Greek Orthodox relations question

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='978920' date='May 11 2006, 06:29 PM']
Yes, but when used in the context of the immanent Trinity [i]aitia[/i] has a particular connotation. Certainly the Father alone is the first principle, and sole unbegotten, and when speaking of the Trinity it makes sense to refer [i]aitia[/i] to the Father alone. This point isn't really very striking to me and I certainly don't think its decisive. It is just an affirmation of the priority of the Father, who alone is the source of the Godhead.

[. . .][/quote]
The East holds that the Father is not merely the "first" principle within the Godhead; rather, He is the sole principle ([i]arche[/i]), and that is why the East holds to the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father.

As far as St. Maximos is concerned, I am familiar with his letter to Marinus, and in that letter he said that Westerners ". . . have not made the Son the [i]cause[/i] of the Spirit--[i]they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit[/i], the one by begetting and the other by procession." Thus, there is only one [i]cause[/i], one [i]source[/i], one [i]principle[/i] (Greek: [i]monarche[/i]) in the Trinity, i.e., the Father.

[N/A Gone]

Thanks Apo, I havent seen you before but this is some great stuff

Sean..ur my boy

But Im trying to write a defense of the filioque in a 10 page paper..JUST TOO MUCH INFO

care to give me direction? of course I respect a phatty

[N/A Gone]

Hey, could it be ok if I understand the word

ekporeusis

as procession? Is that ok?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='979038' date='May 11 2006, 11:00 PM']
Hey, could it be ok if I understand the word

ekporeusis

as procession? Is that ok?
[/quote]

I think this is the main cause of the divide, defining ekporeusis as the same 'procession' that is mentioned in the Creed; I guess if you explained it, much similar to the way Apo did you'd be ok. I'm not sure if theres a better word than proceeds?

Was there language of 'spirates' at one point that was used? Although I'm not sure if that was ekporeusis or not...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='979065' date='May 11 2006, 09:30 PM']
I think this is the main cause of the divide, defining ekporeusis as the same 'procession' that is mentioned in the Creed; I guess if you explained it, much similar to the way Apo did you'd be ok. I'm not sure if theres a better word than proceeds?

Was there language of 'spirates' at one point that was used? Although I'm not sure if that was ekporeusis or not...
[/quote]
The word [i]ekporeusis[/i] means "procession" in the proper sense of the term, i.e., it means procession in the sense of receiving [i]origin[/i] or [i]existence[/i] from another. Thus, the Holy Spirit receives His existence, i.e., He receives His [i]hypostasis[/i] from the Father alone, and not from the Son, because as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says, "[i]Kai eis to Pneuma to Agion, to Kurion, to zoopoion, to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon[/i]." Now it is important to note that the word [i]ekporeuomenon[/i] found in this part of the creed can only be used in reference to the Spirit's origination from the Father (cf., John 15:26), and must not be confused with His "manifestation" ([i]proeinai[/i]) from the Father through the Son in the divine energy.

In other words, the Spirit can only be said to be "manifested" ([i]proeinai[/i]) from the Father through the Son, and this "manifestation" does not concern the Spirit's hypostastic origin; instead, it concerns the Spirit's outflowing from the Father through the Son in the divine energy (i.e., as grace).

Thus, [i]ekporeusis[/i] (which is the specific word used in the Nicene creed) concerns the Spirit's hypostatic origin, while [i]proeinai[/i] (which is [i]not[/i] used in the Nicene creed) concerns His energetic manifestation from the Father through the Son, and these two things should not be confused or blended into a single "spiration" or "procession." The addition of the [i]filioque[/i] to the normative and irrevocable creed of the Fathers of Constantinople I (A.D. 381) involves the confusion of the Spirit's hypostatic origination from the Father alone, with His energetic manifestation -- both temporally and eternally -- in the divine energy from the Father through the Son.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='979038' date='May 11 2006, 09:00 PM']
Hey, could it be ok if I understand the word

ekporeusis

as procession? Is that ok?
[/quote]
The word [i]ekporeusis[/i] is used in connection with the Holy Spirit's hypostatic procession from the Father alone, i.e., it concerns the Spirit's procession of origin; while the word [i]proeinai[/i] concerns the Spirit's manifestation from the Father through the Son, not as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), but as energy (i.e., as grace).

