OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 12:10:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error  (Read 33330 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #360 on: April 30, 2011, 12:18:18 PM »

It would seem according to this that Apotheoun is not following the beliefs of the Melkite Church:



Relationship between Melkites and the Pope:  What is the relationship between our Bishops and the Pope? Are we obliged to accept dogmas like "The Immaculate Conception as it is defined by Rome?  Why are there differences in the way the Pope is commemorated between the various Eastern rites?

Bishop John's Answer:  God bless your eagerness to see clearly and concisely points that require volumes to elucidate and that have been object of controversy among many people of good will for too many years.

The truth is one, although interpreted in different ways, depending on where you stand. However, the same object could not be white for you and black for me, and we still pretend that we are both right. East and West see reality under  different angles sometimes, in complicated manners hard to explain here in short terms. Some people enjoy finding differences, and other (as I try to do as often as I can) focus on what unites us rather than on what separates us. In all cases, if we are Catholic, then we have to accept all Catholic dogmas.

You are right to think that " we are one of many Eastern autonomous Churches (self-governing) as the Ukrainians, the Ruthenians and other self-governing (sui juris) Eastern Catholic Churches. We hold that the Pope of Rome is infallible in important matters of faith and morality, when he speaks "ex cathedra", in his position as the visible head of the Catholic Church. We may interpret these dogmas in "Eastern" terms; however, we are not allowed to deny their truth without breaking the bond of unity with the Pope of Rome, the successor of St. Peter the Rock.

You are right also that we commemorate the Pope of Rome only once, namely at the end of the Anaphora. However, the exact mandated translation is "FIRST, Lord, remember His Holiness N. Pope of Rome, His Beatitude … etc."  Regardless of linguistic or historic pretexts,  "Among the first" translation has been repeatedly prohibited by me, as Melkite Eparch, and by my predecessors. I consider persisting in using "among the first…" in our Melkite churches in America as an open defiance to legitimate authority.

I wish you continued success in your endeavors. May our Lord direct your thoughts and words to His pleasure in truth and love.


http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #361 on: April 30, 2011, 12:26:28 PM »

Here is some more info regarding the Melkite view on the post-schism western councils:



View of the Post-Schism Councils: Must we Eastern Catholics consider the post-schism General Councils of the Roman Church Ecumenical like the Seven of the First Millennium?

Bishop John's Answer: Patriarch Gregory II Youssef-Sayour occupied the Melkite throne of Antioch for thirty-three years (1864-1897). At Vatican I, the Patriarch gave an impassioned plea to the assembled bishops in defense of the prerogatives of the ancient patriarchs. He said: "The Eastern Church attributes the highest and most complete power to the Pope, but in such a way that the fullness of his power is in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees. (Mansi 52,cols. 133-137). Patriarch Gregory finally signed the document Pastor aeternus but only after adding the phrase made famous at the earlier Council of Florence that expressed his reservations. He added: "salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum". {saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs}.

While the first seven ecumenical councils enjoy a place of prominence, especially in the East, both the Churches of the East and West have experienced local councils and synods throughout their rich histories. The early ecumenical councils met to resolve and articulate important Christological doctrines. The Melkite Church participated fully in Vatican I and Patriarch Gregory spoke clearly to his affirmation of the fullness of power enjoyed by the Petrine Office. The Patriarch was very concerned that the exercise of papal powers be "in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees." The second Vatican Council is seen to have completed the unfinished business of Vatican I with its special emphasis on ecclesiology, specifically on the nature of the Church.

Recent theological speculation has developed the concept of "communion of churches" with promising results for ecumenism and rapprochement with the Orthodox. It would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent.


http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #362 on: April 30, 2011, 01:31:36 PM »

Council of Trent: "What is the Melkite view vis-à-vis the Council of Trent and other such councils that the East was not represented at, and that reflect a specifically western vision of the church? Are we bound by them?

