Formatting notes: This is the format for quotations.
— Endnotes/footnotes appear in this format. — More information.
Note: Your browser must have access to a Unicode font for the polytonic (non-Demotic) Greek to be rendered properly.
The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue
After reading the Agreed Statement
from the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that after four years of discussion with nothing more than press releases containing the names of attendees, the authors and titles of the papers presented, the location of the meeting, etc., under pressure to produce a tangible result, the Consultation was compelled to issue an Agreed Statement
that essentially agrees to disagree:
The Greek and Latin theological traditions clearly remain in some tension with each other on the fundamental issue of the Spirit's eternal origin as a distinct divine person. ... These differences, though subtle, are substantial, and the very weight of theological tradition behind both of them makes them all the more difficult to reconcile theologically with each other.
Likewise, the Recommendations
includes the admission that the Spirit's origin ... still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution
.
The Introductory Section
The Agreed Statement
refers the Symbol of Faith produced by the First Synod of Constantinople (the Second Ecumenical Synod), a.k.a. Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
, as the revised version of the Nicene creed
. Likewise, the first paragraph in the Historical Considerations
section claims the Second Ecumenical Synod produced an expanded Creed
. No mention is made of the view that the Symbol of Faith of I Constantinople is not a version of the Nicene Creed at all: it embodies the faith of Nicaea, but not the Creed of Nicaea
as can be found on the Arimathea web site.
Surprising is the claim that since at least the eighth century, the presence of this term [the Filioque] in the Western version of the Creed has been a source of scandal for Eastern Christians
when the Agreed Statement
apparently accepts the authenticity of a fragment of a letter purportedly written by Saint Maximos the Confessor which would date the dispute over the Filioque to at least the 600s (more on Saint Maximos and the disputed letter below).
Otherwise, the Introductory section is generally unremarkable.
The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures
Section
All the scriptural references in this section — with the exception of John 15:26 — refer to the economy of the Holy Spirit. This is not surprsing since John 15:26 is the only passage in the Holy Scriptures that refers to the theology of the Holy Spirit. What is surprising is that the Agreed Statement
would muddle the issue of the Filioque with verses referring to the economy of the Holy Spirit since this has never been a point of contention. It would have been better for this section to discuss the fact that John 15:26 is the only verse in the Holy Scriptures that refers to the theology of the Holy Spirit; all other verses discussing the economy of the Holy Spirit.
The Historical Considerations
Section
This section is remarkable not for its contents, but for its omissions. Perhaps the most glaring omission is that of the origin of the Filioque. Although Augustine of Hippo is widely acknowledged as the father of the Filioque
, this section makes only two passing references to Augustine, neither naming him as its source. There are references to Latin theologians
, naming Tertullian, Saint Hilary of Poitiers, and Saint Ambrose of Milan, who all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God's eternal being
, but nothing indicating the origin of the Filioque.
The Synodal Letter of 382, which explicated the deliberations of the Second Ecumenical Synod of 381, is ignored. Had the Consultation referenced the Synodal Letter of 382, they might have avoided the error of claiming that it was not a concern of the [Second Ecumenical Synod] to specify the manner of the Spirit's origin
and the inherent contradiction of later recommending that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God
whilst admitting, The original text of the Creed of 381, in speaking of the Holy Spirit, characterizes him in terms of John 15.26
. In fact the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Synod did specify the manner of the Holy Spirit's origin, restricting itself to that which was revealed to mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ in John 15:26. It structured the Symbol of Faith (the Creed of 381
) in a way that makes clear that the text refers to the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit just as it refers to the eternal origin of the Son by professing the Son as τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα
(begotten of the Father) whilst the Holy Spirit is τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον
(proceeds from the Father). (Both γεννηθέντα
and ἐκπορευόμενον
can be used to complete the phrase τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ______
; they are interchangeable.)
The use of the Filioque at the Council of Toledo of 589 is explained as an effort to oppose Arianism, but no mention is made that Arianism was overcome in the East without the use of the Filioque. It is mentioned that [i]t appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople
, but the Agreed Statement
provides no explanation for how the bishops and king could have thought this. Again, this points to the lack of discussion regarding the origin of the Filioque.