[Laudate_Dominum]

In an attempt to avoid being polemical, I'm just going to ask you questions:

Am I correct in assuming that your view is that the eastern and western understandings can coexist despite the tension between the two and they're both valid expressions of the faith within their respective theological traditions? And further, are you of the view that a reconciliation of these two perspectives is unnecesary or even misguided?
I'm curious because for whatever reason this is my suspicion. If I'm correct, what do you make of people such as Bishop Ware, Yves Congar, Avery Dulles, etc.. who believe that the issue is ultimately semantic and that a formulation is conceivable which would be acceptable to east and west?

Just curious.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And I recall you once saying that you consider the filioque to be a theologoumenon of the latins. And I know that there have been many gestures since Vatican II by Rome which almost suggest that she is backing away from the filioque. But prior to the council, and for nearly a thousand years, the filioque has been considered de fide by the latins. And also, if the filioque can be given the old theologoumenon write off, I don't see why the same could not be done for the ousia/energeiai construct which is popular in much of Orthodox theology.
And the proposed solution that you put forth regarding the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the Uncreated Divine Energies also strikes me as a theologoumenon. Can you substantiate this theological idea as being an explicit part of Orthodox theology prior to the 13th century? Or is it possibly a theologoumenon of the east? And I know there are things in Orthodox Liturgy that could be invoked to establish a dogmatic status for this distinction, but could not the same be said about the Filioque? And also perhaps conciliar decrees such as Constantinople IV (I believe) in reference to Christ having two wills and two "energies", but the same sort of things can be done with the filique even apart from invoking Florence.
I mean, are you sure that this is considered to be a definitive doctrine of the Apostolic Faith in the East? I ask because I've read things by Orthodox theologians which at least implicitly reject such a notion. For example, I recall reading a polemic against the filioque which concluded that the only way the Spirit can be said to be manifest through Christ is the oikomia of the Church, and even this was put forward as though merely speculative.
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate, but I am curious to know how you might debunk the assertion that the ousia/energeiai doctrine is an eastern theologoumenon given an undue status by the likes of men such as St. Gregory Palamas, Vladimir Lossky, etc..

Many thanks.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Oh, and for the record I interpret the filioque in a fashion more akin to the ekporeusis/proeinai qualification you outlined above but perhaps for different reasons. I think that understanding the filioque as a description of God's inner dynamic, or sort of the "what" and "how" of God's Trinitarian life in se is false simply because subject matter of that sort is outside the scope of human thought and mental representation. The epistemological limits of human thought, and the limits of man's created personhood make such inquiry an absurdity. One might respond by pointing out that this doctrine is revelation, not something that we can get at by reason alone, but this misses the point.
A revealed truth of the Faith is a noetic positive in relation to God's activities and manifestations, but a negative (apophatikos), or antinomy (antinomos) in relation to the nexus of Divine activity. Thus descriptions of intra-Trinitarian life, and attempts to formally describe the nature of Divine hypostatic procession are at best vague shadows and at worst falsehoods.

[Apotheoun]

First it should be noted that the word [i]homoousios[/i] itself, which was used by the First Council of Nicea to describe the relationship that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term which indicates a relation of dependence; in other words, the term [i]homoousios[/i] involves a recognition that the Son receives His hypostatic existence from the Father and is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. St. Athanasios understood this and used this idea, along with the distinction between essence and will (the will being a natural energy of a [i]hypostasis[/i]), in order to refute the heresy of Arius. In [i]Ad Serapionem[/i] St. Athanasios speaks of the energy of the Trinity, and refers to the Spirit in relation to creation as the [i]energeia[/i] of the Son. His understanding of the divine energy is that it comes from the Father, through the Son, and rests upon creation in the power of the Spirit. Thus, St. Athanasios makes a distinction between things natural to the Father (e.g., the generation of the Son, and the spiration of the Spirit), and things which are a result of the divine will and energy, i.e., the created order.

