Fr Anthony Chadwick, a priest of the Traditional Anglican Communion (currently seeking full communion with Rome), at his always interesting blog “Reflections from Normandy”, points out the following quote from the Pope’s most recent motu proprio (Ecclesiae unitatem, 2 July 2009) –
The duty to safeguard the unity of the Church, with the solicitude to offer everyone help in responding appropriately to this vocation and divine grace, is the particular responsibility of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, who is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity of both bishops and faithful. The supreme and fundamental priority of the Church in all times – to lead mankind to the meeting with God – must be supported by the commitment to achieve a shared witness of faith among all Christians.
(…)
In keeping with this, faithfully adhering to that duty to serve the universal communion of the Church, also in her visible manifestation, and making every effort to ensure that those who truly desire unity have the possibility to remain in it or to rediscover it, I decided, with the (…).
Eirenikon 
That’s a very pastoral approach to primacy. Unfortunatly it does not in any way mitigate the definitions of Vatican I. And those are of course, the deal breaker. Rome can’t pretend they don’t say what they plainly do. And we can not under any circumstances sign off on what they plainly say.
Vatican I was for Rome-Orthodox relations what the decision to start ordaining women was for Anglican-Rome relations. It made reunification, already a long shot, impossible. The First Vatican Council, far more than throwing down a bull of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia in 1054, was the defining moment in the long tragic history of the schism Up until that moment it was at least possible to conceive of restoration of communion absent the complete surrender of one side or the other. But Vatican I ended that. It was the moment that the Roman Catholic Church definitively kissed the Christian East goodbye forever.
Whether Rome is right or not we can debate until the Second Coming. But it’s a done deal. And we must all now live with it. But sometimes I wonder in retrospect if the Fathers of that Council (wherever they may be) still think it was essential to the faith to promulgate those decrees with their attached anathemas.
Under the mercy,
John
“It was the moment that the Roman Catholic Church definitively kissed the Christian East goodbye forever.”
Fortunately, more serious theologians of the East and West disagree. Sorry to disappoint you.
Vatican I was never concluded. That is to say, it’s decrees etc; were still in progress when political events forced it to
be stopped.
Vatican II did pick up some of what needed to be done but not all.
It’s not a “done deal” by any means.
While God can and will bring about reconciliation in His time, I agree to a point with John–Vatican I certainly raised the stakes.
That said, I do think that Vatican I was an interrupted council and it is not at all clear to historians of doctrine whether or not we need to read Vatican II in light of the earlier council or Vatican I in light of the later work of Vatican II especially the Lumen Gentium. For example, the council fathers taught the Church is “constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.” (#8)
And then later, “within the Church particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which presides over the whole assembly of charity (11*) and protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it. Between all the parts of the Church there remains a bond of close communion whereby they share spiritual riches, apostolic workers and temporal resources. For the members of the people of God are called to share these goods in common, and of each of the Churches the words of the Apostle hold good: “According to the gift that each has received, administer it to one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God”.” (#13)
While LG is presented as in continuity with Vatican I, it does represent (I think) a rejection of more absolutist reading of the papal office. The papal office, despite some unfortunate language, does envision the papacy as a ministry within and for the college of bishops and the whole Church: “This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.” (#18)
Finally, I think we would all do well to remember that–whatever or differences real and imagined–there are forces both human and demonic that would prefer to see us remained unreconciled. It is also the case that while not all of those who opposed reconciliation do the devil’s work for him, a fair number in both Churches are (in my view) more than a little willing to do some of the heavy lifting.
Sorry for the long post and quotes, but imagine what it might mean that first Sunday after a reconciliation of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches if 1.6 BILLION Christians (roughly a quarter of the population world wide) received celebrated the Eucharist together and communed together? That’s the goal my friends–one Church in word, deed and faith.
In Christ,
+FrG
I agree with John’s first paragraph. All other things being equal (unfortunately, they aren’t, but…), the pastoral definition of the papacy as given is, perhaps, a useful outline of “primacy” as Orthodox might accept. As it is, though, the headline is misleading: this isn’t a concise definition of papal primacy as seen by Rome, it’s an incomplete one.
MAP,
Unfortunately I think you are overly sanguine in your assessment of what these “more serious” Eastern theologians are prepared to go along with. I really do believe that a lot of what divides us can be overcome with much work and charity. I do not believe that to be the case with the decrees of the First Vatican Council. I know of not a single Orthodox hierarch who could accept…
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.
– Decrees of the First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 3.
And…
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Decrees of the First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4.
I have long argued that Orthodoxy has, for a variety of reasons, a somewhat deficient understanding of primacy. But this is a proverbial showstopper. Anyone who could accept these decrees as written is Catholic, at least in their beliefs, and should in all honesty enter into communion with the Roman Church.
But as I noted above I know of no Orthodox hierarchs who can sign off on those decrees as they are written. The language is flatly irreconcilable with Orthodox ecclesiology. Assurances that these decrees would not be invoked would be meaningless because they could not bind any of the successors to the current Pope. The problem here is that unlike so many other items on the “we don’t agree” list the wording is so absolutely clear that there really is no wiggle room for reinterpretation. They either mean what they say, or they don’t.
For communion to be restored those decrees (with their anathemas) need to go away. The only way I see forward on this is that proposed by some of the Eastern Catholics which is to declare that Vatican I was not a true OEcumenical Council and its decrees are not dogmatic. There is actual precedent for this. Recall that Rome initially accepted for a couple of centuries but then retroactively repudiated the Eighth Council. But lets be honest here. Anyone wanna take odds on that happening?
Under the mercy,
John
Father bless,
Fr. Gregory,
I applaud your enthusiasm for ending the schism. But I am afraid it will take more than enthusiasm to overcome Vatican I. As much as I want to see an end to the schism and communion restored, it must be done on the basis of truth. Which means that while I think we should be prepared to be flexible on church discipline, we can’t fudge or “agree to disagree” on dogma. If you want an example of where that leads take a look at the Anglican Communion.
The sad fact is that sometimes honest people have to stand up in a negotiation and say “blank as written is not acceptable.” And this is one of those moments. If I could sign off on Vatican I, I would still be Roman Catholic. But I can’t because I am Orthodox and Vatican I isn’t.
Under the mercy,
John
Blessed is our God!
John,
Thank you for your kind words. A couple of thoughts come to mind.
First, while I agree with your position as outlined, I’m not sure that what you outlined is the Catholic position on the matter. As I (and others have suggested), Vatican I ended prematurely and given the damage it did to Catholic/Orthodox relationships maybe we can say providentially. You’re arguing from the not unreasonable position that Vat II’s teaching on the Church in general and the papacy in particular must be seen through the lens of Vat I. Certainly there are any number of Catholic thinkers and faithful who would agree with you even if they drew rather different conclusions from your points of agreement! :)
Second, Vatican I is an interesting subject not only in itself but also for the consequences of the Council for Catholic/Orthodox relations and for its effects on the Catholic Church. I think an argument could be made–and the different Old Catholic Churches would I think might be happy enough to make it–that while the universal Church does have a visible head (even as does a diocese), as that universal office was defined by Vatican I represents a deviation from Catholic orthodoxy (and thus, the Old Catholic schism in the 19th C). While Catholic teaching obviously does not agree with the Old Catholic opinion (and by the way the view of a substantial number of Catholic bishops at Vatican I), it does seem to me that recent papal invitations to the Orthodox Church and Protestant communities to examine together with the Catholic Church how the papacy might exercise a universal office suggests that Pastor Aeternus may not have thw dogmatic weight that we think.
Third, my enthusiasm for reconciliation is not naive (not that you suggested it is)–I studied Catholic theology as both a undergrad and a grad student (I’ve got an MA in theology from the University of Dallas–hardly a stronghold of liberal Catholicism on its worst day!) and have a good sense of how both sides feel on both sides of the issue. I am also aware of how both sides subtly–or not so subtly–have those who work against reconciliation. Some, not you, look for reasons to say “No”–while others look for any reason to say “Yes” even at the expense (as you imply) of the truth.
Fourth, I try and reminder the observation of Archbishop Hiliarion of the MP that the underlying the theological causes of the schism is the fact that we lost the sense that we needed each other. To this I would add that this lost sense of our mutual need is still dominate in both Churches (even if it takes different forms). I think it compromises no one’s commitment to the truth to say that Catholic and Orthodox Christians need each other and that each can contribute mighty to the other.
Finally, I always have liked the hymn from Nativity: “when God so ordains the laws of nature are overturned.” Humanly speaking reconciliation is not only arduous and distant, it is impossible. With God’s help, it is only arduous. Without reference to what anyone has said here, I think the best way forward for me is to grow in holiness and to support that process (to the degree I can without violating the integrity of either Church) in not only my Orthodox brothers and sisters but also among the many Catholics in my life.
Here endth the lesson.
In Christ,
+FrG
John (Ad Orientem)
I have a question about one thing you wrote. You said:
As much as I want to see an end to the schism and communion restored, it must be done on the basis of truth. Which means that while I think we should be prepared to be flexible on church discipline, we can’t fudge or “agree to disagree” on dogma.
I’m wondering whether you think that the denial of universal jurisdiction is an Orthodox dogma. If you think it is, then where and when, from an Orthodox perspective, was the denial of universal jurisdiction made dogma?
On the other hand, if the denial of universal jurisdiction is not Orthodox dogma, then the situation is not “you have a dogma that contradicts our dogma”, but “you have a dogma that we don’t have and don’t accept.” In that case then in principle no Orthodox *dogma* need be sacrificed even for reconciliation on Vatican I terms (though of course there are other obstacles). That would be quite a different situation, at least, from ‘contradiction of dogmas.’
Fr. Gregory, I really appreciate your comments, and share your vision, as always.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
It’s not so much that denial of universal jurisdiction is a dogma but that such pronouncements must be made by a truly ecumenical council, ( which Vatican I and II are not).
What’s needed is a full ecumenical council but that is not going to happen until Orthodox sort out their own jurisdictional confusion.
Bryan,
You sound like you have been reading Mike Liccione’s arguments… “Orthodoxy has not rejected Vatican I because it can’t.”
I don’t believe I stated that the Orthodox Church had made any “dogmatic” definitions on the subject of Vatican I. Indeed it would be silly to do so since the decrees of the First Vatican Council are not a source of great controversy in the Church. Whatever else we may disagree on (we can’t even agree on a calendar) the Orthodox Church is of one mind on the subject of the decrees of Vatican I.
As I noted above, even the most ecumenically minded Orthodox can not accept those decrees because they are heterodox. They are alien to the consensus patri and the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. Every Orthodox saint who has ever bothered to comment on the subject has passed the same judgment. They are heretical.
Summoning a council to declare what is already universally understood is pointless. It would be like calling a council to announce that the Earth is flat or that the Episcopal Church has fallen into grave heresy. Some things don’t require a formal decree from an OEcumenical Council.
Vatican I is a nonstarter. The decrees need to be repealed along with the anathemas if there is to be any hope of restored communion. Any Roman Catholics who believes otherwise are deluding themselves.
Please forgive me if the tone of this comment sounds either triumphalist or snarky. It is not intended as such. But I do not believe in beating around bushes or obfuscating truths, however inconvenient they may be. Fr. Gregory is a bit more tactful than I am. But I think reading his comments above that even he concurs that the decrees of the First Vatican Council are not acceptable to the Orthodox Church.