The history section does not mention Saint Maximos the Confessor. One might think this is because of the many questions regarding the authenticity of the fragment of the letter Saint Maximos purportedly wrote to the priest Marinus (more on this below). However, the Agreed Statement
does refer to this purported letter in the Theological Reflections
section, the Terminology
sub-section. If, in spite of these issues, the authors of the Agreed Statement
deemed the letter fragment to be by Saint Maximos, one would have expected this to have been included in the History section. Perhaps it was not included because they did not wish to acknowledge that everytime the East encountered the Filioque, from at least the seventh century, it strongly protested — especially since the Agreed Statement
claims the Filioque became a matter of controversy towards the end of the eighth century
.
The Agreed Statement
refers to a council of English bishops held at Hatfield in 680
that declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds
, but according to an article published in the English Historical Review in November 1999, the text in an ineffable way (inenarrabiliter) from the Father and the Son
betrays a number of anachronistic features
. Thus, it is uncertain that the Filioque was confessed by English bishops in the seventh century.
The Agreed Statement
provides a valuable service by acknowledging that much of the insistence on the Filioque was rooted in the Carolingian attempt to challenge the Orthodoxy of Constantinople
because of an intense political and cultural rivalry between the Franks and the Byzantines
(i.e. the East Romans), even if it attempts to minimise its importance. The attempted exoneration of Charlemagne and his religious advisors because of poor
and/or defective
translations rings hollow in light of the acknowledgement that the Carolingians argued that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381
and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son
, even though Pope Hadrian strongly rejected Charlemagne's protest, showing at length that [Patriarch] Tarasius [of Constantinople] and the Council ... maintained the faith of the Fathers
and knew the Filioque had never been part of the Symbol of Faith (the Creed of 381
).
Rather than referring to Theodulf of Orleans' De Spiritu Sancto as essentially a compilation of patristic citations
, it would have been more candid to label it a compilation of Augustinian citations. This would eliminate the possibility of a reader mistakenly believing this work, used in support of the Filioque, drew from a variety of Church Fathers (Augustine is not a Church Father
).
It is good that the Agreed Statement
makes clear that Pope Leo III explicity disapproved its [the Filioque] inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381
and that it was the Carolingians who disobeyed the pope. It would have been even better if it had also included Pope Leo III's statement: I shall not say that I prefer myself to the Fathers [of the Ecumenical Synod of 381]; and far be it from me to count myself their equal
as well as the fact that he made clear to the Carolingians that the Christians in Rome, when reading the Creed, did not presume in our reading or teaching to add anything to the Creed by insertion
.
It is disappointing to see the reference to the disagreement over missionary work in Bulgaria give the appearance that it was the East that initiated complaints about Western practices
after being expelled, when it was actually the Frankish missionaries who instigated trouble by teaching that the missionaries from Constantinople were teaching erroneously. It is also disappointing that the Agreed Statement
did not make clear that the dispute over Western practices
was not limited to the Filioque, but also included accusations from the Franks that it was wrong to have married priests, to use leavened bread, to fast from cheese and milk during Lent, and to allow priests to confirm (administer Chrismation) — practices the West, before it had instituted unilateral changes, had once shared with the East. Had a fuller explanation of the circumstances been given, the reader would be better able to understand why Saint Photius the Great addressed a strongly worded encyclical
that criticized Western liturgical practices
.
The section on Saint Photios the Great is generally fine, though it should have mentioned he is considered a Pillar of Orthodoxy
whose teachings are greatly esteemed. This would help the reader understand why Orthodox Christians, along with Saint Photios, regard the Filioque as a blasphemy
.