In addition, if you read the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers (e.g., St. Basil's [i]Adversus Eunomium[/i], and his [i]Letters[/i] 234, 235, etc., and his treatise [i]On the Holy Spirit[/i]; St. Gregory of Nyssa's [i]Contra Eunomium[/i], his treatise [i]On Not Three Gods to Ablabius[/i]; and St. Gregory Nazienzen's [i]Orations[/i], etc.), you will see that they never speak of a "procession" from the Son; moreover, they explicitly deny causality to the Son within the inner life of the Trinity, holding instead that the Father is the sole principle (Greek: [i]monarche[/i]) of origin for the Son and the Spirit. I would add to this the fact that the distinction between essence and energy is fundamental to understanding the Cappadocian arguments against Eunomius, and if one fails to make this distinction, the result is an inexorable tendency to Eunomian essentialism. In addition to the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos and St. John Damascene make the distinction between essence and energy, and both of them also deny any causal power to the Son within the Trinity.

Now of course, following in line with the teaching of St. Maximos the Confessor and the Cappadocian Fathers, the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III taught that there is a distinction between essence, energy, and hypostasis, because -- as the council decreed -- in Christ there are two natures, two natural wills and energies, and to say otherwise is to fall into the heresies of Monophysitism and Monothelitism. Thus, to fail to make this distinction leads to problems in both Triadology and Christology.

Thus in conclusion, I do hold that this distinction is a dogma, and it is a dogma of the first millennium, and not simply of the second millennium. Moreover, in response to your comment that for one thousand years the West has recited the creed with the [i]filioque[/i], I would simply point out that for more than one thousand six hundred years the East has not recited it that way, and that the [i]filioque[/i] is not to be found in the original version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which the Holy See itself has declared to be normative and irrevocable for the whole Church. So the fact that a Pope, after more than four hundred years of papal resistance to the pressure to add the [i]filioque[/i] to the creed, finally gave in to the pressure of the German Emperor Henry II to add it, does not make it normative for the whole Church; in fact, as I have already pointed out, the Vatican itself (in the mid 1990s) has indicated that it is not normative, and this decision is even reflected in the document [i][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html"]Dominus Iesus[/url][/i], which was issued without the [i]filioque[/i] by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith back in August of 2000.

[OLAM Dad]

This thread has gone far afield of the original post and question. But it's a cool discussion, nonetheless.

The eastern church is in many ways similar to the SSPX, only an older version. Like the SSPX they are unwilling to accept the teaching of the Vicar of Christ and are therefore in schism.

Catholics can receive the Eucharist in eastern churches under the same rules that you can receive in an SSPX chapel. If no Catholic church is available you can attend one of these alternatives.

You're correct. It is very sad.

[Era Might]

There are two important distinctions between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the SSPX.

1. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are truly and properly distinct "Churches". There is no pretended obedience to the Roman Pontiff, whereas the SSPX does not consider itself a "Church", but a "Society". It professes allegiance to the Roman Pontiff, although there is no actual obedience (hence the schism). This is an important point, because the Orthodox, as non-Catholic Christians, are not bound to Canon Law, whereas those who associate with the SSPX are. The East-West divide is no longer truly a "schism" in the sense that it was originally. Schism implies willful and obstinate disobedience on the part of a Catholic, but the Orthodox have not been Catholic for over a millenia. The SSPX Bishops, the society itself, and all who formally adhere to the Society's disobedience, however, still consider themselves Catholic, and are in the first generation of a true schism. Catholic/Orthodox relations fall under the realm of ecumenism. Catholic/SSPX relations fall under the realm of Canon Law and internal obedience.