I blogged on this subject back in June. Without reposting the entire piece, I said that the only path to restoration of communion is for both the East and West to agree that no OEcumenical Councils have been held since the seventh. Rome is free to call her 14 councils local synods of the Western Church if she wishes. And she can present their conclusions as theologumena to a Great Council of the Universal Church. But some of what has been pronounced in the West is not going to fly in the East.
Under the mercy,
John
Evagrius,
I generally concur with your comment. As for the jurisdictional chaos, its being worked on. Things more very slowly on our side of the fence. But they do move.
Under the mercy,
John
Bryan,
While I do hope for reconciliation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, I think that asking if “the denial of universal jurisdiction is an Orthodox dogma. If you think it is, then where and when, from an Orthodox perspective, was the denial of universal jurisdiction made dogma?” is (as John argues) a misleading question. The matter of concern for the Orthodox is not so much the primacy of Rome post-reconciliation but how that primacy would be exercised. We cannot simply go back (in my view) to the first millenium and to suggest we can is unwise and really simply untrue.
You are right, of course, reconciliation between the Churches would not require the Orthodox to give up any of our dogmatic tradition–but that’s because (from the Orthodox point of view) Rome has added to once was a shared tradition. Are they, to quote John, “heretical”? I am willing to hold off on that judgment (and again as a personal matter), but only until bishops from both our Churches can gather to debate the matter. Without wishing to presume against the Holy Spirit, at a minimum the Orthodox side would begin such a debate with the presumption that in fact the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her Assumption and Papal Infallibility are NOT part of of the dogmatic tradition of the Church.
This doesn’t mean–and this I think is where many Catholic and Orthodox simply misunderstand each other–that the Marian teachings are wrong. Nor does it mean that they are mere theological opinion–but they are not dogma–they are not something to which one must assent.
As for papal infallibility, again you’re correct, that would–from one perspective anyway–not require that I as an Orthodox renounce any part of the Orthodox faith. But the concern is not “giving up” but “adding on.” Again as John points out, this has been rejected by the Orthodox Church.
Mindful that such matters are well above all our pay grades (to quote someone or other), but I think John’s suggestion that we simply hold “that the only path to restoration of communion is for both the East and West to agree that no OEcumenical Councils have been held since the seventh. Rome is free to call her 14 councils local synods of the Western Church if she wishes. And she can present their conclusions as theologumena to a Great Council of the Universal Church. But some of what has been pronounced in the West is not going to fly in the East.”
This would, I should add, require that the Orthodox Church not present as normative the teaching of St Gregory Palamas on the essence/energy distinction. Nor can we present as settled the heretical character of the recent dogmas of the Catholic Church. Whether either side has the humility to met each other in such nakedness remains, I fear, to be seen.
In Christ,
+FrG
Bryan makes an excellent point. The denial of universal jurisdiction would certainly have come as a complete surprise to, say, Maximos the Confessor. ;)
As MAX says, there are more serious theologians, both East and West, who disagree with the conclusions reached by the denizens of Internet comboxes.
Perhaps I am just getting jaded. I am so weary of the same-old-same-old. I’ve heard it all before, a million times; it does not square with the facts of history, especially in the first millennium; it represents a curious blend of historical ignorance (and blindness) with distorted, erroneous perceptions; and, frankly, I’m just over it.
Dumb question for my Orthodox triumphalist brethren: If we Catholics are so wrong, how come we are still going strong–growing, thriving, and flourishing–after 2,000 years? In the book of Acts, Gamaliel famously said that, if a movement’s not of God, it will peter out. Protestantism seems to be starting to peter out, at least in its Magisterial forms; and even Orthodoxy is apparently shrinking worldwide. But Catholicism’s still going strong. If we’re so wrong, how come God has apparently blessed us this way, 2,000 years in a row? We have our vicissitudes; we go through scandals and dark periods; and yet we always emerge stronger, renewed, reformed…and growing. As McCaulay said, the papacy is by far the oldest ongoing institution in the world: It has its ups and downs, and its critics keep confidently predicting its demise, and yet it goes on and on, like the Energizer Bunny. It’s almost as if Our Lord had said something about “gates of hell” not prevailing…ya think? ;)
Bottom line: If we are so wrong, God has a darned funny way of demonstrating that.
Hope I haven’t offended anyone. If I have, please forgive me.
Diane
Diane,
While I appreciate (and share) your frustrations with some Orthodox correspondence I think phrasing your question as you have, invites a triumphalistic response. I’m not defending Orthodox polemicists, but you have hidden a theological judgment within an empirical question. Evidence you see as signifying the truthfulness of the Catholic claims is likely to be interpreted by an Orthodox respondent as evidence of the falsity of these claims.
Vladimir Lossky’s work is a good example of this. He reads the history of the Reformation as a sign of the inherent weakness of the Western Church. I don’t think his argument is sound, but most because he is concealing in an empirical argument his own theological presuppositions.
Counting Catholic vs Orthodox or Protestant noses is not, in my view, a good way to foster reconciliation. It is however likely to precipitate a nasty argument.
In Christ,
+FrG
John,
Let me take a stab at showing you why, from a fully Catholic perspective, your despair regarding the Vatican I formulations may not reflect the last word on the issue.
“But as I noted above I know of no Orthodox hierarchs who can sign off on those decrees as they are written. The language is flatly irreconcilable with Orthodox ecclesiology. Assurances that these decrees would not be invoked would be meaningless because they could not bind any of the successors to the current Pope. The problem here is that unlike so many other items on the “we don’t agree” list the wording is so absolutely clear that there really is no wiggle room for reinterpretation. They either mean what they say, or they don’t.
“For communion to be restored those decrees (with their anathemas) need to go away. The only way I see forward on this is that proposed by some of the Eastern Catholics which is to declare that Vatican I was not a true OEcumenical Council and its decrees are not dogmatic. There is actual precedent for this. Recall that Rome initially accepted for a couple of centuries but then retroactively repudiated the Eighth Council. But lets be honest here. Anyone wanna take odds on that happening?”
The language you object to was not ecumenically sensitive. It was deliberately triumphalist, and grated particularly against the consciences of the Melkite bishops who rightly felt it slighted the dignity of their Church. While phrased in ultramontane terms, however, these formulations need not be understood in an ultramontane sense and are, as others including Pontiffs have observed, not the Church’s last word on the issue.
Here are a few reasons for taking a deep breath before writing these formulations off as communion-killing:
1. They are admixtures of doctrine and disciplinary exhortation. As such, they can be parsed into dogmatic elements (that are irreformable) and disciplinary legal provisions (that can be revisited). Catholics, unlike some Orthodox, do not consider the disciplinary canons of ecumenical councils as having the same definitive and binding character as dogmnatic pronouncements.
2. Much of the language characterizing the nature of papal authority is technical jargon and does not bear the plain meaning a lay reading of the text suggests.
3. Neither Vatican I nor II address the limits of Petrine authority (except to some degree in the method of its communication). As such the Vatican I formulations provide an incomplete image of what the Church teaches.
4. The anathemas attach to flat denials and not necessarily to varying nuanced interpretations of the specific significance and import of the formulations. Anathemas are, in any case, mere disciplinary provisions that certainly do not bind future councils.
I know the above will initially probably come across as casuistry, but let me offer an ecclesiological model of primacy consistent with the formulations and which I suspect a good number of Orthodox bishops could in theory sign onto.
The sacraments lie at the heart of good ecclesiology, and I suggest we start there, stepping away from the raw concept of “jurisdiction” for a moment.
All the bishops are sacramental equals. They are all successors of the Apostles. They all share the same sacramental faculties and, as with the Apostles, their sacramental acts have objective force anywhere and everywhere. In Catholic parlance, they are universally “valid”. Good order, however, requires one shepherd for each flock. Thus, as a matter of discipline, the Church normally limits the “licit” use of these faculties to the consent of the ordinary of the flock in question.
I know the valid/licit distinction is uncharacteristic of Orthodox terminology, but it is central to Western ecclesiology and key to how Catholics can understanding the Vatican I formulations.
There are circumstances in which a bishop may licitly exercise his faculties beyond the limits of his immediate flock. This is true most obviously in the case of a vacancy in a neighbouring diocese but, more critically for this discussion, also in cases where the incumbent is incapable of exercising or unwilling to exercise these faculties in fidelity to the moral and doctrinal teachings of the Church.
The historical conciliar and pre conciliar precedents are clear. St Athanasius felt free to bypass Arianizing bishops, performing sacraments outside his Patriarchate against the will of heretical colleagues, even presuming to consecrate orthodox replacements for them, all in the absence of any explicit conciliar mandate. And Athanasius only held the second place amongst the bishops.
References to the Pope’s universal, ordinary, immediate and superior jurisdiction, need mean no more than that his sacramental acts are, again in Catholic parlance, always licit as well as valid. This principle was conceded implicitly by the East (canonically, if not dogmatically) at Sardicca and so need not shock Orthodox sensibilities now.
Next, the vexing issue of infallibility. Properly speaking “infallibility” is a property of the Creator, yet a bishop, any bishop, can be said to teach infallibly when he successfully expounds the authentic deposit of the faith.
We have, furthermore, the Creator’s own assurance that the Church will not fail in its mission in upholding the truths needed for salvation. In this narrow sense the Church enjoys the capacity of infallibly communicating these truths. At least, so Catholics believe. (I am aware that some Orthodox, particularly converts from Protestantism, contest this point, but my understanding is that it is nevertheless widely held in Orthodoxy as a whole).
This begs the question, of course, of through what instruments the Church exercises this qualified infallibility. Most Catholics and Orthodox can agree that it may do so through the episcopate gathered in an ecumenical council. Not all councils are ecumenical, however, and some having claimed to be so have ultimately been repudiated. The standard Orthodox qualifier of reception by the body of the faithful is ultimately of little practical utility. Who is to judge whether a reception or non reception is faithful? Suffice it to say that no conciliar definition has ever enjoyed unanimity amongst the bishops, and the more famous of them led to lasting schisms, some of which continue to our day.
The Catholic test of ecumenicity, while perhaps not wholly adequate, offers something to commend it to Orthodox as it is the only unifying thread to all seven councils that Orthodoxy recognizes as ecumenical: i.e. symphonic assent of the episcopal college in unity with its president, the bishop of Rome. I presume this would require further qualification before a majority of Orthodox would subscribe to it.
That said, this cannot be exhaustive, as the Church’s infallible teaching charism cannot be limited to those rare instances in which an ecumenical council is in session (even if one subscribes to the longer Catholic list of such councils). Even infallible canons need to be infallibly interpreted and expounded.
The faithful need and have been promised Christ’s assurance in the here and now. Granted that the requisite symphonia can now be more readily achieved in the internet age without troublesome face to face convocation of the episcopate, but surely Christ’s promise was timeless and not contingent on late 20th century technological advances.
The Catholic answer, forcefully expressed in the formulations of Vatican I, is that the episcopate can teach infallibly and authoritatively through its president. The council fathers hedged this with qualifications, but there is no reason see the listed offered as exhaustive. Implicit for example, if not stated, is the need for the president to consult widely amongst his colleagues, for consistency with previously defined dogma, for precedent in the writings of the Fathers, etc… These and other qualifications could form the basis for further conciliar refinement on the circumstances in which a Pope could be recognized as teaching infallibly.
Even the concept of infallibility itself could be subject to further qualification. Is infallible teaching necessarily objectively true in the fullest sense, or is it merely safe and sufficient? Can it more properly be expressed as ruling out what is false and fatal? I think these are issues that could conceivably still be open to discussion even after Vatican I.