It is good to see the reference to the Synod that met in Constantinople in 879-880 is considered by some modern Orthodox theologians to be ecumenical
rather than repeating the tired canard that Orthodox Christianity has had no ecumenical councils
since 787. Unfortunately, the Agreed Statement
claims this Synod made no statement about the theological justification
of the Filioque, an opinion disproved by Father George Dragas in his article, The Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (870/880) and the Condemnation of the Filioque Addition and Doctrine. It is inexplicable why the Agreed Statement
claims this Synod allowed the Papal legates the traditional prerogatives of presidency
when, in fact, Saint Photios presided over the proceedings. Although the Agreed Statement
admits that Pope John VIII maintained the text sanctioned by the Council of 381
, in fact he rejected the addition of the Filioque (for which Saint Photios praises him in the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit).
Rather than stating that the Filioque continued to be used in the Creed in parts of Western Europe
, it would have been better to have been explicit that it was the Franks who continued to disobey the pope. This would have shown that this was a continuation of the Carolingian attempt to challenge the Orthodoxy of Constantinople
because of an intense political and cultural rivalry between the Franks and the Byzantines
(i.e. the East Romans). If the historical continuity had been emphasised, it would have helped the reader to understand that the introduction of the Filioque at Rome following the coronation of King Henry II as Roman Emperor in 1014
was a triumph of the Franks over Rome. The admission that the introduction of the Filioque after two centuries of papal resistance of the practice, reflected a new dominance of the German Emperors over the papacy
is important. The Consultation should be praised for including this historical fact that ultramontanists wish to forget.
The description of the tumultuous events of 1054
is good. So, too, is the description of the aftermath of 1204. Especially important is the statement that the Western conquest of the Eastern capital of Constantinople with the installation of Western bishops loyal to Rome and the political powers of Western Europe
and other actions of the West were a clear sign that the papacy and its political supporters had little regard for the legitmacy of [the Eastern] ancient churches.
The conclusion that the series of public discussions about subjects dividing the Churches, including the Filioque
held between Anselm of Havelberg and Nicetas of Nicomedia concluded that the differences between the two traditions were not as great as they had thought
is certainly debatable. After all, it is during these discussions that Nicetas made his famous statement:
We do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an ecumenical council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office. … How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a church, and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.
The account of the Western council ... held in Lyons in 1274
in the Agreed Statement
is broadly correct, but has some serious omissions. That two Byzantine bishops who were sent as delegates had no real opportunity to present the Eastern perspective at the Council
is a serious understatement. In fact, the Patriarchate of Constantinople was not represented; nor were the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem. The only representatives from Constantinople were chosen by the emperor to ratify a fait accompli. The fact that it was never received by the Eastern clergy and faithful
is also a serious understatement. In fact, the East regarded Lyons as little more than a
(Aristeides Papadakis: Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289), page 19).mockery and a fraud
The Agreed Statement
omits the now generally recognized
fact that it was the papal demands for conformity that ultimately doomed the attempted reunion of Lyons (Papadakis, page 26), as well as the fact that the attempt at forced union served as a point of departure for one of the most fruitful and creative theological reactions known to Byzantium
(Papadakis, page 27) that culminated in the Synod of Blachernae in 1285. This omission serves to lessen the importance of the Tomos of that Synod. Moreover, by explaining that the Tomos spoke of an
without making clear that there was an explicit rejection of the idea that the Son was in any way a cause of the Holy Spirit, the eternal manifestation
of the Spirit through the SonAgreed Statement
tends to mislead its readers. This misrepresentation is repeated later by a selective quotation from the Tomos in the Theological
section of the The Substantive Issues
under the Theological Reflections
section.
The passing reference that many in the Greek world regarded military aid from the West as Constantinople's only hope
seriously downplays the tremendous political pressures exerted on the Eastern delegates who attended the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445). No mention is made of the many delegates who apparently accepted the decisions at Florence for no other reason than to be allowed to return to their homes; upon returning home, they promptly repudiated the council. No mention is made of Western attempts to prohibit a full discussion of the Filioque issue by manoeuvres such as rejecting a presentation of the Tomos of Blachernae (1285). No mention is made that even though [t]he Filioque was presented [at Florence] as having the same meaning as the position of the early Eastern Fathers that the Spirit exists or proceeds
, the Synod of Blachernae (1285) had previously determined that no Eastern Father ever taught that the Spirit exists or proceeds through the Son
through the Son
and such a belief was explicitly condemned as heretical.