2. The Church discourages the faithful from association with the SSPX and its Liturgies, for the reasons mentioned above. On the other hand, she strongly encourages fraternal association with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Their Liturgical life is not considered illicit or disobedient (because they are not properly "Catholic"), and so there is no stigma attached.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='979207' date='May 12 2006, 05:16 PM']
First it should be noted that the word [i]homoousios[/i] itself, which was used by the First Council of Nicea to describe the relationship that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term which indicates a relation of dependence; in other words, the term [i]homoousios[/i] involves a recognition that the Son receives His hypostatic existence from the Father and is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. St. Athanasios understood this and used this idea, along with the distinction between essence and will (the will being a natural energy of a [i]hypostasis[/i]), in order to refute the heresy of Arius. In [i]Ad Serapionem[/i] St. Athanasios speaks of the energy of the Trinity, and refers to the Spirit in relation to creation as the [i]energeia[/i] of the Son. His understanding of the divine energy is that it comes from the Father, through the Son, and rests upon creation in the power of the Spirit. Thus, St. Athanasios makes a distinction between things natural to the Father (e.g., the generation of the Son, and the spiration of the Spirit), and things which are a result of the divine will and energy, i.e., the created order.

In addition, if you read the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers (e.g., St. Basil's [i]Adversus Eunomium[/i], and his [i]Letters[/i] 234, 235, etc., and his treatise [i]On the Holy Spirit[/i]; St. Gregory of Nyssa's [i]Contra Eunomium[/i], his treatise [i]On Not Three Gods to Ablabius[/i]; and St. Gregory Nazienzen's [i]Orations[/i], etc.), you will see that they never speak of a "procession" from the Son; moreover, they explicitly deny causality to the Son within the inner life of the Trinity, holding instead that the Father is the sole principle (Greek: [i]monarche[/i]) of origin for the Son and the Spirit. I would add to this the fact that the distinction between essence and energy is fundamental to understanding the Cappadocian arguments against Eunomius, and if one fails to make this distinction, the result is an inexorable tendency to Eunomian essentialism. In addition to the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos and St. John Damascene make the distinction between essence and energy, and both of them also deny any causal power to the Son within the Trinity.

Now of course, following in line with the teaching of St. Maximos the Confessor and the Cappadocian Fathers, the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III taught that there is a distinction between essence, energy, and hypostasis, because -- as the council decreed -- in Christ there are two natures, two natural wills and energies, and to say otherwise is to fall into the heresies of Monophysitism and Monothelitism. Thus, to fail to make this distinction leads to problems in both Triadology and Christology.

Thus in conclusion, I do hold that this distinction is a dogma, and it is a dogma of the first millennium, and not simply of the second millennium. Moreover, in response to your comment that for one thousand years the West has recited the creed with the [i]filioque[/i], I would simply point out that for more than one thousand six hundred years the East has not recited it that way, and that the [i]filioque[/i] is not to be found in the original version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which the Holy See itself has declared to be normative and irrevocable for the whole Church. So the fact that a Pope, after more than four hundred years of papal resistance to the pressure to add the [i]filioque[/i] to the creed, finally gave in to the pressure of the German Emperor Henry II to add it, does not make it normative for the whole Church; in fact, as I have already pointed out, the Vatican itself (in the mid 1990s) has indicated that it is not normative, and this decision is even reflected in the document [i][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html"]Dominus Iesus[/url][/i], which was issued without the [i]filioque[/i] by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith back in August of 2000.
[/quote]

Hey ya Todd can you please outline the Triadological and Christological problems that a failure to make the essence/energies distinction entails?

Thanks
-M-

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Myles Domini' post='979269' date='May 12 2006, 10:41 AM']
Hey ya Todd can you please outline the Triadological and Christological problems that a failure to make the essence/energies distinction entails?

Thanks
-M-
[/quote]
The following Triadological and Christological (and even Soteriological) problems arise from the failure to make the necessary distinctions between essence ([i]ousia[/i]), energy ([i]energeia[/i]), and [i]hypostasis[/i]:

(1) The failure to make a distinction between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and [i]hypostasis[/i] in the Trinity leads to Sabellian modalism, because if the divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] are identified with the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), one necessarily confounds the persons of the Trinity. In other words, if the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Father is the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), it follows that the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) is the hypostatic characteristic of "paternity," now since the Son also possesses the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), which -- because of a failure to distinguish between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and [i]hypostasis[/i] -- is identical with the hypostatic property of paternity, it follows that the Son possesses paternity, and, as a consequence, He is the Father. The same holds with each of the [i]hypostaseis[/i] in the Trinity, because if the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and Sonship are identical, it follows that the Father, who possesses the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), is also the Son, etc.

