Imposition?
In the spirit of this week’s OL conference, I link to a post by John at the blog Ad Orientem, a wonderful Orthodox blog I follow regularly. John comments on a post at the blog Energetic Procession (so yes, this is a blog post about a blog post about a blog post – ain’t the Internet great?) regarding the “imposition” of the filioque upon Eastern Catholics.
John makes an important point about the recitation of the filioque (or lack thereof) within Eastern Catholic Churches. Even if they do not recite the filioque, John notes that “You are who you are in communion with.” In other words, if you are in communion with someone, you are accepting the truth of what they believe, whether you proclaim it or not. Put more negatively, you cannot claim that what someone else believes is heresy if you are in communion with them, as your communion means that you accept that “heresy” as valid for some to believe. So it is true that Eastern Catholics cannot condemn the filioque as heresy (although it is important to note that within Orthodoxy there is debate as to whether the filoque is heresy or just a theologumen that was illegitimately added to the Creed)
Yet I must disagree with the idea that Rome still “imposes” the filioque on Eastern Catholics. Energetic Procession lists past events (none later than the 18th century) as proof of this claim, yet this is not the current practice of Rome, and even Pope John Paul II attended a liturgy in which the filioque was not recited. I realize that there is a serious difference in theology between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in regards to the filioque, but it is simply not correct to claim that Rome imposes this practice on Eastern Catholics.
I have often heard it said that Rome must change in order for Orthodoxy to accept reunion with them. Yet in this case it has changed its practice, but instead of acknowledging that change, the old practice is being dragged out like the bones of Pope Formosus in order to condemn Rome further.
About a decade ago, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity released a document regarding the issue of the filioque. It would be instructive for all interested to read it in full.
John,
Thanks for the visit. It seems to me that you are suggesting that Rome has officially declared that the Filioque could never be imposed and that the contingency of the creed is all in the past. I can’t see how that is the case.
Moreover, the document you link, apart from problems with its content, is a report. Is it something Rome has officially adopted via the Magisterium? I don’t think so.
The document is a “work in progress”. It isn’t “official” but as close to a definite statement as one could want.
Perry,
Thank you for your comment – I explored your blog some more and I enjoyed reading it.
All I am suggesting is that Rome does not “impose” the filioque on Eastern Catholics, as they are free to not recite it in their Liturgy. To suggest otherwise contradicts the facts. As to whether Rome could impose it in the future, I do not have a crystal ball, so I cannot say one way or another. But bringing up such a possibility (which looks extremely remote at best considering how things have developed in this regard over the years) seems to me to be a boogey-man to scare people away from Rome. I could bring up some remote yet unlikely possibilities that could happen within Orthodoxy in the future to scare people away from it, but to do so would not be a service to the cause of truth or unity.
The underlying – and legitimate – argument, it seems to me, is the authority of the Pope to impose a belief or practice upon the faithful. This, of course, is the crux of the schism and should be debated vigorously – but without the scare tactics.
Eric,
The imposition or non-imposition depends on which rite of Eastern Catholic one is a member of. Second, Rome has imposed it in the past. Third, the non-imposition is contingent. These were the points in the post that I thought were salient.
I am not suggesting any kind of boogy-man, but pointing out the current state of affairs. If the lack of the clause is contingent, then it is contingent. Second, bringing up something in Orthodoxy would need to start from a comparable basis, namely something that is formally contingent, say the permissability western rite liturgies. Otherwise any other comparison would fail to be an apt comparison.
My point was not use scare tactics, but to address an argument put forward by Catholics for the claim that Rome is more tolerant.
Btw, r u an Aggie?
Perry,
I am not an expert, but I am aware of no Eastern Catholic Church which has the filioque imposed upon them by Rome. They might choose to recite it, but no one in Rome is forcing them to do so. It is clear that current practice shows that Rome is “tolerant” of reciting the creed without the filioque for those in the Eastern tradition.
I am not an Aggie – I was born and raised in Ohio and now make my home in Maryland. In fact, I’ve never been to Texas.
VatI Session IV, 3.2.:
“Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.”
Given the above, how can any non-imposition be anything but contingent?
