Matt 16:18 The Catholic Church, Or Orthodox?

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Vico

Even then not all eastern bishops were out of communion with Rome. Also since the filioque was dogmatically declared in 447 A.D., prior to Chalcedon, when could it be said that lack of full communion first occurred?

You mean the inclusion of the Filioque was dogmatically declared and still the popes of Rome refused to include it into the Creed until after the first millennium?

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Peter J

That's good, b/c there plenty out there to read.

The first suggestion that comes to mind are the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues.

Excellent!

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

You mean the inclusion of the Filioque was dogmatically declared and still the popes of Rome refused to include it into the Creed until after the first millennium?

Alex

The filioque was never included in the Creed in Greek, but was used in the non-Greek since Council of Toledo III, 589 A.D. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit. And had been dogmatically declared in 447 A.D. prior to Chalcedon so it was orthodox teaching at Toledo.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

The Creed of 381 was not received by Rome until Chalcedon then Pope Leo I ratified it (451). The Council of Constantinople II (553) reconfirmed the first four councils: Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate)

"Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have taught, and do teach all that they defined respecting the one faith."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html

Pope St. Gregory I (590-604 pontificate) later also held the first four general councils to be authoritative as the four Gospels.

[Marybeloved]

Originally Posted by Vico

The filioque was never included in the Creed in Greek, but was used in the non-Greek since Council of Toledo III, 589 A.D. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit. And had been dogmatically declared in 447 A.D. prior to Chalcedon so it was orthodox teaching at Toledo.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

The Creed of 381 was not received by Rome until Chalcedon then Pope Leo I ratified it (451). The Council of Constantinople II (553) reconfirmed the first four councils: Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate)

"Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have taught, and do teach all that they defined respecting the one faith."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html

Pope St. Gregory I (590-604 pontificate) later also held the first four general councils to be authoritative as the four Gospels.

What are you, Vico? A living breathing encyclopedia?

I'd like to ask you something, if you don't mind. What are you saying there, exactly? The Pope taught it first (Filioque) in 447 then a Council was held that gave the Greek nicene creed as the profession of faith; Then later the Latin church included it in the creed when it began to use Latin? So the West was using Greek then when the language changed to Latin, they included filioque? Did the others know that this is what the West was teaching and believing (Filioque) from Leo's teaching of 447 A.D. onwards before the West started using it in the Latin liturgy? (Perhaps a schism may not have hapenned if Greek remained the main language in the West )

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

What are you, Vico? A living breathing encyclopedia?

I'd like to ask you something, if you don't mind. What are you saying there, exactly? The Pope taught it first (Filioque) in 447 then a Council was held that gave the Greek nicene creed as the profession of faith; Then later the Latin church included it in the creed when it began to use Latin? So the West was using Greek then when the language changed to Latin, they included filioque? Did the others know that this is what the West was teaching and believing (Filioque) from Leo's teaching of 447 A.D. onwards before the West started using it in the Latin liturgy? (Perhaps a schism may not have hapenned if Greek remained the main language in the West )

I have a lot of notes I have taken over the years.

Greek was a common language in the ancient Church. The ecclesiastical language did change to Latin, introduced by Pope St. Leo (~200 A.D.), but the Mass did not get adopted in the west everywhere in Latin until the latter fourth century. Latin was western the norm before 447 A.D.

200 Latin adopted for western theology
325 Nicene Creed accepted
381 The local council of Constantinople I modifies the original Greek Nicene Creed (west does not accept this council until Pope Vigilius after Constantinople II ~ 554)
400 Latin used by this time for the Mass
447 filioque dogma declared by Pope Leo I
451 Tome of Leo I at Chalcedon, acceptance of Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) in Greek
589 Council of Toledo III adopts filioque in the Latin Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed

[DJK100]

[quote=CharitableFaith;9187302]

How do we know that Peter was not the first Eastern Orthodox Patriarch but the Pope?

