till 1596.

    I don't know about Greeks, Romanians, Serbs etc, but I live in Russia and can say about Russian Orthodox. They are very fond of collegiality, Russian Orthodox Church is a member of World Church Council since 1940s, so ecumenism and collegiality couldn't be an obstacle for them. Russian Orthodox sometimes criticise Novus Ordo indeed, but in their anti-Catholic polemical works of XIX century we were ctiticised for using of Latin language. Nowadays they abhor Catholic tradition more frequently than rejection of it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ligusticus11:28 PM

    Yes, Eustachy, that's actually my thought (for a long time already) every time I go to the Ukrainian Byzantine Divine Liturgies celebrated in my city (by the way in one of the churches where also the traditional Latin rite is celebrated..)


    -------------------------


    "Preliminary discussions brought out the main points of difference between the Greeks and the Latins, viz. the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the azymes, purgatory, and the primacy. During these preliminaries the zeal and good intentions of the Greek Emperor were evident. Serious discussion began apropos of the doctrine of purgatory. Cesarini and Turrecremata were the chief Latin speakers, the latter in particular engaging in a violent discussion with Marcus Eugenicus. Bessarion, speaking for the Greeks, made clear the divergency of opinion existing among the Greeks themselves on the question of purgatory. This stage of the discussion closed on 17 July, whereupon the council rested for a time, and the Greek Emperor took advantage of the respite to join eagerly in the pleasures of the chase with the Duke of Ferrara.

    When the council met again (8 Oct., 1438), the chief (indeed, thenceforth the only) subject of discussion was the Filioque. The Greeks were represented by Bessarion, Marcus Eugenicus, Isidore of Kiev, Gemistus Plethon, Balsamon, and Kantopulos; on the Latin side were Cardinals Cesarini and Niccolò Albergati, the Archbishop of Rhodes, the Bishop of Forlì, and Giovanni di Ragusa. In this and the following fourteen sessions, the Filioque was the sole subject of discussion. In the fifteenth session it became clear that the Greeks were unwilling to consent to the insertion of this expression in the Creed, although it was imperative for the good of the church and as a safeguard against future heresies. Many Greeks began to despair of realizing the projected union and spoke of returning to Constantinople. To this the emperor would not listen; he still hoped for a reconciliation, and in the end succeeded in appeasing the heated spirits of his partisans..."

    [...]

    "Isidore of Kiev was sent to Constantinople to bring about the desired acceptance of the Florentine "Decretum Unionis" (Laetentur Coeli), but, before he could succeed in his mission, the city fell (1453) before the advancing hordes of Mohammed II."


    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm


    ( Anyway, centuries after, we still have to read things like :

    http://orthodoxwiki.org/Isidore_the_Apostate

    which is quite different from

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08188a.htm

    A lesson from history? )

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul M11:51 PM

    By rejecting the Catholic spiration of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son, it seems to me that the Greeks greatly undermine the understanding of God as a God of Love.
    The Father KNOWS Himself and expresses that knowledge in one Word. Because the Word is the perfect exprssion of the Father it is infinite like the Father and is God... but the same God. Because they are both infinitely perfect They are loved by each other in proportion to their lovableness, that is, They love each other Infinitely and that Love is God too.. yet It is still the same God. Three Persons, One God. That sums up the Western understanding of God.