The remainder of the Historical Considerations
section is generally unremarkable. Discussion of the Latins using the unaltered Symbol of Faith as it was written in 381 does, however, raise the question of lex orandi, lex credendi. Would the Latins remove the Filioque whilst continuing to believe the Son to be a cause of the Holy Spirit — i.e. would they consciously change their Credo in a manner that would be contrary to what they believe? The Agreed Statement
offers no answer. Although Orthodox Christians would rejoice at the removal of the interpolation from the Symbol of Faith, they remain leery of insubstantial gestures.
Theological Reflections
— Introduction
This section opens with the statement, In all discussions about the origin of the Holy Spirit within the Mystery of God, and about the relationships of Father, Son and Holy Spirit with each other, the first habit of mind to be cultivated is doubtless a reverent modesty.
Orthodox Christians could not agree more and this is why they have steadfastly refused to go beyond the Lord Jesus Christ's teaching in John 15:26. It is, therefore, inexplicable, that the Agreed Statement
closes the same paragraph with The division between our Churches on the Filioque question would probably be less acute if both sides, through the centuries, had remained more conscious of the limitations of our knowledge of God.
The Orthodox have always remained conscious of the limitations of the knowledge of creatures about the Uncreated! The problem has been the propensity of the West to think there is no limit to that which can be determined by human beings, and to create much that goes beyond Divine Revelation.
The Agreed Statement
not only accuses the Orthodox of what they have not done, but proceeds to deny what the West has done. It denies that mainstream Latin theology has traditionally begun its Trinitarian reflections from an abstract, unscriptural consideration of the divine substance
, even though it is a long-established and widely accepted fact that this is precisely the path taken by Augustine of Hippo which set the West on its different path. It denies that Latin theology affirms two causes of the Spirit's hypostatic existence
, even though this is precisely the teaching of the Filioque. Ultimately, the introduction to this section does admit that the Eastern and Western traditions of reflection on the Mystery of God have clearly developed categories and conceptions that differ in substantial ways from one another
(emphasis added), but by denying fundamental truths about Latin theology, it attempts to hide those substantial disagreements. Although there is merit in emphasising common ground between the two traditions, denying real differences does not contribute to an eventual agreement. Even the five bullet points offered as examples of substantial agreement
are not beyond question. Although the Clarification
on the Filioque offered by the Vatican in 1995 under the title The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit
admits the Father is the primordial source
and ultimate cause
of the Holy Trinity, this has not always been clear in Latin conciliar decisions. Neither is it clear that there is agreement that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinguished from one another solely by their relationships of origin
, as is implicitly admitted later when referring to Aquinas' relations of opposition
.
Also disturbing in this section, is the use of inverted commas around the word persons
in the statement:
... as Christians, [we] profess our God, who is radically and indivisibly one, to be the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit — three persons
who can never be confused with or reduced to one another ...
Why did the Consultation use quotation marks here? Such usage is normally reserved to indicate something so-called
with which there is dispute. Did the writers of this document really mean to suggest that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not really Persons?
Theological Reflections
— Terminology
Section
The Agreed Statement
rightly acknowledges that the original text of the Creed of 381 ... characterizes him in terms of John 15:26
. One cannot help but think that this would have been an opportune point to reinforce the earlier insistence on the need to remain more conscious of the limitations of our knowledge of God
since this is precisely what the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Synod did and what Orthodox Christians have consistently maintained. Whether it was probably influenced by the usage of Gregory the Theologian
seems irrelevant since Saint Gregory, as Orthodox Christians have traditionally done, restricted himself to the Johannine language of 15:26. It is difficult to see any value in this passing reference.
