Effects of the Filioque?

[ArmyMatt]

That would rest upon the idea that doctrine and formula are the same, which they aren't. Formula develops, doctrine doesn't, and the latter can be expressed in some cases with multiple, different formulas.

if the formula is true, it reflects true doctrine and is binding and must be accepted. they would not have to use it all over the place, but affirm it as true.

I never said the anathema was "wrong" only that it can be repealed. It is quite valid to anathematize someone for being a schismatic. As for promoting a heresy, the epithets applied to him in the liturgy are about schism rather than heresy as such. I do not think saying Christ has a united human-divine energy is heretical, I just think it is not our formula. Saying Christ has no human energy is certainly heretical, but Severus did not maintain that.

no, because the Holy Spirit speaks concerning doctrinal matters, and being anathema is doctrinal. so it would not be repealed. and the hymns speak of him confusing the Natures of Christ (as far as energy and will go, he was not a Eutychian and was more moderate) which makes him a heretic. John of Damascus affirms a united divine-human energy and that Severus is a heretic, so that is not the issue. the canons say he is a heretic. nowhere is Severus simply a schismatic, nor does it ever say that is why he was anathematized.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

if the formula is true, it reflects true doctrine and is binding and must be accepted. they would not have to use it all over the place, but affirm it as true.

They don't have to agree to use it though, they can reject it as binding for them in terms of use but they absolutely must formally and as the entire OO affirm the formula expresses the truth, especially since we have done the same for their formula. The ball is in their court here.

no, because the Holy Spirit speaks concerning doctrinal matters, and being anathema is doctrinal. so it would not be repealed. and the hymns speak of him confusing the Natures of Christ (as far as energy and will go, he was not a Eutychian and was more moderate) which makes him a heretic. John of Damascus affirms a united divine-human energy and that Severus is a heretic, so that is not the issue. the canons say he is a heretic. nowhere is Severus simply a schismatic, nor does it ever say that is why he was anathematized.

Being anathema of and in itself isn't doctrinal, doctrine is what was taught by Christ and the Apostles. If Christ and the Apostles had a list of anathematized people and passed that on, then it would be doctrinal. Anathema means formal separation from the Church. You can be anathematized on doctrinal grounds, especially if it is as an extension of an anathema of a doctrine, but I am arguing that Severus did not proliferate any heresies and that he is not, in the liturgy, anathematized for doctrinal reasons as such.

I do not know which hymns you are referring to. I know there are hymns anathematizing Severus, but the only clear reasons they give are for schism afaik.

John of Damascus certainly affirms Severus is a heretic, but that's far from infallible. Basil the Great was a tremendous admirer of Origen, that doesn't mean we must accept his opinion on Origen. And the situation is even more accentuated here, because Basil surely had a fine grasp of Origen's theology, whereas John of Damascus was under the impression that Severus was a Eutychian.

 

[ArmyMatt]

They don't have to agree to use it though, they can reject it as binding for them in terms of use but they absolutely must formally and as the entire OO affirm the formula expresses the truth, especially since we have done the same for their formula. The ball is in their court here.

and I said earlier that they would not need to add it anywhere, only formally affirm it as true, and therefore binding.

Being anathema of and in itself isn't doctrinal, doctrine is what was taught by Christ and the Apostles. If Christ and the Apostles had a list of anathematized people and passed that on, then it would be doctrinal. Anathema means formal separation from the Church. You can be anathematized on doctrinal grounds, especially if it is as an extension of an anathema of a doctrine, but I am arguing that Severus did not proliferate any heresies and that he is not, in the liturgy, anathematized for doctrinal reasons as such.

I do not know which hymns you are referring to. I know there are hymns anathematizing Severus, but the only clear reasons they give are for schism afaik.