    We have in creation (which is the image of God) a beautiful analogy of the Trinity in the Sacrament of Marriage. If we look at the first marriage in the garden of Eden, we see Adam, image of God the Father, but alone. God sees his loneliness and from his side he draws an 'image' of Adam, Eve. Two persons, one nature. They both love each other and the Fruit of their love, the child, though yet another person, also shares the same nature. Three persons, one nature.
    In this analogy we can easily see that the child proceeds not just from the love of the father, because the love of the father alone is not sufficient. It must be reciprocated by the love of the mother. Just as the child proceeds from both the father and mother, the Holy Ghost proceeds (spirates is the correct term) from Father AND Son.
    To deny this order of spiration is to shoot oneself in the foot and leave oneself a cripple when it comes to understaning many other Truths of the Faith such as the relationship of Christ and the Church, the mediation and dignity of Mary, the dignity of marriage etc.
    Lets us all pray that the members of this great tradition overcome their lack of faith in Peter and accept this Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Catholicus10:45 AM

    "We have in creation (which is the image of God) a beautiful analogy of the Trinity in the Sacrament of Marriage. If we look at the first marriage in the garden of Eden, we see Adam, image of God the Father, but alone. God sees his loneliness and from his side he draws an 'image' of Adam, Eve. Two persons, one nature. They both love each other and the Fruit of their love, the child, though yet another person, also shares the same nature. Three persons, one nature.
    In this analogy we can easily see that the child proceeds not just from the love of the father, because the love of the father alone is not sufficient. It must be reciprocated by the love of the mother. Just as the child proceeds from both the father and mother, the Holy Ghost proceeds (spirates is the correct term) from Father AND Son."

    The problem with your re-projection of the human family onto the Holy Trinity is that it fails to take three things into account:

    1) The Son is not a "mother"

    2) A family can -- and should -- have many children; should there therefore be many Holy Spirits?

    3) While there is a certain analogy between the Holy Trinity and the human family, this should neither be taken too literally nor pressed too far.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Catholicus10:54 AM

    PaulM's post also contains another error, namely, that its reasoning forgets that the family is the imperfect mirror or image of the Holy Trinity. It is not the Holy Trinity which is the mirror or image of the human family.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul,

    We Easterners do not seek to undermine our "understanding" of the Holy Trinity. Rather we hope to be taken into His coinherent Love and experience Him. We affirm that the Trinity is a Mystery. In saying that the Eastern Church in no way says the Latin Church does not see the Trinity as a Mystery too.

    Eastern Trinitarian theology sees the Father as the "fountain" of the Godhead, the cause, the origin of the other two Persons. St. Gregory the Theologian said, "The union is the Father, from whom and to whom the order of the Persons runs its course." We see the double procession as making the Son the source, a position we reserve for the Father alone. This belief has been handed down to us from the Greek Fathers of the fourth century. The filioque simply does not work with how the Trinity revealed Himself to the Eastern Church. It works in the West, and this is fine.

    Any person who has studied the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church knows theosis/deification is the goal of all believers. Of course the saints are not gods, kings, and lords by nature, as is the case with the Triune God, but by grace and participation in His Love. St. John of Damascus said, "We become by grace what He is by nature." We synergize our self-determination with the Godhead, and we do this for all eternity. It never ends. We never stop growing in our image and likeness. At the heart of this doctrine is the kenotic Love the Trinity shares within Himself pouring into the hearts of His children. We will never understand this how this works, nor do we care too.

    From the patristic point of view the theologian is not someone who understands God, rather he is someone who has achieved deification by allowing the coinherent Love of the most High Godhead to heal his heart of all spiritual sickness.

    The Eastern way is not the only way, but it is our way

    ReplyDelete
  11. We see the double procession as making the Son the source, a position we reserve for the Father alone.

    Then you do not see clearly. It does not make the Son "the source," but emphasises that the Holy Spirit procedes from Him, not solely from the Father.

    This belief has been handed down to us from the Greek Fathers of the fourth century.

    The Greek Fathers are the patrimony of the Catholic Church, not just of Easterners.

    The filioque simply does not work with how the Trinity revealed Himself to the Eastern Church.

    The Trinity did not reveal Himself to the Eastern Church. He revealed Himself to the Catholic Church. Public revelation ceased with the death of St. John the Theologian.

    The Filioque has to work with Catholic theology, since the Infallible Church has incorporated it into her Creed.

    It works in the West, and this is fine.

