Abscondita In Deo

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1884393' date='Jun 5 2009, 04:27 PM']That part of the letter has great relevance to Eastern Catholics since it speaks of how the Liturgy of every particular Church is in the care of the Bishop of Rome.

As I'm sure you are aware, I would think it an outrage if the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches were revised in the same manner that the the [i]Consilium[/i] revised the Roman Rite. That doesn't mean, however, that the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches are not the Roman Pontiff's concern.[/quote]
Sadly, this is an issue that we will not agree upon, because we understand the nature and role of the bishop of Rome differently. The pope has no authority [i]over[/i] the other sui juris Churches, because any concept of supreme authority of one bishop [i]over[/i] another bishop, or of one Church [i]over[/i] another Church, destroys the reality of communion, which is not about power [i]over[/i] others, but about reciprocity and sharing in the common divine life of the body of Christ. In fact, in an ecclesiology of communion, or what Fr. Schmemann calls, a "eucharistic" ecclesiology, it is not possible for one Church (or one bishop) to have power [i]over[/i] another Church (or bishop), because each and every particular Church is the full realization of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. In other words, power in the Church cannot be thought of as "power [i]over[/i] others," but must be understood as "service" to others. Thus, it must not be thought of in legal or jurisdictional terms, but in terms of service and love in support of communion. As Fr. Schmemann explains, "The essential corollary of this eucharistic ecclesiology is that it excludes the idea of a supreme power, understood as power [i]over[/i] the local Church and her bishop," because as he goes on to say, "A supreme power would mean power [i]over[/i] the Church, [i]over[/i] the Body of Christ, [i]over[/i] Christ Himself," and this is simply contrary to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers ["The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church," pages 38-39]. Bearing in mind what I have already said, it is clear that the "sacred power" of Popes and Patriarchs -- which is founded upon the unity of the sacrament of orders -- is one of service, and so it must not be thought of in monarchical, legalistic, or jurisdictional terms. Moreover, this "sacred power" is held equally by all who possess the grace of sacramental ordination to the episcopate. Ultimately, the eucharistic ecclesiology of the first millennium is opposed to the universalist ecclesiology of the Latin Church of the middle ages, which only developed due to the Scholastic isolation of the Latin Church from the great patristic tradition of the earliest centuries of the Christian era that is the common patrimony of both East and West.

Finally, from an Eastern Christian perspective, following the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the pope has authority within his own patriarchal Church, but even within the Roman Church the pope himself is subject to Tradition, and so he cannot simply alter the liturgy or break with immemorial custom, and there will continue to be liturgical upheavals within the Western Church until this truth is unequivocally reaffirmed.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

I understand the office of the Supreme Pontiff as it was defined by the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, who were prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in dogmatic defintions at that Council.

[journeyman]

Cappie's contribution on Trinity Sunday seems to speak as well to this question as it does to the difficulty we face in seeking full understanding of the mystery of the Trinity:

"For Christians, the Trinity is the primary symbol of a community that is held together by containing diversity within itself."
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94715"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94715[/url]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1884784' date='Jun 6 2009, 03:39 AM']I understand the office of the Supreme Pontiff as it was defined by the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, who were prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in dogmatic defintions at that Council.[/quote]
As I said . . . we do not agree.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1885181' date='Jun 6 2009, 09:02 PM']Cappie's contribution on Trinity Sunday seems to speak as well to this question as it does to the difficulty we face in seeking full understanding of the mystery of the Trinity:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94715"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=94715[/url][/quote]
As far as the Trinity is concerned, the Byzantine tradition holds that the principle of unity within the Godhead is the Father, who alone is the font of divinity (πηγή τῆς θεότητος), the sole cause (αἰτίαν) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause (αἰτίαν) of the Holy Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν), and that this divine truth can only be known -- to the degree that the created mind can comprehend such an ineffable mystery -- because God has seen fit to reveal Himself to the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, and through their preaching to all mankind.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1885732' date='Jun 7 2009, 06:59 PM']the sole cause (αἰτίαν) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause (αἰτίαν) of the Holy Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν).[/quote]



