Posted on 07/22/2005 6:58:08 PM PDT by jec1ny
But what made it questionable other than it was evidence that went against his position? The facts remain and we cannot deny them because they are inconvenient.
" But what made it questionable other than it was evidence that went against his position?"
Your asking the wrong person because this sort of thing is outside of my field of expertise. I do believe St. Mark had his reasons. And I can tell you that both the Latins and the Greeks at Florence faced the problem of interpolated( i.e. "improved"), translations of various documents and even forgeries.
But it is not an exhaustive definition. For instance, there is no definition Mary as the Theotokos, no definition of the Mass, no explanation of the nature of the Church as apostolic, etc.
St. Cyril, who was the driving force behind Ephesus, taught Filioque:
Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it.[D]id any of the Eastern Fathers continue to profess or speculate about the filioque after the Council of Chalcedon?
St. Maximus the Confessor approved of the teaching by Latin church.
The Fathers at the various councils were very careful in their wording. Show me one act of the entire Church before 1054 that explicitly condemned Filioque.
It appears that only the Western Patriarchate continued in its defiance of the Councils by insistitng on using the filioque.
You are not implying that the Western church was not the equal of the Eastern church, are you? Again, show me one canon from the councils explicitly forbidding the use of Filioque which the Western church defied.
All you can show me are private judgments that the Latin formulations are contrary to the faith.
"But it is not an exhaustive definition. For instance, there is no definition Mary as the Theotokos, no definition of the Mass, no explanation of the nature of the Church as apostolic, etc."
So what? It does not need to be. It's thorough enough for Orthodox Christians. It suffices, for example to exclude heretics such as Roman Catholics from our temples. And that is its purpose.
"Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from the Father and Son," St. Cyril
This is not the filioque heresy. It is about what the Holy Spirit does, His mission in time. You obviously don't have even a clue as to what your own denomination teaches as to the hypostatic procession of Holy Spirit. And yet you try to argue theology with the Orthodox?
"The Fathers at the various councils were very careful in their wording. Show me one act of the entire Church before 1054 that explicitly condemned Filioque."
Creed issued by the Council of Constantinople A.D. 381.
"You are not implying that the Western church was not the equal of the Eastern church, are you?"
Imply? Of course not. The West never was and never will be equal.
"Again, show me one canon from the councils explicitly forbidding the use of Filioque which the Western church defied."
Asked and answered already.
HOGWASH! Filioque never even came up on their radar. If the councils Fathers had wanted to condemn it they would have said so explicitly. Your insistence that they did is akin to Martin Luther reading "alone" after Paul's statement that we are saved by faith.
This is not the filioque heresy. It is about what the Holy Spirit does, His mission in time. You obviously don't have even a clue as to what your own denomination teaches as to the hypostatic procession of Holy Spirit.
I have in the past shown how the Latin procedere is used for two different words in Greek. It is you who insists that only the heretical interpretation can be allowed. I do believe that the Latin authors have a better understanding of what they are saying in their own language than the Greeks who are working with translations of the Latin.
Petrosius: The Fathers at the various councils were very careful in their wording. Show me one act of the entire Church before 1054 that explicitly condemned Filioque.
Graves: Creed issued by the Council of Constantinople A.D. 381.
Please give me a quote that explicitly condemns Filioque, I could not find it. The word does not even occur in the council.
The West never was and never will be equal.
Here you are showing your true colors! So much for the "all bishops are equal" line. The idea that all truth must come from the East is arrogant beyond belief. Perhaps you do not count pride as one of the Capital Sins.
Petrosius: Again, show me one canon from the councils explicitly forbidding the use of Filioque which the Western church defied.
Graves: Asked and answered already.
Not so! Give me a quote.
"If the councils Fathers had wanted to condemn [filioque] they would have said so explicitly."
It is explicitly excluded by the Creed. That's why you cannot worship in my temple. If, as an announced Roman Catholic, you attempt to enter, the doorkeeper will be instructed to have you removed.
"I do believe that the Latin authors have a better understanding..."
Believe as you like. It's a free country. But we will still bar the door if you attempt, as an announced Roman Catholic, to enter my temple. And if you resist, I guess we'll just have to call on the civil authorities for assistance in your removal.
"Please give me a quote that explicitly condemns Filioque, I could not find it. The word does not even occur in the council."
Asked and answered.
RE: Early Church liturgical sources
Justin, the philosopher and martyr, wrote the 1st full account of Christian worship about 150 AD. The picture he painted is valid only for Rome, although the features he included hold true from East to West, which Justin had recently traveled. He did not know of any fixed text for the Eucharistic prayer. We must remember that until the 4th century, Christian worship was still banned in the Empire.
The next important document that describes Christian worship is The Apostolic Tradition. The Greek cleric in Rome, Hippolytus, wrote The Apostolic Tradition which describes ecclesiastical life in Rome in the 3rd century.