What I cannot see as “negotiable,” however, is an infallible teaching’s freedom from post facto validation. If the assurance of infallibility is contingent on subsequent ratification by the bishops, it is no assurance at all. Somehow, Protestant and Orthodox polemicists seem to preferentially cast this in terms of papal definitions being set against the *considered* judgment of the bishops rather than reflecting it. Catholics have serious difficulty taking such arguments seriously. Any Pope going that route would defeat his purpose as the result would certainly be schism rather than general edification.
In any case, my purpose here is not to convince Orthodox participants in this discussion to cross the Tiber, but to indicate that Vatican I has not, as John, insists definitively closed the door to possible reconciliation on terms other than unilateral capitulation and self-repudiation . It has given sharper form to obstacles, to be sure. But it is still worth talking things through.
As a final note, and in all fairness to liberal Anglicanism, even women’s ordination need not kill ecumenical prospects out of hand. Anglicanism has not committed itself irreformably to the necessity of women’s ordination (indeed, after 2,000 years of male-only priesthood, this would be a difficult necessity to credibly affirm even for liberals). The much greater underlying problem is that Anglicanism is not irreformably committed to anything much at all. As such, women’s ordination just makes hypothetical reunion messier, not inherently less plausible. Given that Catholicism doesn’t recognize the validity of even male Anglican ordination, I don’t see how “fake” women priests would appreciably change the practical problematic posed by “fake” male priests. There just wouldn’t be any recognized women priests after a hypothetical Anglican-Orthodox or Anglican-Catholic reunion.
Michael, this is an excellent post, but I take issue with the “deliberately triumphalist” and “ultramontane” parts. ;-) From what I’ve been told, at least, there was an ultramontanist party at VCI — but it did NOT prevail. The definition of papal infallibility which eventually merged, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was really remarkably modest…and fell far short of the sweeping language the ultramontanists wanted. Per VCI, papal infallibility is a purely negative protection, a protection (moreover) for the faithful, which can be exercised only under certain sharply delimited circumstances. On those occasions when the Supreme Pontiff solemnly instructs the Church Universal on matters of faith and morals — per the VCI definition — he is protected from teaching error. That doesn’t mean he has to teach truth. He could always say nothing at all! But, if the pope does solemnly define a dogmatic teaching on faith and morals for the benefit of the Universal Church, the Holy Spirit protects him from uttering error. It’s as simple as that, and I for one am very grateful for it. (I know you know all this, but I am reiterating it for John.)
An aside: I find it ironic that our Orthodox brethren so often see the pope as some sort of tyrannical bogeyman — or as what Bertie Wooster would call an “overbearing dishpot.” Meanwhile, their own hierarchs sometimes claim and exercise prerogatives no pope would ever dream of. Case in point: Antiochian Metropolitan Philip’sd recent demotion of all his bishops to auxiliary status. I’ve seen Orthodox complain that Met. Philip is acting like “the popes of Rome.” But what pope ever did such a thing? What pope ever reduced the entire episcopate under him to auxiliaries? It has never happened, and I can safely guarantee it never will.
Will the real Overbearing Dishpot please stand up?
Father Gregory, you make a good point. However, I think you misconstrued mine.
I very deliberately did NOT say, “We’ve got the numbers; therefore we’re the One True Church.” Rather, I was saying, “If we’re as wrong, as off the rails, as youse guys say we are, then how come we’re still going strong after 2,000 years?” It’s the Gamaliel argument: If this thing’s not of God, it will disappear. Well, it hasn’t — far from it — and that should give our critics pause, I think.
I was making no explicit claim to One True Church-ness (although I do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ). Rather, I was playing defense (NOT offense) — countering our critics’ claims that we have seriously defective, heterodox ecclesiology.
You seem to be implying that Lossky would never have been as extreme in his critique of Catholicism if Catholics hadn’t provoked him into it. I’m sorry, Father, but isn’t that a classic case of blaming the victim? ISTM the more extreme anti-Catholic Orthodox are perfectly capable of making asses of themselves without any provocation from Catholics. ;)
I cannot back down from my essential argument, which is simply this: If we’re as messed up as our critics claim we are, we wouldn’t have lasted two years, let alone 2,000.
Frankly, I get weary of being told that we must simply grin and bear it when we are slandered, lied about, and vilified. If we cannot even respond to charges that our entire ecclesiology is heterodox, then what on earth can we do?
Why, in other words, do you reserve your lecture for me, while overlooking far more obnoxious language (from the Catholic perspective) employed by the Orthodox on this forum before I even showed up here? Surely I did not provoke a nasty reaction before I even arrived here? ;)
Diane,
“From what I’ve been told, at least, there was an ultramontanist party at VCI — but it did NOT prevail. The definition of papal infallibility which eventually merged, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was really remarkably modest…and fell far short of the sweeping language the ultramontanists wanted.”
You are quite right, of course, though calling them “ultramontanists” makes them sound like Tertullian. ;-)
My hair goes on end when I think of the provisions some of the ultramontanes wanted to propose for Vatican I. Yet though they were the majority at the council, they did not impose more than the minority could swallow (Old Catholics aside). I still maintain that the language is “triumphalist”, however, even if the content is far more limited than many assume.
Diane,
Thank you for your comment.
In response to your concern that I misconstrued your argument, I went back and re-read what you wrote. Clearly you did not make the direct statement “We’ve got the numbers; therefore we’re the One True Church,” but (for what it may be worth to you) I did not think this was your argument. Forgive me for my lack of precision, but when I said you–like Lossky–were making an empirical argument I did not mean a quantitative argument. My academic background is in phenomenological psychology and qualitative human science research and I tend to use the term empirical more broadly then what one typically
finds in the natural sciences.
That to one side, my criticism of appealing to history is that we come to this history with our own theological presuppositions–evidence that one side sees as a vindication of its own position the other side is just as likely to discount. While the argument often takes an historical form, the substance of the argument is theological. The question of the structure of the Church (or the relationship among the Churches) is as much a question of historiography as history. Put another way, an examination of the issues that separate us often shipwrecks on questions of our methodology of historical research and its relationship to theology (both classical and contemporary).
Lossky’s polemic on the Reformation is a good case in point. What he not only reads this a failure of the Church of the West, he then (as others have following him) proceeds to argue that the Eastern Church is superior because it has never experienced a similar split. But he can only do this by ignoring the Old Believer’s schism in Russia. In doing this, however, he (implicitly) adopts the stance toward history of his opponents: We are the True Church and those who left, left because of their own sinfulness.
Again, forgive any lack of clarity on my part, but I was not implying that Lossky’s criticism were justified by the position of Catholic polemicists or apologists. But I am saying that, as is often the case in most unhappy families, each side is adopting the dysfunctional behavior of the other. (And to be clear, I am speaking here of individuals who take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of their respective Church and not the Churches themselves speaking authoritatively in their own name.)
I am very sorry if I have given the impression that I was (am) lecturing you. I was not, but as I would tell my group therapy clients back in the day, we are accountable not only for what we say, but also the unintended consequences of what we say. Please forgive my unintended, but nevertheless real, offense.
In Christ,
+FrG
Dear Father Gregory, you have absolutely nothing to apologize for. I am sorry if I offended you!
I completely agree with what you say about historiography.
As a Catholic, I do believe that the fullness of the Truth and Faith subsists in the Catholic Church founded upon Peter the Rock. If I did not believe this, I would not be a Catholic. ;-) I also believe that my belief is well grounded in history. But, like Christianity itself, it cannot be conclusively proven from history. That’s where faith comes in.
I do hope to clarify–and please forgive me if I was unclear: I am not trying to play a triumphalistic numbers game. Rather, I am defending my Faith and my Church against the relentless, tiresome charge that we have gone completely off the rails. As I said originally, if we are so wrong, so messed up, well, God sure has a funny way of demonstrating this, seeing as He’s kept us going strong all these centuries. Again, this was intended as defense against the claim that we’ve gone utterly wrong. I’m sorry if the way I phrased my argument led to misunderstanding. Please forgive me!
Diane
Diane,
No worries! I am not offended by what you posted–far from it! :)
And of course you believe the Catholic Church is who she says she is! And why wouldn’t you want to defend the Church you love when you see it attacked? Who among us would not step forward to defend those we love? Sadly, too many (on both sides) of us seem more inclined to attack then understand–it does no one any good and it is not God pleasing.
Again, I am not offended.
Diane,
The reason Catholicism spread like wildfire is because its adepts lived (and still live) in Western Europe, and –not having any invading Turkish hordes to constantly fight off– they had the opportunity of discovering the Americas, i.e. two whole new continents, and (more or less forcibly) make very many new adepts there for the last half a millennium. — 1 billion Catholics CAN’T be wrong.
And Protestants have likewise been very prodigious at being blessed with the same abundant increase in their numbers: a real cornucopia. — 0.8 billion Protestants CAN’T be wrong.
In the mean-time, Islam spread also by the sword, despite their Prophet Mahomed not doing any miracles at all (a fact Muslims are in fact very proud off). — over 1 billion Islamists CAN’T be wrong.
And let’s not forget the Hindus, who number over a billion souls; add Buddhists or any other Far Eastern philosophies into the mix, and the numbers increase signifficantly. — well over 1 billion Indians CAN’T be wrong!
P.S.: The Jews still exist! — Their religion didn’t disappear off the face of the world either. (And neither did that of the Sabbean Mandeans, a bimillennial Gnostic faith). Or the Assyrian Nestorians. Or the Monotellists from the Mountain of Lebanon. — Their numbers are practically insignifficant, but they’re still hanging on…
All of the above-mentioned religious beliefs (except Protestantism) are ancient (and even Protestantism is half a millennium old); and the first four are also major world-religions.
So, in conclusion: the Orthodox suck! :D
————————-
[BTW: if the Filioque is true and dogmatical, why haven’t the Monophysites or Nestorians, for instance, ever heard of it? How come that this peculiar belief is restrained to the formerly Latin-speaking populations of Western Europe? (where the Latin ‘processio’ stood for TWO different things: the procession-proper of the Spirit from the Father, and the sending of Him into the world, which was done through the agency of the Son).
Likewise, following the same line of thought, how come the Monophysite/Nestorian doctrines exist solely in those parts of the world which are Semitic by heritage, their languages not having TWO separate words for ‘person’ and ‘nature’.
So, my question to You: can either one of these faiths: (Catholicism, Monophysitism, or Nestorianism) be truly called Catholic? — since they have as touchstones of their dogmatical teachings or doctrines things which are so peculiar to their own cultural or ethno-linguistical regions? Hmmm?]
Ah my dear friend Lucian! How have you been, Bro?
May we leave the Hindus and Buddhists out of the discussion? Not to mention the Muslims, who gain converts by means of the sword? We are talking about Christian churches here. To invoke non-Christians is to compare apples with oranges.
The context was the claims of several Christian churches, and, last time I checked, neither the Hindus nor the Buddhists were Christian. Or a church. Nor did they claim to be. Nor did Our Lord ever tell them that the gates of Hell would not prevail against them.
The survival of the Jews is a whole separate question. It is surely providential and supernatural, and it aligns with several significant Biblical prophecies, as well as with the teaching of Saint Paul. Nonetheless, it is not directly relevant to this discussion, considering that the Jews would not consider themselves a Christian church, let alone an indefectible one.
The several Christian groups you cite simply serve to illustrate my point. They survive only in relatively small and shrinking numbers…which was precisely my point.