I know Eastern Orthodox Christians who are less polemical about the [i]Filioque[/i] than you.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1886209' date='Jun 8 2009, 03:22 AM']

I know Eastern Orthodox Christians who are less polemical about the [i]Filioque[/i] than you.[/quote]
I also know Eastern Orthodox Christians who are less concerned with theological orthodoxy. Such individuals are found in many Churches.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1886662' date='Jun 8 2009, 07:26 PM']I also know Eastern Orthodox Christians who are less concerned with theological orthodoxy. Such individuals are found in many Churches.[/quote]

Anyone who does not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is certainly not theologically orthodox!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1886820' date='Jun 8 2009, 09:32 PM']Anyone who does not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is certainly not theologically orthodox![/quote]
Oh come on... even I know that's not accurate. We consider Eastern Christians theologically orthodox even given the fact that they don't accept the Filioque.
I'm pretty sure that there are deeper reason's than any individual's orthodoxy or heterodoxy.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1886828' date='Jun 8 2009, 10:35 PM']Oh come on... even I know that's not accurate. We consider Eastern Christians theologically orthodox even given the fact that they don't accept the Filioque.
I'm pretty sure that there are deeper reason's than any individual's orthodoxy or heterodoxy.[/quote]

Although Eastern Catholics are not obliged to sing the word "Filioque" (or rather the Greek, Coptic, Syraic, Old Church Slavonic, Ge'ez, or Arabic translation of that word) when they recite the Creed, they are obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was dogmatically defined at the Council of Florence, a union Council with the Eastern Churches. The entire hierarchy of the Eastern Churches, save one bishop, all signed to that doctrine.

[Nihil Obstat]

So are you accusing Apotheoun of heterodoxy?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1886839' date='Jun 8 2009, 10:44 PM']So are you accusing Apotheoun of heterodoxy?[/quote]

That denying the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is heresy is what I am saying.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Nihil Obstat]

I won't say any more.
This isn't my debate.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1886841' date='Jun 8 2009, 08:47 PM']That denying the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is heresy is what I am saying. [/quote]
The Holy Spirit as person proceeds ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) only from the Father, i.e., the Spirit takes His origin from the Father alone, for the Father alone is the font of divinity, the sole source and cause of the other two persons of the Trinity; and to say that this is not the case is to openly contradict the teaching of sacred scripture, and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed as it was set forth by the God-inspired Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.

I've posted a paper on my website that deals with this topic:

[url="http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque"][u][b]The Filioque Controversy: The Councils of Florence and Blachernae[/b][/u][/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1886888' date='Jun 8 2009, 11:36 PM']The Holy Spirit as person proceeds ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) only from the Father, i.e., the Spirit takes His origin from the Father alone, for the Father alone is the font of divinity, the sole source and cause of the other two persons of the Trinity; and to say that this is not the case is to openly contradict the teaching of sacred scripture, and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed as it was set forth by the God-inspired Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.

I've posted a paper on my website that deals with this topic:

[url="http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque"][u][b]The Filioque Controversy: The Councils of Florence and Blachernae[/b][/u][/url][/quote]

From my understanding of Trinitarian theology, Apo is correct in the above statement (I'm not endorsing the paper because I haven't read it). The Holy Spirit is poured out from the Father to the Son and back from the Son to the Father (as well as from the Son to the Church). The meaning of the Filioque, as I've understood it, is that while the origin of the Holy Spirit is in the Father, the Filioque is not a statement of origin so much as a statement of the "dynamic" or "movement" (for lack of a better term) of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity, in which sense, we can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (in origin), but also from the Son (in returning to the Father and in going out to the Church). For this reason, Pope John Paul II is said to have left out the Filioque on occasion.