Well even the Orthodox Church will admit he is the first Pope. So, I guess from both traditions and the bible you can be sure he was the first Pope.

How do we know that we wernt the ones who split from the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church?

Well that is the question isn't it. I for one think that both sides had a lot of pride in the situation that caused the schism. However, while the Orthodox church doesn't believe in Papal infallibilty they do believe that Peter and thus the Popes were, "first among equals." This to me seems to say that even the Orthodox Church recognized something special in the occupier of the Chair of St. Peter and therefore is something to heavily consider. What is "first among equals anyway?" Why singlel someone out just to say they are equal if they are all already equal and why have a history or recognizing something unique to the Chair of St. Peter if there isn't somethign already special about the office?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by DJK100

Well even the Orthodox Church will admit he is the first Pope. So, I guess from both traditions and the bible you can be sure he was the first Pope.

No, the first pope was this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_He..._of_Alexandria

Originally Posted by DJK100

Well that is the question isn't it. I for one think that both sides had a lot of pride in the situation that caused the schism. However, while the Orthodox church doesn't believe in Papal infallibilty they do believe that Peter and thus the Popes were, "first among equals." This to me seems to say that even the Orthodox Church recognized something special in the occupier of the Chair of St. Peter and therefore is something to heavily consider. What is "first among equals anyway?" Why singlel someone out just to say they are equal if they are all already equal and why have a history or recognizing something unique to the Chair of St. Peter if there isn't somethign already special about the office?

The Orthodox do not recognize something special in Rome other than a contested historical primacy (one that was acknowledged inconsistently throughout history, much like the primacy of the bishop of Constantinople whose power has waned significantly over the past two centuries), and we certainly do not think that Rome could not be replaced. You are misrepresenting Orthodox teaching here.

[DJK100]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

No, the first pope was this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_He..._of_Alexandria



The Orthodox do not recognize something special in Rome other than a contested historical primacy (one that was acknowledged inconsistently throughout history, much like the primacy of the bishop of Constantinople whose power has waned significantly over the past two centuries), and we certainly do not think that Rome could not be replaced. You are misrepresenting Orthodox teaching here.

Then what is the "first among equals," I am always reading about?

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Vico

I have a lot of notes I have taken over the years.

Greek was a common language in the ancient Church. The ecclesiastical language did change to Latin, introduced by Pope Victor (~200 A.D.), but the Mass did not get adopted in the west everywhere in Latin until the latter fourth century. Latin was western the norm before 447 A.D.

200 Latin adopted for western theology
325 Nicene Creed accepted
381 The local council of Constantinople I modifies the original Greek Nicene Creed (west does not accept this council until Pope Vigilius after Constantinople II ~ 554)
400 Latin used by this time for the Mass
447 filioque dogma declared by Pope Leo I
451 Tome of Leo I at Chalcedon, acceptance of Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) in Greek
589 Council of Toledo III adopts filioque in the Latin Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed

Should have been Pope Victor I not Pope St. Leo. (I edited it, but somehow I did not save it.)

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by DJK100

Then what is the "first among equals," I am always reading about?

Exactly what it sounds like. A bishop with special prerogatives of leadership. That being said, the first among equals is not ontologically a super-bishop, but only a regular bishop (hence the equals part).

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

No, the first pope was this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_He..._of_Alexandria

Touche.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Vico

The filioque was never included in the Creed in Greek, but was used in the non-Greek since Council of Toledo III, 589 A.D. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit.

That's true, but I would just like to add that this was not a willful defiance, but rather came about through a misunderstanding. Contrast with the Carolingians, a couple centuries later, who willfully disobeyed Pope Leo III on the creed.