Protestantism in its Magisterial form, meanwhile, is also in decline, as a visit to any UCC or Episcopal church will immediately show. Its newer revivalist forms (esp. Pentecostalism) are booming, but they are relatively recent, so they have not yet had the chance to stand the test of time. It remains to be seen whether Pentecostalism — which sometimes takes rather aberrant forms — will have long-term staying power. This is something I’m particularly interested in, as I count a number of Pentecostals as good friends. In my experience, the old adage “God has no grandchildren” applies to Pentecostalism with special force. My friends’ teenage kids are already rejecting their parents’ Pentecostalism — understandably, IMHO, because frankly some of it is really wacked. (I have personally witnessed some of the wacky stuff, and, believe me, it has got to be seen to be believed.)
In any event, I believe my point stands: Protestantism is in decline, but Catholicism is not. It is thriving. Not only have we survived; we are growing — and no, it’s not by the sword or by force a la Islam. So, again, if we are so wrong, so off-base, God sure has a funny way of demonstrating this.
BTW, lumping a 1.4-billion member church in with Nestorians does not make for a particularly compelling argument. ;)
Also, your contention that Catholicism grew and flourished only because we weren’t fending off the Turks is equally debatable. First of all, those Byzantine emperors were no shrinking violets; they were perfectly capable of fighting offensive as well as defensive wars. (Just ask the Bulgars who tangled with Basil the Bulgar Slayer.) Secondly, Western Europe faced plenty of outside threats of its own — including encroaching Islam. (Medieval Spain, anyone? The republic of Venice?)
Around the time of the Schism (whenever you want to date that!) there were roughly equal numbers of Christians in the East and in the West. Today Eastern Orthodox Christians number around 250 million — a quarter of the number of Catholics. I don’t think you can attribute this decline solely to the Turks and dhimmitude, although those factors certainly played a huge role. But consider…Catholicism was also decimated (in our case, by the Protestant Reformation), yet it recouped its losses in mission lands, e.g. in Latin America. The Eastern Orthodox did not do likewise. You can’t blame that one on the Turks!
Again, I am not trying to play a numbers game here. All I am saying is this: Both our 2,000-year survival and our robust continuing growth seem just a tad anomalous if you’re operating on the assumption that we have gone completely off the rails.
Lucian:
I can’t speak to the situation of the Assyrian Church of the East, the so-called “Nestorian Church” because I am not clear on the current state of their Christology (I’ve chatted via IM several times with an Assyrian priest on this subject, and, unfortunately, from what I was able to gather from what he said, his Christology may be, in fact, fairly “nestorian”. At the same time, there is an agreed statement on Christology between the Assyrian Church and the RCC.)
I can, however, speak to the situation of the so-called “monophysities,” the Oriental Orthodox Churches. While the Copts will sometimes affirm “monophysitism,” it is clear that the better term, overall, is “miaphysite,” indicating that the unity of the Incarnation is composite, that Christ is, in fact, both fully and truly and God and fully and truly human. This was Cyril’s preferred term. Further, even while rejecting the confession of Chalcedon as defective (along with, especially, the Tome of Leo), the OO have always rejected the outright heretical monophysitism of Eutyches, which denied the full and true humanity of Christ. Then, there are the agreed statements on Christology between representatives of the OO and the Byzantine Orthodox as well as between the OO and the RCC. Hence, it is clear that the OO, the BO, and the RCC all share a common faith when it comes to Christology. However, from the OO perspective, Chalcedon is a defective statement of that common faith, one that had to be corrected and augmented by the next two Councils considered ecumenical by the BO and the RCC.
So yes, the OO are “Catholic”, and I continue to maintain that none of what I see as theological distortions in the RCC sink to the level of heresy.
Lucian,
Let me deal with this particular bit of your rant:
“[BTW: if the Filioque is true and dogmatical, why haven’t the Monophysites or Nestorians, for instance, ever heard of it? How come that this peculiar belief is restrained to the formerly Latin-speaking populations of Western Europe? (where the Latin ‘processio’ stood for TWO different things: the procession-proper of the Spirit from the Father, and the sending of Him into the world, which was done through the agency of the Son).
“Likewise, following the same line of thought, how come the Monophysite/Nestorian doctrines exist solely in those parts of the world which are Semitic by heritage, their languages not having TWO separate words for ‘person’ and ‘nature’.
“So, my question to You: can either one of these faiths: (Catholicism, Monophysitism, or Nestorianism) be truly called Catholic? — since they have as touchstones of their dogmatical teachings or doctrines things which are so peculiar to their own cultural or ethno-linguistical regions? Hmmm?]”
Setting aside the polemic labels you use for non-Chalcedonians, they have indeed heard of the filioque. The majority in those Churches that failed to accept Ephesus have by now accepted the filioque as a legitimate interpolation to the Latin version of the Creed (and now also accept Ephesus and Chalcedon). This majority has come over to Rome and is recognizable as the Chaldean Catholic Church.
The remaining anti-Ephesites do not raise the filioque as a matter of significant controversy.
Reconciliation with the Oriental Orthodox has admitedly been less spectacular, though obviously Copts, Syriacs and Armenians in communion with Rome accept the filioque as valid. The Coptic Patriarchate in particular does list the filioque as an obstacle to eventual reunion, however.
The reason the filioque is a specifically “Latin” affectation (Eastern Catholics accept it but normally don’t recite it in the Creed) is linguistic. I suspect you have heard this before, but I will state it again for clarity’s sake: Catholics do not hold to the interpretation some Orthodox have unilaterally ascribed to the filioque.
Even without the filioque, the Creed as formulated in Latin does not bear exactly the same meaning as the Greek version. By this I don’t mean that the un-interpolated Latin and Greek versions are inconsistent, but that the Latin does not hold the same technical precision as the Greek for the very simple reason that “procedere” has a broader meaning than ἐκπορεύεσθαι, also meaning προϊέναι. The same applies to the English “to proceed”. You might note that the vernacular version of the Creed used by the Latin rite in Greece has no interpolation.
The real issue concerning the filioque is not whether the interpolation itself as understood by Catholics is heretical, but whether Rome had the right to unilaterally authorise an amendment to the Latin version of the Creed despite a rather explicit conciliar prohibition. As the interpolation has subsequently been approved by councils considered ecumenical by Catholics, this issue is largely moot for those few Catholics disposed to concede the legitimacy of Orthodox objections. The underlying issue of authority is nevertheless one Catholics and Orthodox still have to wrestle with.
Your point regarding the linguistic basis for the Christological reservations of the Non-Chalcedonian Churches merely underlines how language can be a problem. I cannot speak to the claims of the Oriental Orthodox or the Assyrian Church of the East to catholicity. You will have to ask members of these communions. But you misrepresent the Catholic position. The Catholic Church accepts the Creed in its uninterpolated form, even in Latin, and does not (“dogmatically” or otherwise) impose the filioque or any other interpolation on its Eastern rites. The interpolation is simply not, as you claim, a “touchstone” of Catholic dogmatic teaching. It is, at best, a doctrinally sound touchstone of Latin ritual praxis.
BTW, Lucian — who has been known to annoy the heck out of me — is actually a very nice guy. Funny, too. He kind of grows on one. ;)
Diane,
Western Europe borders on the Atlantic Ocean. So does America. (And it’s one thing to have no physical-or-geographical boundary-line between oneself and the invading hoardes, as opposed to having the whole Mediteranean Sea separating the two sides).
Secondly, Orthodoxy didn’t shrink. (We’re not hot on making converts, that’s true, but we’re not shrinking either)
Thirdly, I offered You a list of very ancient and/or very wide-spread religions (since these two are the things You’ve mentioned in connection with the Catholic Church).
—————
Michael,
if it’s in the Creed, it’s dogmatical. Secondly, the teaching says that the procession from the Son is eternal, not temporal (therefore it can’t be ‘proienai’). And the reason why this has to be so is because, IF the Spirit would be generated only from the Father, then procession would be the same as begetting (this according to Catholic Scholasticism: if begetting is from one Person, then procession necessarily has to be from two Persons, otherwise the two things [procession and begetting] would be one and the same action — and Christ would then not be the Only-Begotten Son of God).
Thirdly, the fact that (only) those in Union with Rome include or accept the Filioque is quite clear and obvious — but those aren’t the true, historical Monophysites that I was talking about. The genuine ones don’t have (nor did they ever hold to) such a teaching. Nor was the lack of this teaching one of the differences for the 1,500 year old schism between them and the rest of us.
BTW, Lucian — who has been known to annoy the heck out of me — is actually a very nice guy. Funny, too. He kind of grows on one. ;)
Well, Diane, … if I’ld only had the same effect on the girl I’m actually in love with: now, THAT would make my day… :-(
Lucian,
“if it’s in the Creed, it’s dogmatical.”
Did I state otherwise? Are we really having the same conversation?
“Secondly, the teaching says that the procession from the Son is eternal, not temporal (therefore it can’t be ‘proienai’).”
Please show me where this “teaching” is spelled out in the catechism?
“And the reason why this has to be so is because, IF the Spirit would be generated only from the Father, then procession would be the same as begetting (this according to Catholic Scholasticism: if begetting is from one Person, then procession necessarily has to be from two Persons, otherwise the two things [procession and begetting] would be one and the same action — and Christ would then not be the Only-Begotten Son of God).”
Scholastic arguments have no purchase on me, and are hardly binding on Catholic consciences. I can find some really foolish Orthodox theology regarding azymes that can be used to justify objective sacrilege, but I know it isn’t what Orthodoxy actually teaches. Do we really want to go down that road?
“Thirdly, the fact that (only) those in Union with Rome include or accept the Filioque is quite clear and obvious — but those aren’t the true, historical Monophysites that I was talking about. The genuine ones don’t have (nor did they ever hold to) such a teaching.”
Perhaps you should reread what you wrote:
“why haven’t the Monophysites or Nestorians, for instance, ever heard of it?”
My response was that they *had* heard of it. Some accepted it (as demonstrated by reunion with Rome) and some did not. The inference naturally drawn from your remark that they could only have made this choice in full ignorance is simply insulting.
Look, I can slug it out on the polemic side with the best of them, but I find it tiresome and unedifying. Such behaviour runs, in any case, against the ethos of this site. I am sure you will find other sites where trollish discourse is more welcome.
Please have the courtesy to accept that others may also have access to a nuanced and detailed knowledge of Church history, and that Catholics may have a better grasp of what their Church teaches them and what it binds them to than you have.
Engage instead with openness and humility. Faithfulness to one’s own tradition is commendable but does not require contemptuous treatment of that of others.
Ask Catholics what they believe and you can then fairly probe them based on their responses. This habit of a priori and sloppy ascription of beliefs, theological reasoning and localized praxis to others gets old really quickly.
And yes, I know you mean only the best for us, and that you are speaking your truth to us in love, yadda, yadda. Now can we get back to some intelligent and respectful discussion?
Michael,
what on earth made You so upset? :-(
The fact that the procession from the Son is eternal is in the CCC. (at least in the old official version, which lasted from the time of Trent up to the ’90s). — The reason I distinctly remember this is because I myself was extremely interested in such discrete minutiae, and wanted to see if there was any true chance at our two Churches actually being able to agree on something… but, sadly, there it was, black on white… along with the entire reasoning. :-(
———-
Diane,
Protestantism isn’t shrinking either: they’re just converting from on denom to another, but it surely isn’t “going” away anywhere, if that’s what You meant…
Re Protestantism, Lucian…I fear you are sadly misinformed. Converting from one denom to another? In some cases, sure. But overwhelmingly they are simply abandoning the historic Christian faith altogether. Last I heard, CofE weekly church attendance was roughly 2% of the English population. If that’s vigor, I’d sure hate to see decline.
