Posted on 10/15/2005 5:23:09 PM PDT by JohnRoss
That doesn't mean that profession of it isn't required of them. There are many Latin Rite Catholics who support the ordination of women as priests - does this mean that rejection of the possibility of priestesses isn't required of them under our laws?
What it does mean is that they publicly refute it and still receive the Eucharist in a Roman Catholic Church.
Quite an encyclical, Marmema. Seems +BXIV disagrees with gbcdoj.
The ab utroque procession of the Holy Spirit confuses the origin of that person of the Holy Trinity. Saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, essentially says the Father and the Son are the same person.
Greek Catholics per the Union decrees are only required to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. We only can accept the filioque if it is understood to mean that.
In any case the Latin Councils only became ecumenical as a Counter-Reformation argument between the Latins and the Protestants. If Lyons II was ecumenical, then why did Florence claim to be the 8th ecumenical council?
Kolo,
Don't forget that my former Melkite pastor delivered a sermon on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul denying the pope has universal jurisdiction by divine right.
Pope Benedict XVI would be doing a great service if he suppressed the filioque and declared Lyons II and Florence to have merely been general councils of the Western Church. BTW, Dominus Iesus includes the Creed without the Filioque.
,John
The pseudo-Synod of Zamost was an orchestration of the Poles, and it was annulled by Pius XI, as it destroyed the Byzantine rite in Ukraine among the Catholics.
Here is what the Union of Brest had to say:
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.
Since I was talking about the creed, and the theologians you cite were talking about Lyons II, I don't see how it's relevant. Lyons II was talking about beliefs, not the creed. The creed is an expression of some of our beliefs, but not of all of them.
The articles of the Union of Brest were all approved by Pope Clement VIII in 1595, including art. 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.
Seems +BXIV disagrees with gbcdoj.
How does he disagree with me? Please see post #17.
I don't see how it's relevant that all the Byzantine Rite Catholics you know happen to reject this Catholic dogma. Where does the Church approve this? The Solemn Profession of Paul VI, given on June 30, 1968 as "a firm witness to the divine Truth entrusted to the Church to be announced to all nations", states:
We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love.
Your point? Fr. Hans Küng publicly rejects papal infallibility and remains a Catholic priest. Does that mean that the Catholic Church doesn't dogmatically profess belief in this teaching? Of course not.
My point is it appears that a substantial portion of the Uniate church rejects the filioque and that's acceptable to the Roman Church.
And a tip of the hat to the moderator who Zotted with almost divine speed on post number 29! That was so fast, I didn't even see the inappropriate post despite being online.
Are you endorsing this?
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (First Vatican Council, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, III, 9)
Pope Benedict XVI would be doing a great service if he suppressed the filioque and declared Lyons II and Florence to have merely been general councils of the Western Church.
Dream on. How was Florence only a council of the "Western Church" when the Greeks were there and assented?
PS: Do we Latins get to demote the first seven councils to "general councils of the Eastern Church"?
28 and 29 were the same, by accident: I asked the mod to remove 29.
I, for one, do not believe that a substantial portion of the Eastern Catholics are dishonest liars.
http://www.melkite.org/Questions/T-2.htmView of the Post-Schism Councils: Must we Eastern Catholics consider the post-schism General Councils of the Roman Church Ecumenical like the Seven of the First Millennium?
Bishop John's Answer: Patriarch Gregory II Youssef-Sayour occupied the Melkite throne of Antioch for thirty-three years (1864-1897). At Vatican I, the Patriarch gave an impassioned plea to the assembled bishops in defense of the prerogatives of the ancient patriarchs. He said: "The Eastern Church attributes the highest and most complete power to the Pope, but in such a way that the fullness of his power is in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees. (Mansi 52,cols. 133-137). Patriarch Gregory finally signed the document Pastor aeternus but only after adding the phrase made famous at the earlier Council of Florence that expressed his reservations. He added: "salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum". {saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs}.
While the first seven ecumenical councils enjoy a place of prominence, especially in the East, both the Churches of the East and West have experienced local councils and synods throughout their rich histories. The early ecumenical councils met to resolve and articulate important Christological doctrines. The Melkite Church participated fully in Vatican I and Patriarch Gregory spoke clearly to his affirmation of the fullness of power enjoyed by the Petrine Office. The Patriarch was very concerned that the exercise of papal powers be "in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees." The second Vatican Council is seen to have completed the unfinished business of Vatican I with its special emphasis on ecclesiology, specifically on the nature of the Church.
Recent theological speculation has developed the concept of "communion of churches" with promising results for ecumenism and rapprochement with the Orthodox. It would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent.
"Since I was talking about the creed, and the theologians you cite were talking about Lyons II, I don't see how it's relevant. Lyons II was talking about beliefs, not the creed. The creed is an expression of some of our beliefs, but not of all of them."
Oh, please! The entire theological discussion was about the Creed. The condemnation your theologians refered to in 2003 are of those Christians who do not accept the innovative position of the Latin Church on the procession of the Holy Spirit as expressed in the the filioque addition to the 381 Creed. What they were doing becomes even more clear when they state that the 381 Creed without the filioque is normative and should be the one used in catechesis.
As for +BXIV, his encyclical clearly states that a number of times Rome required that Eastern Christians recite the filioque, apparently at the Pope's whim. It is therefore incorrect for you to assert that the Uniates were never required to recite the filioque. Apparently they can be so required whenever the master in Rome feels like telling them to.
"We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love."
Is this some new form of the Creed or another attempt to save face and preserve some modicum of the Frankish formulation?
His encyclical clearly states that the Greeks were permitted by Lyons II to recite the Creed without the addition. All this (including times when some of the Eastern Christians were so required) is covered in my post #17 which you apparently didn't read(?). I admit that my original formulation on this point was incorrect because I was thinking only of Lyons II and Florence - sorry on that point.
Is this some new form of the Creed
PS: Toledo was a "Frankish" council? Perhaps Seleucia 410 was as well - those evil Franks were everywhere! In any case, the Catholic Church has no need to save face - at least we haven't screwed up the Patristic doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as explicitly approved by the Council of Chalcedon!
Florence was agreed upon under duress and later was repudiated as a false council by the Eastern Churches.
Saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love, is NOT the same as saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
You don't seem to understand. Saying what you just said depersonalizes the Holy Spirit and reduces him to being a non-person. Plus, it establishes a semi-Sabellianism with the Holy Spirit.
The Melkite Church believes there were only Seven Ecumenical Councils, and those convened since 1054 are not validly ecumenical because it takes the assent of all of the patriarchates to make a council ecumenical, not just the Pope of Rome alone.
St. Gennadius of Constantinople who is considered a saint by both Rome and Orthodoxy held this to be true.
If tagging a council with the term ecumenical makes it so, how do you deal with the fact the so-called Fourth Council of Constantinople, held in 869, was annulled by John VIII, and the council of 879 declared itself ecumenical. cf. Francis Dvornik.
To add Patriarch Gregory II's reservation: "Without prejudice to the rights, privileges and honor of the Eastern patriarchs."
Can. 43 The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.Can. 55 According to the most ancient tradition of the Church, already recognized by the first ecumenical councils, the patriarchal institution has existed in the Church; for this reason a special honor is to be accorded to the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, each of whom presides over his patriarchal Church as father and head.
Can. 56 A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.
Can. 58 Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff.
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.