In this discussion it is frequently mentioned that Rome and changed her ways toward the Eastern Rites and we Orthodox should cease our whining about Roman interference in the Unia as exemplifying certain problems with a totalizing papacy. I was in a Ukranian Catholic Church in MPLS as recently as 7 years ago that had a priest ranting against Rome for a litany of what he felt were continued impositions. It has only been a generation since Zoghby and “The Cairo Circle” fought to get a relaxation of impositions. I think it is a bit hasty to expect Orthodox to now trust Rome on these matters. You cannot impose for hundreds of years, cease most imposition at the same time you press the self-destruct button on your own rite, and then wonder why the Orthodox are not running over to you in trust and ecclesial love. That just ain’t good form.
What part of Ohio are you from Eric?
I’m from Gallia County. Rio Grande to be exact. Now live in Memphis.
Yes. You can’t trust Rome about anything. Why it might reimpose the full Inquisition or re-start the practice of castratos in choirs.
Such logis is of course untenable.
Why not give Rome a bit of leeway?
Of course, Moscow “imposing” itself on Ukraine, why that’s a different matter. The EP seeking to “impose” on the Diaspora is also a different matter.
ochlophobist,
I am from Cincinnati, although I consider myself an East Coaster now.
I am quite familiar with the quote from Vatican I that you post, and I do not deny that the Bishop of Rome does have, in theory, authority to “impose” the saying of the filioque in the Creed on the entire Church. However, there is a big difference between theory on paper and actual practice in the real world.
The pope is the servant of the Church and of Tradition. As such, he does not “impose” things on the Church by his personal whim. For example, one might think from the Vatican I quote that the pope could declare that the Church must worship Mary as the 4th person of the Blessed Trinity if he desired, but in reality he can no more do that than I could. Papal primacy is still subservient to the greater Tradition of the Church and must be understood in that context.
Today the Catholic Church does not “impose” the filioque on Eastern Catholics. Whether this is “contingent” or not is irrelevant: the pope does not arbitrarily add practices that contradict that the Church has believed, taught, and confessed. And we have seen that the Catholic Church has accepted that the recitation of the filioque in the Creed is not part of the Eastern tradition and should not be imposed.
Whereas I understand that papal primacy as practiced by the Catholic Church is seen as a legitimate stumbling block to unity from the Orthodox perspective, I do not think examples such as the possible imposition of the filioque on Eastern Catholics is a realistic possibility that can be used against its practice.
But were such an imposition be reinstated in the future a Pope could appeal to the hundreds of years the filioque was imposed on the eastern churches. We are not talking about Mary or a fourth divine person here, we are talking about the reintroduction of an imposition that is well precedented. A Pope could articulate reasons for such a decision that reflect far more than whim.
I agree that a reintroduction of that imposition is not likely. But I also think that RCs do not realize how their rhetoric sounds in this regard. You change your practice with regard to this and other impositions within the last generation, after hundreds of years of impositions, and you then expect Orthodox to think the matter is settled. Little is settled with regard to RC discipline these days. There is pressure to return to more stable praxis in a number of areas. However unlikely, it is possible that a future Pope could return the filioque to the Eastern Rite Creed. And while I agree that there is a difference between what the Pope can do and what he may do (with regard to ecclesio-political expediency), in this case I am offended by this. Whether or not expediency restrains him, no man, in any office, should have the power to change the recitation of the Creed. Here again, the rhetoric usually employed disturbs me. An Orthodox recites VatI on universal papal jurisdiction. And what is the inevitable Catholic response? That this should not really matter to us Orthodox, because utility and expediency prevent the Pope from the full exercise of said authority. I’m sorry, but that is crass. If he has the authority, he has the authority. He has the authority to tell Eastern Catholics that they must recite the filioque in the Creed. From the Orthodox view, he should not have that authority, whatever the circumstances of utility and expediency happen to be at the moment. Utilities and expediencies will change. RCs tell me this dogma of VatI will not. That is one reason why I consider the union of the Orthodox and RCs to be an impossibility.
ochlophobist,
“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Please know that I have no intention of offending you nor any Orthodox Christian. But I do not deny that the Pope has ultimate authority in the Church – and in fact I think that this is a good thing. Yes, the papacy has been abused at time, but what office has not been abused in the Church? I hope and pray that the abuses might be repented of and then forgiven by all involved – we have to eventually give up past hurts if we are to move forward. And ultimately I believe that the office of the papacy is instituted by Christ and is a gift to the Church.
With my human eyes I do not see how the two Churches can be reconciled, but I have hope in the Lord, knowing, as he said, that nothing is impossible for him.