Again, re Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.: The original discussion was about churches, not religions. I think it’s important to stay on-topic…don’t you? More re that later…have a deadline to meet.
If weekly church attendance is what worries You, then neither one of our Churches is doing good. The Protestants still remain the most obsessed people with religion as an actual way of life: the Orthodox and the Catholic tend by their very nature to be more nominal; the Protestants more active: religious activists; being “born anew”, and all that stuff… Sorry. :-)
Lucian,
Even even the council of Blachernae spoke of the “eternal” manifestation of the Spirit through the Son.
You asked me what made me so upset. Here is my answer:
Ever since the filioque dispute first emerged some 12 centuries ago, the Catholic side has repeated over and over and over that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son in the same sense as He proceeds from the Father, that procession says nothing about the origin of the Holy Spirit, that there is onl one procession, and that the West acknowledges and recognizes the Father as the arch of the Trinity.
In recent years the language has become increasingly precise and explicit, not because Catholics are in any doubt regarding the procession, but because Orthodox continue to insist on reading in uninteded meanings from Catholic formularies. And yet polemicists on the Orthodox side simply will not let this go, and refuse to accept repeated and emphatic flat denial at face value. The filioque apparently *must* mean what Orthodox say it means, and any Catholic efforts to dissassociate themselves from these caricatures must be signs of confusion, ignorance or bad faith.
Criticize the filioque as an arrogant and unecumencial assertion of Papal authoirty.
Criticize it as opening the door to heretical understandings of the nature of the Trinity.
Criticize it as resting on vague and fluid terminology.
There is some basis for truth in all three of these charges, and if you make them, I will not get upset. But in this day and age, if you continue to assert that the interpolation was ever intended to teach that there are two processions, or that the Spirit originates in the Son, or that somehow procession from Son is in the same sense as from the Father, it can only mean that you insist on learning your “Catholic theology” from polemic Orthodox sources rather than from those actually mandated to articulate and expound it authoritatively.
The way the Catechism taught is such: the Father is the uncaused cause; the Son the caused cause; and the Spirit the caused. (And I don’t remember saying that Catholics believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son the same way as He does from the Father: all I said was that they [i.e., You] believe in an eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son — and that that’s not ‘proienai’). I also know that You believe that He proceeds from the Father and the Son eternally as if from one source: but all of these distinctions in nuances and shades of meaning notwithstanding, Your beliefs are still not acceptable for us. (Sorry). — Do You still think I’m ‘mischaracterizing’ anything? :-\
Lucian,
“The way the Catechism taught is such: the Father is the uncaused cause; the Son the caused cause; and the Spirit the caused. (And I don’t remember saying that Catholics believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son the same way as He does from the Father: all I said was that they [i.e., You] believe in an eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son — and that that’s not ‘proienai’). I also know that You believe that He proceeds from the Father and the Son eternally as if from one source: but all of these distinctions in nuances and shades of meaning notwithstanding, Your beliefs are still not acceptable for us. (Sorry). — Do You still think I’m ‘mischaracterizing’ anything? :-\”
Yes, I most certainly do. Can you offer me a Catholic citation for the “as if from one source” bit? (and not an out-of-context Orthodox quote, please). The closest I can can think of is “in a single spiration” which means something else altogether.
As for the “eternal” bit, you appear to be in serious danger of anthropomorphizing God. Time is part of the created order, and while God might manifest Himself to us in time, to argue as you seem to be doing that the relationship between the persons of the Trinity is somehow contingent on time would seem to imply that God is somehow subject to His creation.
You may wish to take some time and reflect on whether this particular line of argument really reflects orthodoxy rather than a desperate attempt to prove the Catholic side wrong using pseudo scholastic logic.
In his response to the Eastern bishops regarding the filioque, Leo affirmed his own belief in the eternal nature of the Son’s calling forth of the Spirit, and no Orthodox, to my knowledge has ever called him a heretic. As I noted in my earlier post, Blachernae (an explicitly anti-filioque Eastern council) acknowledged the “eternal” manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, which is all Leo’s statement means to me.
Ultimately, I do not expect Orthodoxy as a whole will ever accept the filioque as a formulation. We tried twice, and it did not work. As a basis for reunion, it is probably not too much to ask that the Latin rite return to the uninterpolated form of the Creed in its liturgy, not on the basis of any supposed inherent heresy, but simply because its use has demonstrably proven a cause for scandal.
The Catholic side will have to reexpress dogmatically, and in the most excruciating and precise detail possible its authentic understanding of the nature of the Trinity in a non credal context and move on. I believe such a reformulation grounded in the actual words of the Fathers and free of the polemics of the past would, in any case, better reflect actual Catholic understanding, and be found acceptable by Orthodox of good will.
But we are no there yet. The big issues are ecclesiological.
“…Orthodox of good will.”
Ay, there’s the rub.
I do not see how reunion will ever occur without direct miraculous intervention by God Himself through the intercession of the Immaculate Theotokos.
When that happens, all this Internet blather will be moot.
Diane,
You write:
“I do not see how reunion will ever occur without direct miraculous intervention by God Himself through the intercession of the Immaculate Theotokos.”
I have never thought reconciliation would happen any other way–reconciliation, like babies, is something God does, human beings merely help! :)
“When that happens, all this Internet blather will be moot.”
Forgive me, but it seems to me to be moot (in the sense little or no practical value or meaning) already. If we saw what was said online as being of real and lasting value I suspect we would all treat the matter with considerably more care (to say nothing of charity).
In Christ,
+FrG
No argument there, Padre! ;-)
Can you offer me a Catholic citation for the “as if from one source” bit?
Uhm, besides St. Thomas Aquinas, You mean? “From two as if from one” — those were/are his words (and the faith of the Catholic Church).
The word ‘proienai’ is –at least to my knowledge– related to the economy (i.e., the manifestation of God in the world, that is: space and time) — so there’s no “eternal proienai” — And precisely this view of temporary procession, (which is how St. Maxim Martyr, the champion of the 6th Ecumenical Council, interpreted the expression of the Latins), was the one the Orthodox side put forth at one of the failed Coucils of Reunion, at Ferrare-Florenza, in the 1300s or 1400s… only to have the Latins reject it, and push for something more… so it’s clear that they [i.e., you] didn’t mean it this way, at least not some 6-7 centuries ago: did the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints”, and which the Catholics believe to uphold, change over all those centuries, or what? (Dogmatic development, perhaps?)
Lucian,
“Can you offer me a Catholic citation for the “as if from one source” bit?
Uhm, besides St. Thomas Aquinas, You mean? “From two as if from one” — those were/are his words (and the faith of the Catholic Church).”
I am finding it difficult to believe that you are not deliberately trying to prove my point. You have it in your head that Rome teaches “as if from one source”, hence you read Aquinas who says “from two as if from one” and presto, in your mind it becomes “as if from one source”. No need to explore in any detail what Aquinas meant, because you already know the answer. He must be talking about “source” or “origin” because “that’s what Catholics believe”, even if they deny it.
That’s point #1.
Next we have the breathtaking “(and the faith of the Catholic Church)”. Says you! As Thomas is to be found at odds with the magisterium on a number of points, it would not follow that, even if he did believe in dualistic origin, that this would necessarily constitute Catholic teaching.
“The word ‘proienai’ is –at least to my knowledge– related to the economy (i.e., the manifestation of God in the world, that is: space and time) — so there’s no “eternal proienai” ”
You seem to be missing the essential point which is that “procedere” is not technical liturgical jargon. If the West had interpolated the Greek version of the Creed using “proienai,” you might have a case. But as I pointed out before, the Latin rite uses no interpolation in the Creed when it is recited in the Greek vernacular, i.e. it doesn’t use “proienai”, eternal or otherwise. You are trying to ascribe a narrow technical meaning to “procedere” to which it has never been limited except by Orthodox polemicists.
“— And precisely this view of temporary procession, (which is how St. Maxim Martyr, the champion of the 6th Ecumenical Council, interpreted the expression of the Latins), was the one the Orthodox side put forth at one of the failed Coucils of Reunion, at Ferrare-Florenza, in the 1300s or 1400s… only to have the Latins reject it, and push for something more… so it’s clear that they [i.e., you] didn’t mean it this way, at least not some 6-7 centuries ago”
OK, you have thrown me a curve here. I am not aware that the filioque was a live question at Constantinople III. Do you have a citation for Maxim and the filioque?
Be that as it may, we have already gone through why how the three persons of the Trinity relate to each other exists outside of time. To refer to a “temporary procession” would suggest that it might somehow end at some point or that the calling forth of the Spirit is not fundamental to the relationship and is merely a pious invocation. This is not what Catholics are taught, and hence the qualifications “temporal” or “temporary” would not have done justice to the Catholic view, even though they could have constituted a superficially valid interpretation of the interpolation. Accepting such an interpretation just to make the quarrel go away would have been intellectually dishonest.
“did the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints”, and which the Catholics believe to uphold, change over all those centuries, or what? (Dogmatic development, perhaps?)”
The West roots its explanation and justification of the filioque (much as you seem intent on selectively ignoring it) squarely and explicitly on patristic and scriptural precedents. This is all the more remarkable as the Fathers (or at least the Greek ones cited in the filioque’s support) obviously do not use the word “procedere”. So when the West tells you “See what Father X has written. This is what we mean,” the argument should really end there unless you wish to anathemize Father X for daring to offer post facto comfort centuries after his death to Westerners who must a priori be heretics.
At best you might respond in charity with something like “Well, that does not seem to us to be a very faithful translation. Perhaps you might wish to phrase it slightly differently because of this or that concern that we still have.”
But then, this would have involved conceding that Rome could authorize an interpolation to the Creed, even if only an orthodox one. And this is the real nub. As usurpation is not a sufficiently big stick with which to beat the despised Westerners, one has to whip up indignation by using the always handy “h” word.
I submit to you that the West has never acknowledged subscribing to any interpretation of the filioque identical to one explicitly anathemized by an Eastern council. That does not ipso facto make the Western understanding orthodox, but it should give Orthodox apologists pause for thought as to whether they have dispassionately grasped what the West means by the filioque.
Well, Michael, the man did say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as if from one source. (also giving reasons which for us are not coherent: some within themselves, and others when taking into account the Patristic data).
But since You say that everything’s actually fine, and that I’m probably missing something, take Your time and write a comment explaining what You guys really mean by that term: I’m all ears (and eyes). :-|
Here’s something better than even Aquinas himself:
The 14th Ecumenical Council:
SECOND COUNCIL OF LYONS (1274)
II
1. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith{5}
1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration.
This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike.
But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.
(Source.)
The 17th Ecumenical Council:
ECCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
Session 6—6 July 1439
[Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence]
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.
In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.
Session 8—22 November 1439
[Bull of union with the Armenians]
The holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding.
Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably added to the creed of Constantinople
Session 11—4 February 1442
[Bull of union with the Copts]
Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father and is principle from principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle.
Session 13—30 November 1444
[Bull of union with the Syrians]
First, that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.
Session 14—7 August 1445
[Bull of union with the Chaldeans and the Maronites of Cyprus]
Also, in future I will always hold and profess that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as the holy Roman church teaches and holds. .
(Source.)
Lucian,
“Well, Michael, the man did say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as if from one source. (also giving reasons which for us are not coherent: some within themselves, and others when taking into account the Patristic data).
