Do Melkite Catholics believe in the Filioque?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

These are complicated matters that I often fail to understand, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but...

Wouldn't all sides agree that it would be outright heresy to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Son as well as the Father? That's been my impression; thus, I don't think the filioque is meant to be claiming such a thing.

There was a thread on this recently where some very detailed discussion was going on, particularly, if I recall correctly, between Cavaradossi (who is eastern Orthodox) and Mardukm (who is an Oriental Catholic).

The argument winds up conflated because of a lot of linguistic issues, but at its core, I think it has to do with causality. The Florentine decree, which I suppose would still be the official Catholic teaching on the matter, attributes the two Greek terms aitia (cause) and arche (principle) to the Son. All of the other disagreements (whether the subsistence, hypostasis, energies, etc. of the Holy Spirit come from or through one person or another) are in some sense secondary to the one over causality, because they follow the argument over causality.

Among the Greek tradition, it was almost unanimously confessed that the Father is the only cause and principle. Even Gregory of Nyssa, who is the most Filioque friendly Cappodocian Father, in terms of proof-texts, does not ascribe these two terms to the Son. Instead, he divides the persons into the cause and the uncaused, and then of the uncaused, he distinguishes between the two by having one of the caused (the Spirit) being from the cause (Father) through the other caused (the Son), while the other caused (the Son) is from the Father through none other.

Gregory the Theologian, on the other hand (the Cappodocian Father used against the Filioque the most), speaks of the Father as the cause, the Son as the begotten and the Spirit as the proceeding. This distinction between begetting and procession, originally made to combat the Eunomian thesis that the Son and Spirit cannot both be caused by the Father, as the Spirit would be a second Son, preserves the connection of the Spirit to the Son without having to engage in Gregory of Nyssa's more speculative approach to differentiating the two caused persons. Instead of cataphatically attempting to define the difference like Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian apophatically defines procession as a mode of generation which is not begetting, pointing out that we should refrain from attempting to define cataphatically procession when we cannot even do the same with the generation of the Son.

To sum up over fifteen hundred years of theological thought, to this day, the East still rejects ascribing any sort of causality to the Son, because causality and principle are hypostatic properties of the Father.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

The Trinitarian dogma underlying all orthodox theology on the matter is required belief for all Catholics.

That the filioque is, understood properly, in full conformity with orthodox Trinitarian theology is required belief for all Catholics.

Catholics who become Eastern Orthodox are still expected to repudiate the filioque (see here and scroll down). I wonder how much agreement exists between Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars on the compatibility of the filioque with their Church's theology? what conception of that endlessly-disputed phrase was in view for the Orthodox hierarches who drew up those questions for Catholic catechumens?

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

Catholics who become Eastern Orthodox are still expected to repudiate the filioque (see here and scroll down).

Oh, I'm well aware of that.

Originally Posted by Trebor135

I wonder how much agreement exists between Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars on the compatibility of the filioque with their Church's theology?

I think it varies.

I'd imagine that, across the board, eastern Catholics could be counted upon to believe that the filioque - though they don't use it and probably even dislike it - is not necessarily heretical.

Orthodox opinion, obviously, varies in my experience. Plenty definitely consider it heterodox; others are open to the position that it can be interpreted in a manner that conforms to the Orthodox Faith. I have no idea what the percentage is in terms of how many Orthodox hold which position.

[Cristiano]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

........... I wonder how much agreement exists between Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars on the compatibility of the filioque with their Church's theology? ...............

Honestly I wonder how much agreement exists even among the average Latin Catholics. As Cavaradossi said there are a lot of implications depending on the terminology used. Honestly I have difficulties in having a complete clear idea of what I understand of the procession and how should I confront it with the "official" understanding of the Latin Church, I can only stick with reasonable concepts and nothing more.
I would say that my basic understanding of procession from the Son because it is through the Son makes immediately sense and I feel comfortable saying that it is aligned with what should be taught. However when we start to discuss about principles and causes things become more complicated because for example often people do not make a distinction between a primary cause vs. a secondary cause, a necessary cause vs. a sufficient cause, and we have similar issues with principles. I like the way the eastern theology uses essence and energies to explain a lot of things, the make things much easier given my way of thinking; however, I am knowledgeable enough that I can get a glimpse of their Trinitarian theology but so deeply ignorant that I have difficulties in truly understand supposed errors even when pointed to by more educated people.
I went through the sharing of my self assessment to let people that I do not believe that once an average Latin Catholic joins an Orthodox Church he is capable of rejecting the filioque. My opinion is that it is not a rejection of the filioque at all but simply an assent to agree with all the teachings of the specific Orthodox Church.

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Layp3rs0n

I went to a Melkite Mass last Sunday. No mention of the Holy Spirit proceedinh from the Son as well as the Father. My friend who was a semenrian for the Latin Rite says they do believe in the Filioque. Is this accurate?

Bishop John A. Elya, will answer your questions

They accept the filioque as all doctrines the pope teaches, because they are 100% in union with the pope.
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j...n-the-melkites

making them a hundred per cent Catholic
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j...x-united-with-

What about indulgences, & legalism? or the concept of purification of the soul after death? Or development ?.
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j...of-indulgences

excerpt from this last link (all emphasis mine)

I am often astonished at remarks that the legal nature of indulgences seem to prove that they are applicable only to the Latin Church and are thus foreign to our Eastern theology. Many people do not realize that the legal aspects of church life, including canon law, began in the East. The Emperor Justinian and the Byzantine court developed canons that are still the basis for many principles of law used in the church today.