John of Damascus certainly affirms Severus is a heretic, but that's far from infallible. Basil the Great was a tremendous admirer of Origen, that doesn't mean we must accept his opinion on Origen. And the situation is even more accentuated here, because Basil surely had a fine grasp of Origen's theology, whereas John of Damascus was under the impression that Severus was a Eutychian.

I told you the hymns earlier, which State why he is a heretic. our canons say the same thing. the Councils anathematized Him by name as a heretic. this is not just the opinion of a saint that may or may not be right. everything we confess about Severus is that he is anathema for heresy. no where does it say he is anathema for schism. and there is no one that I am aware of who was also anathematized for schism.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

and I said earlier that they would not need to add it anywhere, only formally affirm it as true, and therefore binding.

I guess this depends on what you mean as "binding". Obviously not in the sense that they have to use it.

I told you the hymns earlier, which State why he is a heretic. our canons say the same thing. the Councils anathematized Him by name as a heretic. this is not just the opinion of a saint that may or may not be right. everything we confess about Severus is that he is anathema for heresy. no where does it say he is anathema for schism. and there is no one that I am aware of who was also anathematized for schism.

I know you stated the hymns, but the hymns anathematizing Severus as far as I can tell specify things like schism and insubordination rather than heresy as such, the epithet "headless" for example did not refer to heresy, it meant insubordination to one's bishop.

As for the councils, that is a bit different, but canons of the councils are a wee bit more flexible than the liturgy. As I'm sure you know, we completely ignore numerous canons from Ecumenical Councils, often without formal repeal. Therefore there is no reason why a formal repeal cannot be applied here, although it would be a very difficult process. Saint Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch were formally reconciled, and I think that episode is very important as a precedent here.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I guess this depends on what you mean as "binding". Obviously not in the sense that they have to use it.

we don't really use the mia physis formula of St Cyril, but we absolutely must confess it

I know you stated the hymns, but the hymns anathematizing Severus as far as I can tell specify things like schism and insubordination rather than heresy as such, the epithet "headless" for example did not refer to heresy, it meant insubordination to one's bishop.

As for the councils, that is a bit different, but canons of the councils are a wee bit more flexible than the liturgy. As I'm sure you know, we completely ignore numerous canons from Ecumenical Councils, often without formal repeal. Therefore there is no reason why a formal repeal cannot be applied here, although it would be a very difficult process. Saint Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch were formally reconciled, and I think that episode is very important as a precedent here.

it's not just the canons, it's that he was anathema in the synodal statement, and it is clear in the sticharia for the feast of the seven Ecumenical Councils. those run him through the ringer for heresy.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

we don't really use the mia physis formula of St Cyril, but we absolutely must confess it

In that sense yes they must agree that two natures is binding.

it's not just the canons, it's that he was anathema in the synodal statement, and it is clear in the sticharia for the feast of the seven Ecumenical Councils. those run him through the ringer for heresy.

They run him through the ringer, yes, but not for heresy as such. At least that I can see.

It is clear that we are reading the intent of the hymns differently though. Personally I see schism as the central charge because only overtly accusing someone of headlessness doesn't seem a likely way to condemn someone for heresy. In cases of heresy the charge is generally the heresy, or no specified charge at all, but specifying headlessness, a charge which of itself is not as serious as heresy (although still quite serious), seems out of place if the person is being primarily convicted of a greater offense.

 

[ArmyMatt]

They run him through the ringer, yes, but not for heresy as such. At least that I can see.

It is clear that we are reading the intent of the hymns differently though. Personally I see schism as the central charge because only overtly accusing someone of headlessness doesn't seem a likely way to condemn someone for heresy. In cases of heresy the charge is generally the heresy, or no specified charge at all, but specifying headlessness, a charge which of itself is not as serious as heresy (although still quite serious), seems out of place if the person is being primarily convicted of a greater offense.

except some of the hymns bring up him confusing the Two Natures, not like Eutyches but he did in terms of will and energy. which, again, is why he was condemned. not simply because he was a schismatic.