“But since You say that everything’s actually fine, and that I’m probably missing something, take Your time and write a comment explaining what You guys really mean by that term: I’m all ears (and eyes). :-|”
I do not claim to be all knowing. I have actually searched through the Aquinas available to me for “as if from one source” in response to your claim and not found it. As a result, I would be grateful if you could offer a detailed citation as I am not disposed to just take your word in the matter. If you prove to be correct, we will move from there.
I am pleased to see that in citing Lyons you are at last taking an important step towards grappling with authoritative texts rather than selectively treating speculative theology as normative. This represents immense progress in this discussion.
Obviously, Lyons was found wanting in Orthodoxy’s considered opinion. It would thus be altogether rather surprising if, having read it, you found it compelling. The issue we have been strugling with since you asked what upset me is not whether Orthodoxy would agree with a fair representation of Catholic belief regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, but the actual unfairness of the misrepresentations being bandied about by Orthodox polemicists both here and elsewhere.
It would seem, however, that even when reading an authentic authoritative text, you are are still interpretting it from a priori assumptions of what Catholics must really believe in their heart of hearts, if you think your quote from Lyons proves your contention that “as from one source” is Catholic teaching.
I refer you to the catechism which clearly describes the Father “as the first principle” in the procession of the Spirit. If one principle is distinguished as “first”, the other (or others) cannot be as “one” with it in terms of ultimate origination, though they can still be “one” symphonically.
Again, I do not expect you to find the Catholic understanding compelling. But at least an accurate understanding of Catholic teaching should make it easier for you to understand why the Catholic side does not feel shaken by the Orthodox critique.
It might also help you understand why the filioque, properly explained and understood, might have seemed less than heretical to the Orthodox bishops present at Lyons and Florence and to the majority of 18th century Orthodox Melkites who, as a result, reconciled with Rome. Even now, a small but significant number of Orthodox theologians are on record as considering authentic Catholic teaching regarding the procession of the Spirit as theologoumena. Yet I don’t see any anathemas being cast against them.
I might also point you to the NAO-CTC joint statement. It is, of course, not binding on Orthodoxy, but at least explicitly demonstrates that some Orthodox bishops are prepared to acknowledge that:
“Although a great deal has been written about the reasons for and against the theology of the Filioque since the Carolingian era, most of it has been polemical in nature, aimed at justifying positions assumed by both sides to be non-negotiable.”
and recommend:
“… that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;”
Michael, you have far more patience than I could ever hope to muster. Thank you and God bless you for patient, charitable efforts. ;)
Dear Lucian and Michaël
as I step in between you I do so with trepidation. I am on vacation and away from my notes and library. Hence, what follows will contain quotations from memory, sourced only approximately. However, since the history and theology of the filioque is the one domain in which I can claim insights based on some degree of expertise, I am emboldened to participate in your debate.
First on the quotation concerning “one single source”, it is in fact taken from the union decree of the 2nd Council of Lyons which – while its ecumenical status, at least in the fullest sense, may today be debated among us RCs – is at the very least for us a very authoritative magisterial source. In 1274 the said council taught that “the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle (tamquam ex uno principio)” (DS 850)”. The precise meaning of this is open to debate; one should only note that, since the fourth Lateran Council of 1215 had taught that only the persons, and not the unhypostasised divine essence, may be the sources of generation and procession, it does not mean – as some Orthodox polemicists have claimed – that the divine essence in Latin sholastic theology is some kind of “quartum quid”, existing and acting prior to the hypostases or distinct from them.
In fact Augustine does propose the procession ex utroque as a solution to a problem with which the Greek Fathers had wrestled without finding a conclusive answer: if the Spirit has his origin from the Father just like the Son, then why is he not another Son, brother of the Word? Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, to distinguish the origin of the Son from that of the Spirit, fall back on the merely verbal distinction between being begotten and proceeding (ekporeuesthai). It is in this way that the term ekporeusis becomes at this period a technical term used to distinguish the origin of the Holy Spirit. Asked to explain in what precisely the difference is between these two modes of origin, they can only have recourse to apophatic silence: we do not presume, they say, to know the hidden things of God.
Latin theology thus appears to possess a conceptual tool for distinguishing the Persons which is not available to the Greeks: the Spirit has a hypostatic character which differs from that of the Son, in that the latter proceeds from the Father alone, while the former comes from the Father and the Son. Among the Cappadocians, Gregory of Nyssa seems to edge towards a position similar (but not necessarily identical) to the Augustinian one, when he says in his letter to Ablabius known as “On there being not three gods” that the Son and Spirit are to be distinguished in that the former comes from the Father immediately, while the latter comes forth “through the one who is immediate”. It was on the basis of this and similar texts that the Council of Ferrara/Florence attempted to establish consensus by stressing the formula “from the Father through the Son”.
Many difficulties do surround the “tamquam ab uno princiio” formula. Most Latin theology does seem to interpret it to mean that the Father and Son play a role in the “spiration” of the Spirit which is identical in all respects save one: namely that the Father alone possesses the “spirative capacity” (vis spirativa) from himself whereas the Son posesses it from the Father. In this way, the Father’s status as ultimate source of the two other hypostases is safeguarded – at least to the satisfaction of the Latin theologians themselves. Nevertheless, this is certainly going further than eastern Fathers like Gregfory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria. It seems to me that the eastern Fathers who used the “through the Son” formula were not necessarily atributing to the Son anything mpre than a passive mediation in the coming forth of the Spirit, and that the Orthodox are right to be suspicious of a Latin use of “through the Son” which, would, as it were, lay these Fathers as a tribute at the feet of Latin scholasticism.
As Michaël points out, while we RCs are bound by the doctrinal statements of our Church, we need not necessarily feel ourselves beholden to scholastic interpretations and polemical defenses of those same formulas, however dominant these may have been at certain periods (even very long ones) of our Church’s existence. The Augustinian-Thomistic interpretation of the “tamquam ab uno Principio”, which was without doubt the prevailing explanation for most of the period of the schism, may be to my mind characterised (and to some extent caricaturised) as “static/essentialist”. It has been replaced in at least one RC magisterial document, namely the 1995 Vatican Clarification of the fiioque question, by what I shall call a more “dynamic/personalist” interpretation. My way of expressing this would be as folows: the single source of the Spirit’s existence is the Father in his relationship of complete self-donation to the Son.
At Florence, as Congar says somewhere in his “Je Crois en l’Esprit Saint”, while there was a genuine debate, the resulting definition takes too little account of eastern concerns and was thus “too great a triumph for the papacy” to serve as a basis for lasting reunion. The Council interpreted the “through the Son formula” in the light of the Western filioque. What needs to happen for genuine progress in ecumenical discussion of the problem is rather the contrary: the “through the Son” formula, must serve as the hermeneutical key for a legitimate understanding of the filioque. In the conceptualising of the Son’s role in the origin of the Spirit, it must be the eastern formula which exerts a power of “attraction” on the Western one, and not the contrary.
Ecumenical progress does suppose, as Michaël points out, that both sides exhibit a sympathetic attitude to the other: that is one which seeks first to understand and then to see what can be taken on board in the other’s position without detriment to the dogmatic tradition of one’s own Church. It is plain that Orthodox commentators today often fail to exhibit this attitude, in the comments box of this blog as elsewhere. However, it is also clear that Catholics have historically exhibited the same failing and that, even in this ecumenical era, the most well meaning are not always as good at listening as they might themselves suppose. We are too concerned to prevail in argument at the expense of the necessary hgumble attentiveness, to paraphrase Michaël.
To take one historical example of a failure to listen attentively: the Florence decree on the filioque question was without doubt well-meaning, and it did attempt to resolve the issue on the basis of seeking a convergence through honest debate. However, as I have said, it does without doubt try too much too assimilate the eastern “through” the Son to the western filioque, and this at the price of lack of sufficient attention to eastern concerns. In no respect is this more apparent than the use of the term “cause” to denote the son’s role in the procession of the Spirit. In saying that the Son shares with the Father the status of being – I quote from memory – “as the Latins say, cause and principle, and as the Greeks say aitia and arche” of the Spirit, the Council shows breathtaking lack of concern with the language of the Greek Fathers, none of whom ever use the terms arche or aitia to denote the Son’s role in the Spirit’s origin.
This is enough, in my view, to explain how the Florentine union could never gain a reception in the Byzantine Church. As a Catholic I will maintain that there is no heresy or doctrinal error in the decree, if we see through its language to its intention of establishing doctrinal consensus. As a student of Byzantine theology, however, I must recognize its inadequacy as an instrument of mutual comprehension, let alone lasting union. We must do better next time, if God in his mercy grant us a next time.
Enough on the question of the sole principle; I wish to make some remarks on the vocabulary of procession, but for convenience and clarity I will submit them as a separate comment.
Fr. Paul,
I humbly accept your correction. It would seem from your exposé that I may have been guilty of precisely what I have accused Lucian of, namely of a priori putting my own spin on his use of the word “source”. It has been so tirelessly hammered into me that the Father is the ultimate and foundational origin of the Spirit, that I failed to allow for the fact that “source” in a more qualified sense might be legitimately used in the context of the Son. Still, I don’t actually see the word used in this way in either the Lyons or Florence formulae, but I will henseforth accept its legitimacy in relation to Catholic teaching.
I think I have said as much as I wish to on this particular subject, though there is one remaining one on which I would appreciate your assistance or that of Orthodox posters here. Lucian’s remarks seem to suggest that Orthodoxy (or at least some Orthodox) would only accept a role in the Son’s calling forth of the Spirit in temporal terms. I find this inference very disturbing as, in my understanding, the calling forth is a key aspect of the relationship between the three Persons and thus in distinguishing between them. We are talking about the nature of the Trinity here, ergo about the nature of God. That God should have a temporal aspect to His nature (in contrast to the incarnation or in the mode or extent of revelation, for example) strikes me as profoundly off.
Would you care to comment?
Father Paul, that is a thoughtful and erudite post indeed. Very enlightening!
May I make one small quibble? This is not so much directed at your post as at contemporary Catholic ecumenical thinking in general.
I am a little chary of what C. S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery,” and I definitely see it cropping up wherever we Catholics bend over backward (perhaps too far backward) to accommodate our Orthodox brethren or to mollycoddle prickly Orthodox sensibilities.
Hence we have perhaps a somewhat condescending attitude toward the Council Fathers of Florence and Lyons…perhaps too ready an assumption that our own modern views are more nuanced, more enlightened, more complete, more sophisticated, more correct.
But is this always the case? Or is it simply that a different approach has come into fashion — an approach that may someday seem, to some future generation, just as benighted and naive as our forebears’ approach seems to us?
Lucian
as regards the vocabulary of procession, you schematize excessively a reality which is in fact much more fluid. As I said in my last post, the verb ekporeuomai and the derived noun ekporeusis do become technical terms from the time of the Cappadocians onward to denote the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Proienai (and otherverbs) TEND thereafter to be reserved to the temporal mission of the Spirit. However, the distinction is not so hard and fast as you suggest; before the Cappadocians the verbs seem to be used more indiscriminately, while even thereafter we will find examples of the use of proienai which are easier to understand in context as denoting still the Spirit’s eternal procession. (Part of the reason for this, I suspect, is that while post-Nicene theology is increasingly careful to distinguish between the temporal sending of the Spirit and his eternal origin, it is not necessarily always so amenable to creating between them the rigid dichotomy imported by Photius and his heirs.)