    It can work anywhere -- but it isn't mandatory that all recite it in the Creed.

    My guess is that NC posted this not to start a debate about the Fiolque, but rather to point out that the rift between East and West in the 16th Century may bear some similarity to a certain rift in the Church today.

    You may be right about that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jordanes,

    I would humbly disagree with you. The Eastern Church, both Catholic and Orthodox, does not hold the belief in double procession. You are misrepresenting Universal Catholic doctrine as expressed by Byzantine Christians. The Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son, which is also what the Eastern Fathers maintained.

    You are correct that the Eastern Fathers are your patrimony just as the Western Fathers are ours. I do not believe I challenged this. For clarification this may help. St. Augustine is the the Father of Western Theology. In the East he is not. We have the Greek Fathers. This does not mean St. Augustine is not part of our patrimony, that said, his influence was far greater on the Western Church. You built on the theology of Augustine, and we built upon the Greek Fathers. St. Augustine taught, "Unity in essential, diversity in non essentials, and charity in all things."

    Yes the Trinity does reveal Himself to the entire Church. I never said He did not. Be that as it may, there are differences in how the Western and Eastern Fathers view the model of the Trinity. Do you deny this?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Florentine Cheerleader9:18 PM

    With all due respect, Fr. Joseph, I think we need to very soberly, clearly, and candidly deal with the fullness of Catholic truth regarding this matter.

    1) First, there is no such thing as a solely and purely Byzantine Christian, just as there is no such thing as a purely Western Christian. One is either a Catholic or one is Eastern Orthodox. And the beliefs are not the same. A Byzantine Catholic is supposed to have a commoan faith with Augustine and Aquinas, not with Gregory Palamas and Alexis Toth.

    2) There is a unity to Catholic Christian truth. The Holy Spirit does not interact with the Son one way in North America, South America, and Western Europe, and another way in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the India subcontinent. Any possible suggestion that the procession of the Holy Spirit can be held in a contrary manner between West and East is theologically and metaphysically incoherent. Unity in essentials, yes. And this is essential.

    3) The Catholic Church dogmatically declares, fully and infallibly, that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son as well as the Father, and that this is not a double spiration. It affirms that all Catholics - regardless of rite or particular church - are required to give a full assent of faith to this, regardless of their liturgical practices. Whatever ecclesial diplomacy has been practiced by our most recent popes does not and cannot change this.

    4) No proper balanced understanding of the monarchial majesty of the Father over the Trinity need be in conflict with the filioque.

    5) Affirming that the the Holy Spirit manifests temporally through the Son is not the same as eternal procession. The filioque - eternal procession - is universal binding Catholic doctrine, dogmatically and solemnly defined at more than one ecumenical council, and fully re-affirmed by Pope Benedict XIV in Etsi Pastoralis. And no amount of playing around with the words of Second Vatican Council's Orientalium Ecclesiarum changes that.

    Please forgive any petulance on my part, father, but as one who has had more than his share of interactions with Byzantine-rite Catholics, I simply have zero tolerance for this kind of finagling. Different rites in the Church is supposed to me a varied focus and emphasis on different elements of the same faith, not two different parallel faiths.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Paul M10:11 PM

    Catholicus,

    1) The Son is not a "mother"
    We are speaking here of the Trinity, not the incarnation. There is no gender in God. The 'Son' only assumed 'male-ness' when he assumed human nature. It is as OK for a woman to represent the Son as it is for a man to represent the Father

    2) A family can -- and should -- have many children; should there therefore be many Holy Spirits?
    As said above the analogy is imperfect and as you also point out below should not be pressed too far. However, the generation within the Trinity is an eternal one because God is Infinite. The analogous generation within the human family is necessarily finite. Yet whenever there is generation within marriage, there is formed the likeness of God. Needless to say, this can and should happen many times and every time it is done within the family, God is glorified.