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Vico

The filioque was never included in the Creed in Greek, but was used in the non-Greek since Council of Toledo III, 589 A.D. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit. And had been dogmatically declared in 447 A.D. prior to Chalcedon so it was orthodox teaching at Toledo.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

The Creed of 381 was not received by Rome until Chalcedon then Pope Leo I ratified it (451). The Council of Constantinople II (553) reconfirmed the first four councils: Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate)

"Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have taught, and do teach all that they defined respecting the one faith."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html

Pope St. Gregory I (590-604 pontificate) later also held the first four general councils to be authoritative as the four Gospels.

I suppose it is what we make of the facts . . .

Local Western councils/synods were well within their rights to introduce the Filioque as long as this was not accepted at Rome in the Creed or made a universal dogma. The fact that Toledo included the Filioque does not make it universal orthodox teaching at that time. This would get into the theology of the Filioque which we don't want to do, and not during our Easter Bright week!

If the Roman pope confirmed the Filioque, he could/would only have done that for the Western Church in terms of Latin theology. At no time were the a priori's of Western theology imposed on the Eastern Churches or declared universal as they were during the later Latin Councils following the separation of East and West. Had they been, the East-West schism would have occurred much earlier than it did.

As you said, the Filioque was never a part of the Creed which was intended as a universal statement of the Trinitarian faith of the universal Catholic Church.

It should not be there in the Nicene Creed today without, at the same time, disputing whether the right of the Latin Church to have its own Particular Trinitarian theology that is limited, however, to its own theological traditions without making them universal dogmas to be imposed on the East.

This was, in fact, the proximate cause of the schism between East and West, all other religious, social and political factors notwithstanding. It still is.

Alex

[Paul theApostle]

Originally Posted by Vico

I have a lot of notes I have taken over the years.

Greek was a common language in the ancient Church. The ecclesiastical language did change to Latin, introduced by Pope St. Leo (~200 A.D.), but the Mass did not get adopted in the west everywhere in Latin until the latter fourth century. Latin was western the norm before 447 A.D.

200 Latin adopted for western theology
325 Nicene Creed accepted
381 The local council of Constantinople I modifies the original Greek Nicene Creed (west does not accept this council until Pope Vigilius after Constantinople II ~ 554)
400 Latin used by this time for the Mass
447 filioque dogma declared by Pope Leo I
451 Tome of Leo I at Chalcedon, acceptance of Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) in Greek
589 Council of Toledo III adopts filioque in the Latin Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed

Got anything i could read about the 447 filioque declaration?

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

I suppose it is what we make of the facts . . .

Local Western councils/synods were well within their rights to introduce the Filioque as long as this was not accepted at Rome in the Creed or made a universal dogma. The fact that Toledo included the Filioque does not make it universal orthodox teaching at that time. This would get into the theology of the Filioque which we don't want to do, and not during our Easter Bright week!

If the Roman pope confirmed the Filioque, he could/would only have done that for the Western Church in terms of Latin theology. At no time were the a priori's of Western theology imposed on the Eastern Churches or declared universal as they were during the later Latin Councils following the separation of East and West. Had they been, the East-West schism would have occurred much earlier than it did.

As you said, the Filioque was never a part of the Creed which was intended as a universal statement of the Trinitarian faith of the universal Catholic Church.

It should not be there in the Nicene Creed today without, at the same time, disputing whether the right of the Latin Church to have its own Particular Trinitarian theology that is limited, however, to its own theological traditions without making them universal dogmas to be imposed on the East.

This was, in fact, the proximate cause of the schism between East and West, all other religious, social and political factors notwithstanding. It still is.

Alex

If it were not considered a dogma of faith, then there would be no objection. Photius mad a great effort to eliminate what he considered to be heresy. If it is an acceptable local dogma then it is not also a heresy, since no heresy can be accepted locally or universally. If it is acceptable for the west with the cataphatic theology used there and not acceptable in the east with the apophatic theology used there, then there should be no condemnation of holding either view based upon the theology in use.

The Persian Church in 410 A.D. also had added a filioque equivalent. Interestingly, both Rome and the Chaldeans favor philosophy of Aristotle.