In fact, to attempt to understand the filioque controversy, let alone to resolve it, it is necessary to come to terms with the fact that Western theology has always operated on the supposition that the Spirit’s role in the economy of Salvation is in fact dependent upon his intra-Trinitarian role and reveals it. (Karl Rahner is not a theologian I unreservedly admire, but he was right I think to stress that the authenticity of God’s self-reservation through the sending into the world in the sending of his Son and his Spirit depends on our not thinking that there is a dichotomy between the relations of the person in the oikonomia and their immanent relations.)
Things have been bedevilled by the multivalent nature of the Latin verb procedere. It is used of the origins from the Father of both the Son and the Spirit. With regard to the latter it may denote the temporal mission as well as the eternal origin. As such it is not an exact equivalent of the Greek ekporeuesthai. The argument of the 1995 Vatican declaration is that an understanding of this fact obviates the need to posit an irreconcilable opposition between the filioque and Orthodox monopatrism: the filioque properly understood, it claims, does not involve saying that the Spirit “ekpoereuetai ek tou Hiou”, in fact it precludes it. Ekporeuetai as a technical term means “to come forth from out of something as one’s ultimate principle” which procedere need mean no more than “to come forth from” is an indeterminate sense. For this reason, we RCs in Greece do not use it in the Creed (neither do we use another verb to replace it; this is because we do not say the Creed in vernacular Greek, as Michaël supposes, but along with a few other liturgical texts we preserve it in its original wording). I believe that the Vatican declaration of 1995 has opened up a fruitful and important direction for dialogue. However, as I implied in my last post, I think there is more to be done before we can affirm that we possess the elements which will permit us to resolve this millennial conflict.
Since Photius, Byzantine theology is committed to the notion that not only does the relation of the persons in the economy does not reveal fully their intra-trinitarian relationships (most serious Catholic theologians would, I hope, profess the same; I agree with Congar when he corrects Rahner’s assertion that “the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity AND VICE-VERSA”. The “vice-versa” is a step too far.) Photius and his heirs go further in positing that there is a positive caesura, even a contradiction between God in his historical revelation of himself and God in his eternal Trinitarian being. Herein lies the nub of the millenial conflict, I believe.
Since Gregory of Cyprus the Byzantines, confronted inescapably with patristic language about a procession “through the Son” which Photius had ignored, have introduced a notion which, at first sight, appears to make a step in the direction of the West. Gregory admits a sense in which the Spirit comes ETERNALLY from the Son, but situates this procession through the Son at the level of the energetic relations of the Persons while refusing to accept it as far as concerns their origin. He is willing to use certainly the verb proienai, and at a push even ekporeuesthai, of this eternal relationship, provided the notion of the Son’s playing a role in the Spirit’s origin is excluded. Through Palamas, this distinction paused into mainstream Orthodox dogmatic theology. Catholic theology, as is well known, has had much difficulty in understanding the essence/energies distinction in God. Gregory of Cyprus’ contemporaries, whether Catholic, unionist or even anti-unionist Orthodox, were hard put to understand the distinction between “existing” and “receiving existence” which is fundamental to Gregory’s explanation of the “per filium”. It still seems to many an ad hoc device to avoid the destructive consequences of the “through the Son” formula for Photius’s dichotomy between the immanent and economic trinities. It does provide a means to “read back” the economic relationships of the persons into the inner life of their Godhead, a principle dear to Latin theology. However, to us it might be thought still to stop short of the necessary logic of a real divine self-communication, by means of an unjustifiable division and opposition (which involves going further than a distinction) between God’s essence and his “energein”.
Western theology has done much in recent years to overcome its suspicion and harsh judgement of the Palamite synthesis as regards the theology of created participation in God’s life. It must, I believe, go further and attempt to understand and engage with the consequences of the essence/energies distinction for the debate concerning the filioque. This is in fact the object of my own labours, from which I have taken time in order to contribute these paragraphs. We Catholic theologians need the gentle collaboration, including sometimes reasoned opposition, from our Orthodox counterparts as we persue this objective.
Broad brush strokes and hurried generalisations are of the nature of internet discussions. The real work of ecumenical progress involves getting down to the detailed examination of texts and the tedious minutiae of understanding and interpreting them. There are those who are happier with the broad brush strokes because it is easier to use sweeping generalisations at the service of meta-narratives which – whether avowedly or not – enable them to rejoice at the perpetuation of divisions which enable their authors to flatter themselves by posing as magisterial defenders of orthodoxy (with or without a capital “O”). Let us try not to be of their number.
IOW–is it simply a matter of intellectual fashions — of what is currently fashionable — rather than a case in which our modern approach really is demonstrably more correct?
oops, wrote that last one before I saw your second post on this subject, Fr. Paul. Bravo…what a fantastic post. I am in awe.
I still reserve my one tiny quibble, however. ;)
Thanks…
Diane
To explain a bit…with great trepidation, in such scholarly company: My own background is in history, not theology, and I’m married to an historian. So, I tend to see those Really Old Dead Guys in a much more positive light than others might. :)
Michaël
I was writing my last post while you posted yours. I hope that what I write about Gregory of Cyprus’ “revisionist Photianism” as I sometimes call it will cast some light on your question. Does it?
Diane
we assert our superiority over our forefathers at our peril, and many of the theological fads of our generation will indeed seem ridiculous to future generations – indeed to the one that is already growing up. However, I do think we need to remember about Florence that the scientific study of the Fathers has made incomparable progress since their time. Not only do we have more information about the historical context of works which enable us to distinguish authentic texts from spurious ones and to better understand the language they use, but we have freed ourselves in large part at least from a polemical (mis)use of texts which inevitably distorts our understanding of them. We are in no way cleverer than the Montanero’s, the Bessarions and the Mark Eugenikoi, but we do benefit from nearly 600 years of painstaking work meantime. We are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants.
On the theological plain, both sides at Florence worked with a pre-critical notion of the authority of the Fathers which led them to think that each of them was in some way an infallible guide and that they could not therefore disagree in substance between themselves. We have been forced since to recognise that, while the consensus of the Fathers is authoritative, there are real, substantial differences between them sometimes. We will not therefore submit so easliy to the temptations of too “concordantist” a reading of the Fathers, and we should conclude more easily than could those at Florence that a difference in theological expression is acceptable so long as there is an underlying convergence concerning the substance of the Faith. In other words, we will not try to force our ecumenical interlocutors to use our language, but we will try to understand theirs as an alternative expression of the same truths, or at least of truths which do not contradict those to which we believe ourselves irrevocably committed. On such a recognition depends the possibility of any real progress towards unity.
Beautifully expressed, Father Paul. Thank you!
Father Paul,
Yes, I found your second post most enlightening and surprisingly to the point that I was raising while you wrote, though your observations sadly devalue further my innitially high presumptions regarding the quality of Photius’ scholarship. I can probably still assume that it was high for the era in which he wrote, however, as the force of his erudition certainly initially took his Western interlocutors aback.
I would still be very interested in the perspectives of our Orthodox posters who have grown curriously quiet of late (excepting my sparring partner). Perhaps Lucian and I have bored them.
The sparring match has been anything but boring, my friend! Your humble blog host is thrilled that you and Fr Paul showed up to provide us with learned and very detailed Roman Catholic rebuttals to some typical Orthodox arguments about the filioque.
Michael,
You speak much and say little. (No offense, just an observation — no, I’m not just saying that).
I’ve shown You that I am not talking besides myself when I say something about the Catholic faith, and that I basically understand in what Your religion consists. So let me reiterate here:
1) the Father is the uncaused cause, the Son is the caused cause, and the Spirit is the caused;
2) this has to be so because otherwise (as Father Paul confirmed it) the Spirit would be Christ’s brother, and the Son would NOT be the Only-Begotten (contrary to Scripture)
3) the reason for the later (#2) is because Catholics believe in Absolute Divine Simplicity: therefore, if the Son is from One, and the Spirit also from One, there would be no difference between ‘begetting’ and ‘procession’ (also confirmed by Fr. Paul). So procession has to be *eternally* from two.
This mental ‘algorithm’, or idea of ‘simplicity’ is also the very same thought which stands at the foundation of the belief in the necessity of the Pope [*one* man for the *unity* of the *one* Church]; or at the basis of the denial of the essence-energies distinction [otherwise there’ll be *two* Gods]. And this philosophical tenet makes use of the dialectic of opposition [one Pope as opposed to many bishops; one simple divine essence as opposed to a presumably composite divine essence].
—————
Father Paul,
nothing You’ve said in those long, long comments is unknown to me: quite the contrary. Thank You for posting it; You’ve just saved me from a very painstaking job. :-) Now I’ll like to interact a bit with what You’ve said:
1) Adam, the first man, had Eve taken from his side, and begot children from his loins: both generations are simple, yet distinct. (link) — and the same holds for the Trinity: procession and sonship are both simple, yet distinct.
2) The Father also sent the Spirit to send Jesus into the wilderness to be tested (just like He also sent Jesus to send the Spirit upon the Apostles): does this mean then, –following You logic of reading the economical Trinity back unto the theological Trinity–, that the Son is begotten of the Father AND the Spirit? “Spirituque”? Some Catholic theologians (like Michael Liccione, for instance) say “yes”.
Do You know what did it for me (to settle whether the temporal sending of the Spirit through the agency of the Son has anything to do with the Filioque) ? When I wrote a piece on the Holy Orders (priests, deacons). The thing is that I wrote it as if for Protestants, trying to get my fictious [Protestant] reader to see that it’s one thing to receive the Holy Ghost [laying on of hands], and quite another one to give it. Deacons didn’t have that power (Filip in Acts: the Apostles had to go where Filip’s went, to lay their hands on the people he baptised to receive the Holy Ghost); nor did baptised members (Simon the wizzard, in Acts: otherwise he wouldn’t have asked St. Peter to give it to him, let alone try to buy it from him — Simon has already been baptised by Filip, and followed him closely). And this power has been given to them by Christ Himself, when he blew the Holy Spirit upon them. And they gave it further: by Chrismation (or Confirmation) and Ordination. So I figured: does this then mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son… AND the Apostles, AND the bisops, AND the priests or presbyters? I reasoned: no, it doesn’t.
3) The soul is also simple and uncompounded, just like the divine essence: and yet he has all these various powers or energies in itself: reason, will, feelings, etc. — the same with the divine essence and energies: the only main idea is that we should refrain from appying a dialectic of opoosition to them: it’s both/and, as opposed to either/or.
P.S.: the POR in ek-POReusis is the same root from which we/you have the English “to pour”. And ek- in Greek is the same as ex- in Latin. So it means “out-pouring”.
Michael,
here’s the pacifist opinion of St. Maxim Martyr regarding the Filioque (the one which was put forth by the Orthodox at the reunion council, but refused by the Latins).
—————
Father Paul,
as You can see, the use of analogies does not deny apophaticism: just because one compares the Sun emanating light and heat (for instance) to a woman giving birth does not mean that by being human we somehow `know` what it “feels like” being a star. (Let alone when we compare any of the two to the Godhead!)
Also, regarding “through the Son”: You’ve basically answered Your own objections or misunderstandings in Your own comments, but let me add only this: if the water flows from the fountain through the pipe(s), does this then mean that the later contribute(s) something to the very existance of the former?
[Third in a row: sorry! :-( ]
Also –and this is VERY important– the “through the Son”: it’s NOT dogma! (It’s an orthodox thelogoumenon, an accepted pious speculation, with patristical foundations, –just like the Assumption, for instance–, … but it’s NOT imposed on pain of anathema). Unlike the Filioque, whose historical explanations are not “orthodox-friendly”, and who has also been imposed as a dogmatical or sine qua non tenet of the faith (in the West).