When in 154 Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna visited Pope Anicetus at Rome, the latter invited him to celebrate the Eucharist, an honor that the Syrian Didascalia of the 3rd century makes compulsory in similar instances. There was no fear, therefore, of any deviation because of strange liturgies. The same is indicated by the transfer of the formulary of Hippolytus from Rome to distant Egypt and Ethiopia where it remains even today as the Eucharistic Anaphora of the Apostles. We can therefore speak of a unified liturgy of the first centuries, characterized by the universality of Roman practice (though certainly not a uniformity).
In the 4th century an important differentiation makes its appearance. In Greek territory, especially in Alexandria and Antioch there grew up, bit by bit episcopal centers and their provincial synods that radiated special legislation that in time gave a particular stamp to worship. With the rapid spread of congregations as a result of the legalization of Christian worship, circumstances required a greater carefulness about the text of prayers in worship. Therefore, it became the rule that the text should be set down in writing and texts should be carefully passed down by episcopal office.
From the turn of the 4th century, there survive 2 collections of liturgical texts. From the sphere of Alexandria, the Euchologion of Bishop Serapion of Thmuis, first discovered on Mt. Athos in 1894. From the sphere of Antioch/Syria, the liturgy in the 8th book of the Apostolic Constitutions, also called the Clementine liturgy as it pretends to be the work of Pope Clement I, a pupil of the apostles. Actually, it is a product of the late 4th century.
Although the 2 works diverge, each shows the common structure already described in the earlier Roman works. This basic structure would be the foundation that Basil would enlarge and enrich with Scriptural quotations and symbolism in the late 4th century. The Liturgy ascribed to John Chrysostom claims 4th century authorship, it did not, however, become popular in the East until the 11th century and it did not become firmly associated with the entire liturgy until the 8th century.
In the 5th century West-Syrian worship in the Liturgy of St. James, Jerusalem takes the lead in the Middle Eastern sphere. A lengthy desciption of this liturgy is recorded in the last of the conferences known as the Mystagogic Catecheses ascribed to Cyril of Jerusalem the the late 4th century. After Chalcedon most of the West-Syrians became Jacobites, named after their tireless organizer, Jacobus Baradaeus. This liturgy is noted for its numerous anaphora which were composed in the course of several centuries after the St. James Liturgy and of which the older are Greek in origin. There are over 60 but present day Syrians use only a small portion of them.
More could be said of the Liturgy of St. Mark of the Patriarchate of Alexandria after Chalcedon or of the Armenian Syro-Greek Liturgy which developed after this time, as well.
From The Mass of the Roman Rite, JA Jungmann; The Byzantine Liturgy, HJ Schulz; The Early Liturgy, JA Jungman.
Very interesting, except that the frist Pope to be called the "Papa" officially was Pope Siricius (at the end of the 4th century). His predecessors' official titles were humbly "Episcopus Romanus," the Bishop of Rome.
Wow, we are not talking deities here, Petrosius! We don't believe in HVM as part of our Faith (she is a Saint not God). Likewise, the Mass is part of eccelsiology, the tradition of the Church, not the Nature of God. You are mixing apples and oranges my friend!
On another thread I was told that the Pope is Christ on earth. There is some serious disconnect here between what is Divine and what is not.
The Creed is the very essential definition of God. Remember God is simple, indivisible, ineffable, incomprehensible. The simpler the definition, the greater the Mystery, the lesser the chance of reasoning error. The Father is the Source of everything and all. Amen. The Son and the Spirit owe their existence to the Father. Amen. How the Divine Persons interact is not ours to know, not can we ever comprehend. So, it's best to leave it at that.
Since the 5th century the two halves of Christianity knew very little what the other was doing and even if they knew they were not much concerned about them. The issue of Filioque became important when the West tried to establish authority in the East and when the teachings of the West became directly known to the East.
Consequently, the Photian Council rightfully condemned the addition to the Creed and the Pope agreed.
You bring up Maximos the Confessor? Of course he would agree with anything the Vatican said -- the Vatican was his only hope. We are talking some heavy vested interest in siding with the Pope. The same can be said of St. John Chrysostomos. He needed the the good graces of the Pope as well. And I am not saying that the Popes were not good graces when the EPs chose to wallow in heresy.
You are not implying that the Western church was not the equal of the Eastern church, are you?
You have this strange "my daddy is as big as your daddy" thing about the East. I simply stated that the West allowed, believed and continued to use filioque sub rosa while the Vatican publicly disallowed it.
All you can show me are private judgments that the Latin formulations are contrary to the faith
I can show you the finalized Creed. It has no Filioque in it. You can write a PhD (Pharisaical Doctorate) if you wish on why it should be there -- the fact remains it's not there and your side of the Church jammed it in.
Roman Catholics use it constantly on this Forum as "authoritative." In fact that's how i learned about it!
If it is not what the Roman Catholic Church approves of, please show it to us, but first of all to your fellow Roman Catholics.