The Agreed Statement
rightly points out the limitations of Latin vis-à-vis Greek in clarity and precision in theological discussion, as has been noted by many Church Fathers. Unfortunately, it attempts to use this to excuse Latin errors, citing the disputed Letter to Marinus attributed to St Maximos the Confessor. Saint Maximos elsewhere writes of a letter to Marinus falsely attributed to him, there is no extant synodical letter by Pope Martin I stating the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son
as is claimed in this doubtful letter, and the letter in question mentions six
ecumenical councils when only five had been held. Although there is no way of knowing whether this letter in question is the one Maximos says was falsely attributed to him and the absence of a synodical letter does not prove it was not written, the reference to six councils is an extreme problem and suggests the letter may have been written after the Sixth Ecumenical Synod of 680-681, (Saint Maximos died in 662, Pope Martin in 655). Unfortunately for those who try to excuse the Latin misunderstanding of John 15:26, this disputed letter is the only citation available.
Theological Reflections
— The Substantive Issues
Section
It seems that much of this section is based upon the Vatican's The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit
, especially the way it positions Augustine's view that the involvement of the Son in the Spirit's procession is not understood to contradict the Father's role as the single ultimate source of both Son and Spirit
, avoiding Augustine's denial of the Father's role as the single ultimate source of the Holy Spirit. That the Father retains priority
is irrelevant: that has never been at issue.
It is very unfortunate that the Agreed Statement
quotes from the Tomos of the Council of Blachernae (1285) by taking a passage out of context and distorting its meaning. It is difficult to understand this as anything but an effort to downplay real differences, to sweep under the carpet
Orthodox conciliar statements. It claims:
The Council proposed in its Tomos that although Christian faith must maintain that the Holy Spirit receives his existence and hypostatic identity solely from the Father, who is the single cause of the divine Being, he shines from and is manifested eternally through the Son, in the way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun's rays.
Looking at the phrase in context gives a very different impression than that conveyed by the use of although
in the Agreed Statement
:
Indeed, the very Paraclete shines from and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun's rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us. It does not, however, mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receives its being through Him and from Him. [emphasis added]
It is in this section that the Agreed Statement
admits the two traditions clearly remain in some tension with each other
and that they are difficult to reconcile theologically with each other.
It seems this is really the crux of the entire Agreed Statement
. Despite attempts to avoid the irreconcilability of the two traditions, the Consultation — even after four years of discussion! — cannot offer an explanation of the theological (or hypostatic) source of the Holy Spirit acceptable to both traditions.
This conclusion of this section, urging that the Filioque issue and the issue of Papal primacy
be kept methodologically separate from one another
, correctly notes that the two issues are not completely separable. However, the claim that undoubtedly Papal primacy ... remains the root issue behind all the questions of theology and practice that continue to divide
is greatly overstated. It would have been more prudent — and less debatable — to simply state that Papal primacy
remains an issue in questions of theology.
Theological Reflections
— Continuing our Reflections
Section
It is ironic that, after having urged a consciousness of the limitations of our knowledge of God
, the Agreed Statement
claims the theology of the Holy Spirit is an underdeveloped region of Christian theological reflection ... true even of the issue of the origin of the Holy Spirit
since it is the Western predilection for such development
that has created the Filioque issue! Had the West followed the statement at the beginning of the Theological Reflections
section, that [i]n all discussions about the origin of the Holy Spirit within the Mystery of God, and about the relationships of Father, Son and Holy Spirit with each other, the first habit of mind to be cultivated is doubtless a reverent modesty
, the Filioque issue would never have arisen. This irony is reinforced by urging a continuing openness to doctrinal and practical development
since it is this doctrinal and practical development
— rather than reverent modesty
— that led to the West creating new beliefs that separated it from the Church. Moreover, doctrinal development
is something Orthodox Christians have steadfastly rejected. Urging an openness to something that has always been rejected is an imprudent suggestion.
The Recommendations
Section
Presented as theological and practical recommendations
, the Agreed Statement
appears to present a much greater challenge to the Latins than to Orthodox Christianity. For ease of reading, the recommendations will be placed in bold text, with comments on each following.
(1) that our Churches commit themselves to a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit, drawing on the Holy Scriptures and on the full riches of the theological traditions of both our Churches, and to looking for constructive ways of expressing what is central to our faith on this difficult issue
There does not seem to be anything of substance in this recommendation. It seems to be the language of diplomacy, urging continued discussions. Given that four years of discussions on the part of the Consultation produced no tangible progress, one cannot help but wonder if continued discussions will ever produce progress.