Lucian
you and I are operating in different modes; I am trying to understand the Orthodox position, not to refute it. I have signalled some respects in which Photianism,whether in its pure form or its revised post-Lyons II form, is problematic to Catholic theology. I did not intend to demonstrate that it is erroneous. Nor shall I here. You seem to be responding in more polemical mode, but you have every right to do so, even if I think that you are unlikely in this way to contribute anything new to the discussion.
I will take issue with you in one regard. You attribute to me the statement that the filioque has to be true if the Spirit is not to be the Son’s brother. But this is not my position nor, I believe, is it that of Augustine. The taunt about the Spirit’s being the Son’s brother comes from the semi-Arians and Macedonians. Augustine advanced his theory as having the merit, among others, of permitting us to make some sense of the hypostatic difference between the Son and the Spirit. He does not say that this understanding gives an adequate or exhaustive insight into this difference – in fact he explicitly denies that we may have such insight.
If you object to this as being speculative theology which should not be dogmatised or added to the creed, then I have much sympathy with you. If you say that it is illegitimate, then I will simply point out to you that Gregory of Nyssa seems to reason along similar lines, while admitting that his solution may not be reduced simply to one identical with Augustine’s.
If you tell me that this is just one more example of ther nefarious consequences of a heretical Latin notion of divine simplicity whose nefarious consequences you then extend to every facet of Western theology and ecclesial existence, then I will conclude that you are unreasonably applying an over-simplistic meta-narrative to phenomena whose complexity you have not even attempted to master. And I will pay no more attention to these assertions than I would to any theories you may or may not hold as to the origin and function of the Great Pyramid of Cheops.
Adam’s offspring are indeed the consequences of identical acts of generation, and this accounts for their being of the same nature. What the Cappadocians say is that the Son and Spirit possess the divine nature in a way that is unique to each, and that there is a difference between generation and procesion. The analogy of Adam and his offspring ceases to be useful at this point. To answer that the nature of this difference is hidden in God is true, but Augustine and the Nyssen both believe that we may nevertheless attempt to shed some, albeit imperfect light on it from the data of revelation – a procedure which is in fact the very essence of theology. Neither of them would think that this involves claiming to know what it is (or feels like) to beget or to produce, to be begotten or proceed.
The analogies you produce do not indeed bring to bear any necessity of positing an active contribution of the Son’s hypostasis to the Spirit’s coming forth, or being poured forth or whatever. As I have said, I do not think it likely that the Greek Fathers would have conceived of the Son’s role in this way, and in this respect there is a real difference between Latin and Greek trinitarian theology. What I do not see is that any of the Greek Fathers in the period concerned would have considered the positing of such a role as heretical. I do not think either that the refusal of such a role should be considered heretical in the West.
Finally, as regards the essence/energy distinction, I personally not only have no problem with it, and in fact I will go far to say that I consider that it is theological language which does fuller justice to the theology of sanctification/deification than does the Latin theology of grace, with it’s myriad and often baffling distinctions. If Orthodox theology wishes to rest content with a merely “energetic procession” as a way of connecting the Economy of Salvation with God’s inner life, then i personally am satisfied to let it rest there. What I cannot fathom is how the flat denial that the eternal manifestation, or whatever else you choose to call the transcendent foundation of the temporal missions, are rooted in relations of origin, is necessary or even possible. The Orthodox “hawks” assure us that the divine essence is unknowable, while in the same breath they tell us that they KNOW that the Spirit in no way receives his existence from the Son. Is the paradox lost on you?
So yes, I agree that a distinction between the essence and the energies does not imply any division. What concerns me is that, post Photius, Orthodox polemicists do not prove that the filioque is heresy, they presume it. The assertion becomes an articlus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae and as such it calls the shots unduly in judging of any theological proposition. IF the distinction between essence and energies is called into play in your pneumatology ONLY in order to bolster up this claim (notice I am not claiming that it CAN only be used for this purpose), then yes in this case the distinction has been hardened into what you call a dialectic of opposition. Not by me but by you.
To take things as far as I can: it is for me at least worth investigating for Catholic theology whether we may abandon the notion that a filioque at the level of the hypostatic origin – which is without doubt the teaching of the Western Church – is in fact a dogma. Are you ready to even consider the possibility that it MIGHT not be a heresy?
If you are not ready to consider this as even a possibility, the chances are, I believe, that you are impervious to rational argument.
a filioque at the level of the hypostatic origin – which is without doubt the teaching of the Western Church
Thank You for confirming what I’ve already said.
Are you ready to even consider the possibility that it MIGHT not be a heresy?
That’s what I did for the most part of my life. Until I saw that there’s simply no way out.
—————
In any case, the point stays the same:
can something so clearly based on a local (Western-European) cultural and ethno-linguistical (Latin) peculiarity be called Catholic?
Fr. Paul,
You understand both views or stances on the Filioque. And I never said (or reproached) either You or Michael here with “distorting” or “misunderstanding” anything: which is more than I can say for the way I’ve been treated (without any reason, sense or purpose) by Michael here. — I don’t bare grudges, but I don’t like having meaningless conversations either. :-|
So my point is: we all understand ourselves and eachother, so why say we don’t? (I mean, I don’t get it…)
Lucian, I love ya, but you are coming across as an arrogant little twerp who does not have ONE blessed clue.
Do you not even recognize how much more learned Michael and Father Paul are than everyone else here combined and cubed?
You keep repeating your mantra, ignoring the masterful, highly nuanced arguments Michael and Father Paul make. Now you calim they are saying the same thing as you, confirming your clueless prejudices…? The mind boggles.
I know you are very young. As the mother of teenage boys, I think that explains a lot.
Forgive me, but…whew. Just…whew.
OK, forgive my frustration, Lucian. Sorry.
Diane,
what exactly do You think I either don’t know or don’t understand? (Yes, Fr. Paul is extremely well-informed about the issue).
Is the paradox lost on you?
There’s no paradox there.
Let me run this by You:
— We know THAT there is a God, having a divine essence, but we don’t know HOW or WHAT that essence is.
— We know THAT the Son is begotten from the Father alone, but we don’t know HOW that takes place, or WHAT it is.
— We know THAT the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, but we don’t know HOW that takes place, or WHAT it is.
— We know THAT the consecrated Bread and Wine become the true Body and Blood of Jesus, but we don’t know HOW that takes place.
— We know THAT God created the Heavens and the earth out of nothing in seven days, but HOW He did that, or WHAT the nature of those mysterious seven days was, we do neither know nor can even begin to comprehend.
(Hope that helps in better understanding apophatism).
Whoops! It’s getting a bit personal. Clean it up, folks.
I’ve already apologized to Lucian, Irenaeus. Please forgive my frustration.
I agree with all your apophatic points except – predictably – the third! I just want to know HOW you KNOW that the Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE at the super-essential level of the hypostatic origins, since nobody before Photius says “ek MONOU tou Patros”.
If you respond that Photius is a saint and doctor, and I ask “why?”, and you say that the Orthodox church proclaims him thus, and I ask “why?”, and you reply “because he was the first to expose the heresy of the Latins regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit”, then we will begin to glimpse the circularity of the argument. The same would be true if I argued from Latin ground that the filioque is a dogma. In the end, it all comes down to the question of authority – and that is why Michaël is right in stating that the real crunch questrion is the ecclesiological one.
Of course I must respect the genuine nature of the personal enquiry which led you to the conviction that the filioquer is heretical. What I must point out however is that so far you have not presented me with any compelling evidence that this conviction is well founded.
My guess is that this one will run and run! Forgive me if I declare my intention to but out for the moment, at least unless and until someone comes up with some new take on the question which has not been turned over ad nauseam not merely on the internet but in thousands of pages over the preceding millenium, some of which it is my self-imposed penance to peruse in stultifying detail.
Preceding post lacks the identification of its addressee – to Lucian of course!
LOL, Father Paul…I think we guessed. ;-)
I am sorry to see you go, but I totally understand. It is high time I butted out, too. I am completely out of my league here, and I am getting way too frustrated with our friend Lucian (which leads me to uncharitable bluntness…mea culpa).
Lucian,
I must disavow Diane praise on my behalf (I have no formal theological training). I am, for example, completely gumstopped to learn that Orthodox might actually deny the hypostatic nature of the calling forth. I am just boggled by the implications (for Christ’s divinity and for even the idea of communion among others). My sense of kinship (or even desire for kinship) with the Orthodox has never received such a blow (though I hope and trust this will pass). (Seriously Fr. Paul, I don’t see how it can be anything but dogmatic from a Western perspective.)
Be that what it may, Diane, Fr. Paul and I have all attempted to point out to you that your take on the Catholic understanding of the filioque is seriously flawed. You apparently can’t internalize our points and prefer to dismiss us as painfully ignorant concerning what the Catholic Church teaches, while transparently having derived your own understanding of Catholic beliefs in the matter from polemic Orthodox sources. Rather than confess the point and reflect on how your take on Catholicism misses the mark, you prefer to dwell on minor uncontroverted aspects in which you actually got something about it right.
Your further comments seriously suggest that your understanding regarding Catholic teaching on the Petrine primacy verges on the delusional. Note, I am not taking the Orthodox position to task. It is your take on the Catholic position that strikes me as delusional. Find me even one contemporary Catholic who sees Papal primacy in these terms and who uses divine simplicity to justify it. I have never met one and have dealt with more ultramontanes than I really care to have.
And then we have this:
“can something so clearly based on a local (Western-European) cultural and ethno-linguistical (Latin) peculiarity be called Catholic?”
Excuse me? Just how many cultural and ethno linguistic boundaries does Orthodoxy span? Romanians and Georgians aside, it’s essentially a Greco-Slavic ghetto. Whenever Diane raises the “numbers” argument, I will admit to deep discomfort as it proves very little. But your trying to use such an argument against a body to which a clear majority of professed Christians belong, and to a theology which has been embraced as valid by a majority of Antiochean Chalcedonians, a majority of previously anti-Ephesians, and a substantial minority of Copts, Syriacs and Armenians (not to mention Slavs) seriously suggests you need to get out more.
Some of you may remember the Pontificator’s rule about what begins to happen to comboxes when they pass the 50 comment mark. :-)
Comments are closed.
Michael asked me if I would post the following addendum to his last comment, which he wasn’t able to get in before I closed the comments.
—–
“Just a side thought that does not involve Lucian. When a practicing and faithful Catholic hears a bishop teach on issues of faith and morals, he knows in his heart that he is listening to the voice of the Apostles. Obviously, bishops are sinners and can be foolishly mistaken, but the devout Catholic knows that a Catholic bishop departing from the faith is called up short and forced to recant or resign. As such, the words of a bishop are taken with profound respect and listened to with submissive humility.
There is thus an understandable transference of this attitude to how Catholics receive the words of Orthodox bishops (at least with respect to what is or is not acceptable within Orthodoxy). I cannot help but perveive that this respectful attitude with regards to the historic episcopate and its current incumbents does not seem to be universally shared by Orthodox posters in English-language Internet discussions.
I would just like to take a moment to point out to Athonite wannabees that showing transparent disrespect with regards to the theological nous of this or that Orthodox ordinary (let alone Patriarch) scores no points with a Catholic audience that is more than likely to draw conceptual analogies with sedevacantist lunacy.
The sacred teaching and disciplinary authority of the Apostles was not handed to the then non-existent monastic state, but to the historic episcopate. I am not suggesting a suspension of critical faculties, but please spare us the contemptuous intra-Orthodox backbiting. We would really rather not know.”