It's an encyclopedia, i.e. a third level source. By third level, I mean two levels away from an original source on just about every subject that it covers. As third level sources go, I find it a very good one, in its own way on a par with Brittanica as opposed to World Book or Compton's. It is superior, I believe, to the New Catholic Encyclopedia as it tends to be more conservative and less "liberal" than the NCE. And it's a handy reference, being that it is online. But when all is said and done, it is ONLY a third level source. Some on this forum have used it as if it were more authoritative than that.
The Churches I know say "St. X Catholic Church". Roman is generally not used.
Consequently, the Photian Council rightfully condemned the addition to the Creed and the Pope agreed.
If Photian was correct in his opinion then the right thing to have been done was to call for a council as John Chrysostom did in his conflict against Nestorius.
No pope ever declared that the doctrine of Filioque was heretical, they just counseled that the word not be included in the Creed.
You bring up Maximos the Confessor? Of course he would agree with anything the Vatican said -- the Vatican was his only hope. We are talking some heavy vested interest in siding with the Pope. The same can be said of St. John Chrysostomos. He needed the the good graces of the Pope as well. And I am not saying that the Popes were not good graces when the EPs chose to wallow in heresy.
Nice trick: those who supported Filioque only did so because of ulterior motives. It could not be that that was their actual belief. So all evidence contrary to the Orthodox position is a priori excluded. This is especially egregious in the case of John Chrysostom. He was the leading force behind Ephesus but somehow he did not understand what it meant?
I can show you the finalized Creed. It has no Filioque in it. You can write a PhD (Pharisaical Doctorate) if you wish on why it should be there -- the fact remains it's not there and your side of the Church jammed it in.
The Creed also does not state that God is eternal, would you also deny this truth?
No, but it contradicts the faith of Chalcedon, to which your Church and mine subscribe as infallible and complete.
Anything to the contrary is merely theological opinion and thus has no canonical effect
More rationalizations. Faith is not an opinion. Maybe in your neck of the woods rationalism is the same as faith, but not in Orthodoxy. Ecumenical Council pronouncements are not theological opinions either, Petrosius.
There was a council called with Latin legates present that condemned the so-called "Eight" Ecumenical Council your Church recognizes, and which restored +Photios and agreed with his objections to the Filioque. The Pope agreed. Conveniently, the other side will say evidence is forged. You side did just that and chooses to ignore historical facts and pretends the Photian Council never took place and the Pope never agreed with it. Moving from rationalizations to pretentions.
No pope ever declared that the doctrine of Filioque was heretical, they just counseled that the word not be included in the Creed
You are working on your "PhD" Petrosius -- your rationalizations are getting more and more Pharisaical. Now, why would the Pope do that?
Nice trick...
It's not a trick. And it's not a coincidence either. Is it not strange that the two most prominent Eastern papists were also in dire straits from heretical EPs in Constantinople?
The Creed also does not state that God is eternal, would you also deny this truth?
Time plays only a factor in our salvation. God did not create time for Himself. He begot His only Son eternally the Creed says. How can something that is not eternal beget something that is in existence eternally?
But it isn't a primary source and contains some errors that are forgiveable given its era.
It also contains some biases and interpretations of its editors that do not hold up to current scholarship of any stripe.
Encyclopedias that are not regularly updated eventually become useless. The Britannica for example is regularly updated and extraordinary in its scope and depth. This old Catholic Encyclopedia has no like method of updating, reevaluation, and addition.
The official teachings of the Catholic Church can be found in places you well know such as the Catechism and the two new Compendia. The Holy See has not authorised an Encylopedia though it would be a most worthy project.
"This old Catholic Encyclopedia has no like method of updating, reevaluation, and addition"
That is its main weakness, especially as to getting bibliographic information. There is and can be no reference to scholarly works after 1910.
...
"When Stalin liquidated the Ukrainian Catholic Church, forcing its several million adherents into the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Alexei and his bishops received these coerced "converts" gleefully. Instead of protesting prophetically against this persecution of fellow Christians, the Moscow Patriarchate shamelessly exploited their plight, heaping religious tragedy upon political atrocity."
Chalcedon equated the Synodical Letters of St. Cyril to the Nicene Faith.
The Third Synodical Letter states quite clearly: "the Spirit was poured forth by the Son, as indeed the Son was poured forth from the God and Father".
It also contains in its 9th Anathema that states: "it was his own proper Spirit through whom he worked the divine wonders".
If the Son has no eternal relation to the Spirit, it is difficult to see how you hold the Faith of St. Cyril, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. Again and again you seem to forget the purpose of the phrase "who proceeds from the Father". This was to oppose the mad folly of Macedonius, who claimed that the Spirit was created by the Son. So it would be quite wrong to take it out of context and deny any mediation by the Son in the Spiration of the Spirit, considering the numerous testimony of so many Fathers to the contrary.
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.