(2) that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God
Given the prior contradictions in the Agreed Statement
(urging a reverent modesty
and recognising the limitations of our knowledge of God
whilst urging a continuing openness to doctrinal and practical development
), one cannot help but wonder what the Consultation really meant. Taken at face value, it is a good suggestion that Orthodox Christians will readily embrace — but contrary to the Latin predilection for doctrinal development
. As such it is difficult to see how this could be achieved.
(3) 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
Clearly, labelling another or being labelled a heretic
may be an impediment to dialogue. Yet, both the Orthodox tradition and the Latin tradition have dogmatic conciliar statements that clearly define the belief held by the other to be heresy. It seems imprudent and unrealistic to expect loyal followers of either tradition to ignore the dogmatic teaching of their respective traditions.
(4) that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution
This recommendation is strange. The hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit and the divinity of the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the manner of the Spirit's origin
since it is in the Holy Spirit's origin that the Third Person of the Holy Trinity receives hypostatic existence and divinity. It would have made more sense if the recommendation had been for a more clear distinction between the eternal, hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit and the economic, temporal activity of the Holy Spirit. Of course, that would have been welcomed by Orthodox Christians who have consistently made this distinction and have been frustrated by the Latin tendency to assume equivalence and confuse the two.
The latter part of this recommendation, the admission that the origin of the Holy Spirit still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution
is a repetition of previous admissions that nothing has been resolved. Although it is phrased optimistically, there is nothing in the Agreed Statement
to justify optimism.
(5) that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together
Separating the issue of the Filioque from ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority
is certainly a sensible way to reduce complexities. The qualifier, as far as possible
, is good as it acknowledges that the issues are not wholly separate.
(6) that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical
At first glance, this appears to be a greater challenge to the Latins than to the Orthodox as it would undermine their ecclesiology and, especially, their concept of magisterium. It would require the Latins to make teachings previously presented as infallible
as now unsettled, debatable, and open to discussion. Considering the many contemporary challenges within their ranks, this could make the reaction to the changes instituted by their Second Vatican Council seem trivial in comparison. Yet, the Orthodox, with their devotion to Holy Tradition, cannot simply dismiss synodal decisions that have been considered normative for centuries. Although there is a precedent for setting aside general, pan-Orthodox synods, such events have always occurred relatively quickly. For instance, the Robber Synod
of Ephesus in 449 was overturned just two years later at Chalcedon. There is no precedent for overturning a general synod centuries after the fact.
The papacy of the Latins would allow them to demote
councils previously held to be ecumenical
and therefore infallible
and then demand obedience. Although some splinter groups would form, they would be relatively small; most dissatisfaction would manifest itself in reduced attendance (as happened after the Second Vatican Council). Orthodoxy, lacking the equivalent of the Latin papacy, would certainly split if general synods previously deemed normative were to be declared overturned. There is good reason to think the majority would reject such changes, much as happened in the wake of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438-1445).
(7) that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use
Although Orthodox Christians would rejoice at the removal of the interpolation from the Symbol, they would still want the addition condemned as Rome once did before the Franks captured Rome and its papacy, and would want to see belief that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit condemned. Refusing to profess what is still believed would be seen by Orthodox Christians as an meaningless gesture.
Similarly, Orthodox Christians would rejoice at the elimination of catechetical materials teaching the Filioque. However, it is difficult to imagine how the Latins could maintain the Filioque as infallible teaching of the magisterium without teaching it. To refrain from teaching the Filioque, would seem to require the Latins to reject what has previously been regarded as an infallible teaching of the magisterium. It is not possible to imagine how this could be accomplished.
(8) that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those ‘who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son’ is no longer applicable
The comments made to the sixth recommendation apply to this recommendation as well. It seems impossible for the Latins to declare something it has consistently asserted is an infallible
teaching of the magisterium by an ecumenical
council to be no longer applicable
.
Validated as Strict HTML 4.01 — before Geocities got hold of it!