    3) While there is a certain analogy between the Holy Trinity and the human family, this should neither be taken too literally nor pressed too far.
    Granted, but that does not mean that we can't learn about God from the works of His hand, all of which are, at the very least a likeness of Him. Similarly, we can learn much about how family life should be lived by imitating the Trinity, and that perfect analogy of it, the relationship of Christ and His Church that St Paul points out to us as a model.

    I did not intend to make the Trinity an analogy of the family. My point is that you can learn a lot about the 'prototype' from the 'copy'. You are correct that the family is not a 'image' of the Trinity. I did not want to labour the post with too intricate a detail. But now you have raised it I will differentiate. St Augustine makes the distinction in his treatise on the Trinity ie: The image is in the soul of man, the body is merely a 'likeness'. None-the-less, there is much to be learned from a likeness. St Augustine used an analogy of an animal and his footprint. The footprint can tell us a lot about the animal but it is nothing more than a hole in the ground.

    By the way, I'm no theologian, so I may be quite wrong and stand to be corrected. Sometime I believe I have no right to open my mouth at all. But maybe not. At the end of the day, this is just how it all looks from the pew where I sit.

    Fr Joseph
    Many thanks. I will be giving your comments some more thought. My key observation is that you obscure the relationship of Love of the Father and Son. The Holy Ghost spirates from both because He IS that Love... INFINITE LOVE. May I be permitted to draw another analogy. God loves all men. Yet it is only when the sinner repents and turns back to God with Love, that God can live in that man's soul. It is not through the love of God alone, but through the reciprocal love of God and man that the Holy Ghost can be born in his soul.
    St Augustine said Unity in essentials. The Catholic teaching of the Spiration of the Holy Ghost from BOTH Father and Son is a defined dogma of the Faith. It is an essential, or Christ's words "Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world" are meaningless. You have admitted that Greeks do not pretend to understand the Trinity, neither do us westerners. It would be a shame that you would reject the guarentee of Our Blessed Lord, who does understand the Trinity, for the sake of something you do not understand.
    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ecclesia Militans1:37 AM

    It is very important to emphasize that the Catholic dogma says that the Holy Ghost proceeds together from the Father and the Son, and not sepatately.
    This is what is known in dogmatic language as "double procession from a single principle".

    For further proof and explanation, this is a part of what the Catholic Encyclopedia says under "Filioque":

    "As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father.

    Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

    Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another (...) denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son.

    Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous3:05 AM

    I've always wondered why the love between the Father and the Son is held to become a Person, the Holy Spirit, but the love between the Spirit and each of the other two Persons somehow does not become a further Person. Is the Spirit less a Person than each of the other two? Does He not love the other two, and they Him, as much as the Father and Son love each other? If the answers are "yes," then why shouldn't His mutual love for each of them produce another Person in the Godhead?

    The idea that the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and Son may be all right perhaps as a poetic metaphor, but it seems not to be able to bear much examination as a serious theological explanation.

    A follow-up question: If God is pure act, and all of the qualities or virtues we ascribe to God are God Himself (e.g., God is His love; God is His justice, etc.), how is it even coherent to describe the love between the Father and the Son as becoming a Person? Should not the wisdom shared between the Father and the Son become a Person? Should not other qualities? It seems rather incongruous to take one quality or virtue (love) and magnify it into a Person of the Trinity.

    Perhaps the filioque can be justified and explained in solid theological terms, but the description of the Spirit as "the love between the Father and the Son" seems incoherent if given a little thought, albeit the thought of a relatively unschooled layman like myself.

    Jim Cole

    ReplyDelete
  17. Matthias3:17 AM

    Some help from the Doctor Communis:

    "Because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning.

    The Father and the Son are in everything one, wherever there is no distinction between them of opposite relation. Hence since there is no relative opposition between them as the principle of the Holy Ghost it follows that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost."