(2) The failure to make a distinction between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and energy ([i]energeia[/i]) in Triadology -- depending upon the particular case -- leads to Arianism or Eunomianism, because there is no distinction between the generation of the Son, which is natural to the Father, and the creation of the world, which is an act of the divine will and energy ([i]energeia[/i]). Arius held that the divine energy (and in particular the divine will) is identical with the divine essence, and in doing this, he concluded that the Son is a product of the Father's will, and as such the Logos (Son) is a creature and cannot be very God of very God. Now, in order to avoid this error, St. Athanasios made a distinction between the divine energy ([i]energeia[/i]) and power ([i]dynamis[/i]) -- including the divine will -- and the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) or nature ([i]physis[/i]). That being said, in St. Athanasios' theology the Son is generated by the Father, and generation (and procession as well) is a hypostatic act natural to the Father, which cannot be reduced to an act of the divine will, and as a consequence of this, the Son is [i]homoousios[/i] with the Father, i.e., the Son is not a creature. The Cappadocian Fathers -- building upon the theology of St. Athanasios -- made this same distinction in order to refute the heresy of Eunomius, who taught that the Son was a product of the divine energy ([i]energeia[/i]) of the Father, and because He was "willed" by the Father into existence, the Son was a created being. Responding to this heresy, the Cappadocians -- like St. Athanasios before them -- taught that the Son was generated by the Father, and not created through an act of the divine will and energy ([i]energeia[/i]), and so, for the Cappadocians, the Son is fully divine and [i]homoousios[/i] with the Father. These same doctrinal distinctions were applied by the Cappadocian Fathers to the Holy Spirit, who derives His hypostatic origin from the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Father, and not through the divine will and energy ([i]energeia[/i]), but by an act natural to the Father. Thus, the Spirit is not a creature, but is fully divine and uncreated.

The distinction between essence ([i]ousia[/i]) and energy ([i]energeia[/i]) also helps the Cappadocian Fathers to avoid the heresy of pantheism, because the world is a product of the divine will and energy ([i]energeia[/i]), and not of the divine essence (or nature), which means that it is created, i.e., it comes into being out of nothing through an act of the will of God. Now, to fail to make this distinction leads to difficulties in distinguishing the hypostatic origin of the Son and the Spirit, from the creation of the world.

(3) The failure to make a distinction between [i]hypostatis[/i] and the enhypostatic energies causes confusion in connection with the gifts of the Spirit given through the sacraments. First it needs to be noted that two [i]hypostaseis[/i] can never be one subsistence, and so there cannot be a "blending" of the created [i]hypostasis[/i] of man with the uncreated [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Holy Spirit. Second, one [i]hypostasis[/i] cannot participate in another [i]hypostasis[/i], because to be a [i]hypostasis[/i] involves -- of its very nature -- distinct subsistence. Thus, salvation involves man's participation in the enhypostatic energies of the Trinity, and not in the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) itself (which would involve the heresy of pantheism) nor in the [i]hypostasis[/i] of any one of the three divine [i]hypostaseis[/i].

(4) Only the Son and Spirit can be [i]homoousios[/i] with the Father, and to hold any other position on this matter by its very nature involves the heresy of pantheism. Man, even after he has been deified by grace, remains [i]heteroousios[/i] in relation to the Trinity, and nothing can change that, because -- as St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out -- there is an essential gap between the uncreated and the created, and so salvation does not involve an essential or a hypostatic change in man; instead, it involves a real participation in the uncreated divine energies. The divine energies unidirectionally transgress the [i]adiastemic[/i] boundary between created and uncreated essence, giving man a real participation in God's uncreated life and glory, but not in the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]) itself, which always remains transcendent. As St. Basil said in reference to man's ability to know and participate in the divine, "The operations [energeiai] are various, and the essence [ousia] simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations [energeiai], but do not undertake to approach near to His essence [ousia]. His operations [energeiai] come down to us, but His essence [ousia] remains beyond our reach." [St. Basil, [i]Letter 234[/i], no. 1]

I have to give a lecture on the sacraments to my students in about an hour, so I will have to continue this post at a later date.