[snip]

The idea of temporal punishment due to sin is not entirely foreign to our Eastern theology. In some Eastern cultures, the surviving family members of dead offer candy to passersby at a Memorial Service, especially on the Saturday of the Dead, praying that the person would offer forgiveness to the deceased for any wrongs, imagined or real. In the prayers of absolution said over the deceased, the Church prays for the dissolution of any bonds that would keep the deceased tied, in a temporal way, to the corpse or to an intermediate state of purification.

[snip]

Our Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have experienced theological developments and growth. We, as we walk with the successor of Peter, are not bound to the forms of the ancient East in a slavish manner, but rather interpret our liturgy and forms of prayer through the eyes and insights of a church that is both alive and evolving. It is a grave error to keep ourselves blindly confined to the theological ideas of the first 10 centuries. My family has been Melkite Catholic for many generations. Are we to discard our Catholic beliefs because they find their origins in Catholic thought of the 20th century? We appreciate and value our heritage, but we are open to the development of new theological insights as they develop under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We are a living Church.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by steve b

Bishop John A. Elya, will answer your questions

They accept the filioque as all doctrines the pope teaches, because they are 100% in union with the pope.
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j...n-the-melkites

making them a hundred per cent Catholic
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j...x-united-with-

What about indulgences, & legalism? or the concept of purification of the soul after death? Or development ?.
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j...of-indulgences

excerpt from this last link (all emphasis mine)

I am often astonished at remarks that the legal nature of indulgences seem to prove that they are applicable only to the Latin Church and are thus foreign to our Eastern theology. Many people do not realize that the legal aspects of church life, including canon law, began in the East. The Emperor Justinian and the Byzantine court developed canons that are still the basis for many principles of law used in the church today.

[snip]

The idea of temporal punishment due to sin is not entirely foreign to our Eastern theology. In some Eastern cultures, the surviving family members of dead offer candy to passersby at a Memorial Service, especially on the Saturday of the Dead, praying that the person would offer forgiveness to the deceased for any wrongs, imagined or real. In the prayers of absolution said over the deceased, the Church prays for the dissolution of any bonds that would keep the deceased tied, in a temporal way, to the corpse or to an intermediate state of purification.

[snip]

Our Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have experienced theological developments and growth. We, as we walk with the successor of Peter, are not bound to the forms of the ancient East in a slavish manner, but rather interpret our liturgy and forms of prayer through the eyes and insights of a church that is both alive and evolving. It is a grave error to keep ourselves blindly confined to the theological ideas of the first 10 centuries. My family has been Melkite Catholic for many generations. Are we to discard our Catholic beliefs because they find their origins in Catholic thought of the 20th century? We appreciate and value our heritage, but we are open to the development of new theological insights as they develop under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We are a living Church.

I mean no offense to His Grace, but Bishop John hardly speaks on behalf of the entire Melkite Church. In fact, he is one of only two bishops who refused to sign the famous Melkite declaration of Faith:

"I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches. I am in union with the Bishop of Rome as First Among Equals according to the limits recognized in the East during the First Millennium before the separation."

Now I know that this statement is deliberately somewhat vague, but the fact that Bishop John refused to sign it should be indicative of his attitude in re the difference between Eastern and Western approaches to the Faith.

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

I mean no offense to His Grace, but Bishop John hardly speaks on behalf of the entire Melkite Church. In fact, he is one of only two bishops who refused to sign the famous Melkite declaration of Faith:

Melkite declaration of Faith? What is it and why didn't he sign? Does the "declaration " contradict what Bp John wrote in those links provided?

while he may not speak for the entire Melkite Church, he seems very confident in what he does say, when speaking for the following
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-many-churches-are-in-the-american-melkite-eparchy

Originally Posted by P

"I believe everything that Orthodoxy teaches. I am in union with the Bishop of Rome as First Among Equals according to the limits recognized in the East during the First Millennium before the separation."

the links provided, Bp John is very specific on what "union with the pope" means.

Originally Posted by P

Now I know that this statement is deliberately somewhat vague, but the fact that Bishop John refused to sign it should be indicative of his attitude in re the difference between Eastern and Western approaches to the Faith.

How does that effect canon law?

re: (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

Bp John says, If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Is that agreeable?

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by steve b

How does that effect canon law?

re: (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

Bp John says, If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Is that agreeable?

Where did he say that?

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Where did he say that?

In this link which I gave previously.
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j...ited-with-rome


" If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church".

As you can see it's a direct quote from him Re: canon 43 in the Eastern Canons

[Peter J]

I see.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by steve b

re: (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

Bp John says, If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

I am wondering if an Eastern Catholic can not subscribe to this canon, where does such a person fit in this picture ... as an outsider looking in?

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

I am wondering if an Eastern Catholic can not subscribe to this canon, where does such a person fit in this picture ... as an outsider looking in?

Well, I don't know whether Bishop John ever answered that question or not. Frankly, just trying to figure out why he said "If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church." is a bit beyond me. The Catholic Church doesn't subscribe to Branch Theory.

Then again, you do have to wonder why there's such an incredible amount of interest in what Bishop John believes or doesn't believe ...

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Then again, you do have to wonder why there's such an incredible amount of interest in what Bishop John believes or doesn't believe ...

There isn't, as far as I can tell.

But if we quote him enough in public spaces some day when we are long gone he may be thought of as one of the great doctors of the church, and have parishes named after him.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Then again, you do have to wonder why there's such an incredible amount of interest in what Bishop John believes or doesn't believe ...

Well, in some places.

[steve b]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

I am wondering if an Eastern Catholic can not subscribe to this canon, where does such a person fit in this picture ... as an outsider looking in?

Are you asking if an E Catholic would deny the canon, where would that person be? As Bp John said, they would not be in union with the pope, they would not be Catholic, they would be Othodox.