    (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, I.36.3c; 36.4c)

    ReplyDelete
  18. The original word for procession in the Symbol of Faith is ekporeusis. It means to originate from a single Source, Principal, or Cause (Aitia). And the single Source, Principal, or Cause of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Father alone. As St. Gregory of Nazianzus tells us: “The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusis.” (Discourse 39. 12)

    The bishops at the Council of Nicea put forth the theology of the three Cappodocian Fathers which is that the Spirit only proceeds from the Father. This is a deliberate and exact reference to what these bishops clearly doctrinally defined as the monarchy of the Father. The Councils Fathers all declared the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. This was done to fight the heresy of the Macedonians which declared the Spirit to be a creature. The addition of the Latin filioque seriously challenges, if not totally destroys, the originally intended meaning of this Creedal statement. The introduction of the filioque at the Synod of Toledo is clearly a departure from the original intention and design of the Symbol of Faith formulated by the Greek Fathers.

    The See of Rome officially accepted the Symbol of Faith in 451 AD. The Latin translation of the Greek carried a major difference though. The Latin word used for ekporeusis/proceed was procedit which does not imply from a single Source, Principal, or Cause as the Greek word does. "ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" was translated into Latin as "procedit" or "ex Patre procedentum".

    The reason the Latin Fathers used the word “procedit” can be found in John 15:26 which reads, “…the Spirit of Truth who proceeds form the Father.” In Greek this is written: "…para tou Patros ekporeutai". However, in the Latin Vulgate, and in all the earlier Latin translations of St. John's Gospel, this was always translated as "…qui a Patre procedit.” Thus the Latin translation of the Greek carried a major difference. The Latin word used for ekporeusis/proceed was procedit which does not imply from a single Source, Principal, or Cause as the Greek does. "ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" was translated into Latin as "procedit" or "ex Patre procedentum".

    It is my understanding that the Western Church teaches, and has always taught, that the Father, and the Father alone, is the Source, Principal, and Cause ("Aition") of the Holy Spirit because this is the shared Symbol of our Faith. St. Augustine taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "principaliter" – that is, "as Principle". Both Greek East and Latin West confess, and always have confessed, that the Father alone is the Cause (Aition) or Principle (Principium) of both the Son and Holy Spirit. In Greek the Spirit only proceeds from the Father. This is why I stand by my original statement that the filioque does not work in Greek, and to use it in Greek would be heretical because you cannot say in Greek the “the Spirit proceeds form the Father and the Son.” This is why Byzantine Catholics, and many Orthodox, while we do not see the filioque as heretical, we do not ascribe to it, because it is not a part of, nor can it ever be a part of our doctrinally formulated Symbol of Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Picard10:47 AM

    Father Joseph:

    in one point I agree with you (or at least mostely/largely) and I think here we could have a really fruitfull, productive discussion.

    In another point I do not - I can not. And I think it is a very serious point.

    To start with this last, troubling point (i):

    The filioque simply does not work with how the Trinity revealed Himself to the Eastern Church. It works in the West, and this is fine.

    As Jordanes rightly replied [to] you: That is impossible.

    There are not two different revelations, one for the East, one for the West. There can not be! And there cannot be new Revelations after the death of the last Apostle.
    What you utter here really astonishes me (I did not expect such sentences amounting to heresy or blasphemy - God in Himslfe Selfcontradicting!! - from a Eastern Father!)

    But the second point (ii) makes me very hopefull that there could be a really solution, an agreement - if we could discuss this point in a civil, calm and thoughtfull way.

    Because you are right: The West does NOT teach that the Son is the main source and principe/al. That is only the Father.

    So here seems to be accordance with the East - or better: this belongs to the revelation, that is not different - can not be different - between East and West (see (i)).

    But the West teaches that because the Son is the Son and gets all from the Father he also is some kind of source for the Hl. Spirit - but only the "source out of the main source [Father]", "principle out of (or together) with the main principle [Father]", the "fo(u)nt out of the main, proper fo(u)nt".
    That makes perfectly sense.