Steven Todd Kaster, Th.M.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='979207' date='May 12 2006, 10:16 AM']
First it should be noted that the word [i]homoousios[/i] itself, which was used by the First Council of Nicea to describe the relationship that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term which indicates a relation of dependence; in other words, the term [i]homoousios[/i] involves a recognition that the Son receives His hypostatic existence from the Father and is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. St. Athanasios understood this and used this idea, along with the distinction between essence and will (the will being a natural energy of a [i]hypostasis[/i]), in order to refute the heresy of Arius. In [i]Ad Serapionem[/i] St. Athanasios speaks of the energy of the Trinity, and refers to the Spirit in relation to creation as the [i]energeia[/i] of the Son. His understanding of the divine energy is that it comes from the Father, through the Son, and rests upon creation in the power of the Spirit. Thus, St. Athanasios makes a distinction between things natural to the Father (e.g., the generation of the Son, and the spiration of the Spirit), and things which are a result of the divine will and energy, i.e., the created order.

In addition, if you read the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers (e.g., St. Basil's [i]Adversus Eunomium[/i], and his [i]Letters[/i] 234, 235, etc., and his treatise [i]On the Holy Spirit[/i]; St. Gregory of Nyssa's [i]Contra Eunomium[/i], his treatise [i]On Not Three Gods to Ablabius[/i]; and St. Gregory Nazienzen's [i]Orations[/i], etc.), you will see that they never speak of a "procession" from the Son; moreover, they explicitly deny causality to the Son within the inner life of the Trinity, holding instead that the Father is the sole principle (Greek: [i]monarche[/i]) of origin for the Son and the Spirit. I would add to this the fact that the distinction between essence and energy is fundamental to understanding the Cappadocian arguments against Eunomius, and if one fails to make this distinction, the result is an inexorable tendency to Eunomian essentialism. In addition to the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos and St. John Damascene make the distinction between essence and energy, and both of them also deny any causal power to the Son within the Trinity.

Now of course, following in line with the teaching of St. Maximos the Confessor and the Cappadocian Fathers, the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III taught that there is a distinction between essence, energy, and hypostasis, because -- as the council decreed -- in Christ there are two natures, two natural wills and energies, and to say otherwise is to fall into the heresies of Monophysitism and Monothelitism. Thus, to fail to make this distinction leads to problems in both Triadology and Christology.

Thus in conclusion, I do hold that this distinction is a dogma, and it is a dogma of the first millennium, and not simply of the second millennium. Moreover, in response to your comment that for one thousand years the West has recited the creed with the [i]filioque[/i], I would simply point out that for more than one thousand six hundred years the East has not recited it that way, and that the [i]filioque[/i] is not to be found in the original version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which the Holy See itself has declared to be normative and irrevocable for the whole Church. So the fact that a Pope, after more than four hundred years of papal resistance to the pressure to add the [i]filioque[/i] to the creed, finally gave in to the pressure of the German Emperor Henry II to add it, does not make it normative for the whole Church; in fact, as I have already pointed out, the Vatican itself (in the mid 1990s) has indicated that it is not normative, and this decision is even reflected in the document [i][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html"]Dominus Iesus[/url][/i], which was issued without the [i]filioque[/i] by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith back in August of 2000.
[/quote]
We've clearly read a lot of the same stuff. But per my prior point, a defense of the filioque could be made with equal stature. There are patristic sources and councils and creeds and documents, etc.. And Dominus Iesus was one of the things that I had in mind when I mentioned the Church's apparent "backing off" of the filioque. But many see this stuff as bending over backwards for the Orthodox Churches, or even false ecumenism. I'm not quite a rad trad of the sort that would accuse the Pope of Rome of something as vile as that, but I do think focusing on actions that have more to do with current Church policy and ecumenical compromise is a bit unfair in the context of this discussion. We all know that Rome is willing to kiss Constantinople's hiney, but I also know that Rome is not going to say that an article of the Creed that its been proclaiming for a millennia is heretical.

Anyway, I'm on my way out.. I'll try to pontificate some more later..