    The Father is the main (proper[?]) prinicipel/-al and source -- the Son only only in a secondary, deduced, derivated way

    So that is a teaching that needs not to be rejected by the East - it leaves the Father the main (proper[?]) source - that main principle of the unity in the Hole Most Bl. Trinity.

    It seems to be just a misunderstanding of the Western teaching by some in the East (or, sadly, a willingly refusal to try to understand the teaching of the West or a hardening of the hearts that makes impossible to understand the teaching of the West correctly -- a teaching that does not contradict the true notion that the Father is the main, proper fo(u)nt and source!)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Florentine Cheerleader10:58 AM

    Father Joseph, there are serious problems and issues emanating from your last post here, 05:27.

    First Nicaea is an ecumenical council by virtue of the action of the Holy See of Rome, which makes the Nicaean Creed official Catholic dogma. It is simply impossible that Rome considered First Nicaea to authoritatively teach that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone, and then went on to dogmatize the filioque, officially add it to the creed, and formally define it in multiple ecumenical councils.

    Moreover, you seem to suggest that the filioque all but destroys what the Nicaea I and Constantinople I councils taught, yet you also say you do not regard it as heretical. How can that be, if it allegedly, in effect, all but destroyed what had been taught?

    Either the filioque is true or it is not, and its truthfulness or falsity must apply to all; anything else is simply incoherent.

    The Catholic Church proclaims that it is true. Therefore, it must be true for all. It's one thing for Eastern Orthodox material schismatics to resist it. Byzantine-rite Catholics have no basis for doing so.

    In addition to the lack of regard for Catholic truth and authority, there is no feasible theoretical basis for declaring that a dogmatic proposition is both true and false at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Picard11:06 AM

    So Father Joseph,

    it´s not correct to state, that the West teaches that only the Father is principle for the Hl. Spirit/Ghost. The Son is also. Or better: Father and Son form a singel principle for the Hl. Ghost - because Father and Son are not two Gods but only one and the Father gives (communicates, shares) all to/with the Son ["All what belongs to me is Thine" and and vice versa...] But this singel principle is different re the Father and the Son (because the Father is the giver, the the communicator, the sharer - the Son is the one that receives all from the Father):

    The Father is the main, very proper principle, the Son only in a deduced, derivated, secondary way - in a way that His "sourceness" [beeing a source] has a source itselfe, is a received one - a "source out of another source, from another source" (by the Father, by eternal procreation) whilst the Father´s "sourceness" is absolute, has no higher source, is a "source without source", is the only source out of that flows all without beeing "sourced" itselfe.

    The Fathers "sourceness" is not a received one but for contrary gives all to the Son, shares all with the Son - also its "sourceness" selfe.

    And so the Son´s "sourceness" is a "sourceness" out of another source, a received one.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Picard2:37 PM

    Fr. Joseph,

    as Florentine cheerleader also correctly stated:

    The West - and the whole Catholic, orthodox Church - believes, that there is no double-spiration and no double-principle: Father and Son form one principle and do one spriation.

    But: They BOTH form/do it.

    It is right what you, Father, said:

    The Father spriates the Spirit THROUGH the Son, the Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son.

    If that is what all the Eastern Father hold - what you assure - then it follows clearly that the Son does also spirate the Spirit, that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son.

    Because:

    The Son is no dead means in the use of the Father. If the Father spirates the Spirit through the Son and if you do not want to make the Son a dead means than you must admit that the Son also spirates the Spirit.

    It´s like in the inspiration and writing of the Holy Scripture: the main author is God - but the Evangelists and Apostles as means are human, living means, not only passive, dead ones: they are also authors of the Spripture - in a derivated, secondary way - at least there are not passive.

    So the Son is no dead means, not passive - and therefore is also active in the spiration, the process of proceeding.

    But of course He has all his force/power of spiration/spirating only from the Father - like He has all "things", all qualities and powers from his Father.

    So your sentences as follow are wrong:

    The bishops at the Council of Nicea put forth the theology of the three Cappodocian Fathers which is that the Spirit only proceeds from the Father.

    And the single Source, Principal, or Cause of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Father alone.

    What you wirte does NOT follow from St. Gregories statement that you cite. It is a false conclusion of you.
    As St. Gregory of Nazianzus tells us: “The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusis.” (Discourse 39. 12)

    Your failure is that you conclude from the singel principel or spiration / procession that the Father is the ONLY source.
    But this "ONLY" is wrong. They BOTH, Father and Son do it - the Father through the Son (Who is not passive!!).

    GOD bless!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Florentine Cheerleader,

    I should have been more clear in my last post. I apologize for failing in this regard.

    Byzantine Catholics and many Orthodox Catholics do not see the filioque as recited in Latin as heretical for Latin Rite Catholics, because the Latin allows for this belief. However, the filioque does not match the original Greek Symbol of Faith as formulated by the Greek Fathers, and because of this reality it destroys the original formulated meaning. The dogmatic development of the filioque which was added to the Greek authored Symbol of Faith definitely changes what the Cappodocian Fathers intentionally formulated. As such the filioque becomes heretical to Byzantine and Orthodox Catholics because it cannot be recited by Byzantine or Orthodox Catholics who are bound by the Symbol of Faith we recite.

    Since God does not change, dogma does not change. It is the opinion of many Byzantine Catholic laymen, deacons, priests, and bishops that we csn only believe in what our Symbol of Faith proclaims, and has always proclaimed. Christians, through the bishops and councils, may make new statements to deal with changing contexts, but these statements do not and cannot change "the faith once and for all delivered to the saints".

    The filioque can be true as defined in Latin, but it is not true, has never been true, and can never be true according to the Greek Symbol of Faith. The Latin and the Greek simply do not match. If the Holy Father wishes to change the Greek formula to reflect the Latin meaning he can do so. Until such a time though Byzantine Catholics can resist the filioque just as the Orthodox do because the filioque is an impossibility according to how the Greek Symbol of Faith is written.

    I think I should probably bow out of the discussion at this point. We are probably at a crossroads.

    Picard,

    You are correct there can be no contradiction in the Godhead.

    ReplyDelete
  24. A Fair-Minded Catholic4:50 PM

    "It seems to be just a misunderstanding of the Western teaching by some in the East (or, sadly, a willingly refusal to try to understand the teaching of the West or a hardening of the hearts that makes impossible to understand the teaching of the West correctly -- a teaching that does not contradict the true notion that the Father is the main, proper fo(u)nt and source!)"

    Given that the East's refusal of the Filioque has also led to absurd charges from the West, such as the charge that the East dropped the Filioque from the Creed or that the East doesn't really believe in the Holy Trinity because it rejects the Filioque, the hard-heartedness and willing refusal to understand the other side is most assuredly not monopolized by the East.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Paul M8:58 PM

    Florentine Cheerleader,
    "Christians, through the bishops and councils, may make new statements to deal with changing contexts, but these statements do not and cannot change "the faith once and for all delivered to the saints".

    That's exactly the problem the SSPX has with Rome over VII. Rome makes new statements which DO change the meaning of the dogma, or at the very least, allow for a heterodox interpretation of it.

    Stephen, It's not circular reasoning. I believe the point he is making is that an Infalliable Rome can not state infallably one thing and then change it's mind and say something that means the opposite. I suspect (though I don't know) that at Nicea the fathers defined that the Father was the source of Holy Ghost but had no intention of meaning that He was the ONLY source. Then the confusion arose and to nip the error in the bud, it became neccesary to refine the dogma. That's how things always worked in the Church prior to VII when, for the first time, dogmas were redefined in such a way to be ambiguous.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Maximos1:19 PM

    "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..........."

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!