Bishop John's Answer: Although the Council of Trent was convened in order to meet the challenges of the Reformation in the west, the recapitulation of dogma concerning the sacraments that came from the Council has been an enriching source for the Churches of both east and west. Indeed, you will note that many Eastern theologians have reacted in various ways to the decrees of the Council of Trent. As Catholics, we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father. In some instances, the decrees of the Council have direct application to the discipline of the west only. Usually this can be discerned either by the decree itself or by its logical application to the discipline of the west.



http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #363 on: April 30, 2011, 01:32:57 PM »

Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.

In addition to what Wyatt has presented above, you would have to show us where these bishops have encouraged the faithful to believe or publicly promote the idea that any of the doctrine or dogma of the west are heresy or heterodox.  A brief scan of this forum and another forum where Todd spends a good bit of time will demonstrate that Todd does far more public damage to Catholic teaching that any of those bishops intended.

So...I think his critics all have quite valid points.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #364 on: May 01, 2011, 10:39:14 PM »

Is Apotheoun afraid to speak now that the true beliefs of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have been made known?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #365 on: May 01, 2011, 10:52:23 PM »

almasiiH qaam!
Is Apotheoun afraid to speak now that the true beliefs of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have been made known?
LOL. I sincerely doubt it. I know what they say in Antioch.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #366 on: May 02, 2011, 04:00:36 PM »

Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.
I don't consider him a correligionist. I think  that he has rejected the faith and put himself outside of communion with the Church, whether he thinks he has or hasn't.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #367 on: May 02, 2011, 04:29:42 PM »

almasiiH qaam!
Is Apotheoun afraid to speak now that the true beliefs of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have been made known?
LOL. I sincerely doubt it. I know what they say in Antioch.
Which is?

Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.
I don't consider him a correligionist. I think  that he has rejected the faith and put himself outside of communion with the Church, whether he thinks he has or hasn't.
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians. They are to a degree since they have Apostolic Succession and Sacraments, but he, like them, are not in full communion with us. The fact that he technically belongs to a Church that is canonically part of the Catholic Church does not mean he is in full communion when he believes as he does. You cannot just pick al a carte what doctrine/dogmas you want to believe in and still be in full communion with the Church. When we make a profession of faith before being confirmed, we profess that we believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and proclaims. That is something that needs to be taken very seriously.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 04:31:43 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #368 on: May 02, 2011, 06:21:08 PM »

almasiiH qaam!
Is Apotheoun afraid to speak now that the true beliefs of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have been made known?
LOL. I sincerely doubt it. I know what they say in Antioch.
Which is?

Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.
I don't consider him a correligionist. I think  that he has rejected the faith and put himself outside of communion with the Church, whether he thinks he has or hasn't.
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians. They are to a degree since they have Apostolic Succession and Sacraments, but he, like them, are not in full communion with us. The fact that he technically belongs to a Church that is canonically part of the Catholic Church does not mean he is in full communion when he believes as he does. You cannot just pick al a carte what doctrine/dogmas you want to believe in and still be in full communion with the Church. When we make a profession of faith before being confirmed, we profess that we believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and proclaims. That is something that needs to be taken very seriously.
Agreed. This is why I am a bit more lenient with our Orthodox brothers and sisters... They are not in full communion, whereas, Eastern Catholics are. To whom much has been given, much is expected.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #369 on: May 02, 2011, 06:31:06 PM »


I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians. They are to a degree since they have Apostolic Succession and Sacraments, but he, like them, are not in full communion with us. The fact that he technically belongs to a Church that is canonically part of the Catholic Church does not mean he is in full communion when he believes as he does. You cannot just pick al a carte what doctrine/dogmas you want to believe in and still be in full communion with the Church. When we make a profession of faith before being confirmed, we profess that we believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and proclaims. That is something that needs to be taken very seriously.

I think if we split the differences here Wyatt, you'd find that the Eastern Catholic Churches have more leeway than you realize.  The cutting edge is where you call the teachings of the last thousand years by the name of heterodox or heresy.  Todd falls off that edge.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #370 on: May 02, 2011, 06:33:51 PM »

delete
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 06:34:23 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #371 on: May 02, 2011, 06:47:20 PM »

almasiiH qaam!
Is Apotheoun afraid to speak now that the true beliefs of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have been made known?
LOL. I sincerely doubt it. I know what they say in Antioch.
Which is?
Much the same that Apotheum says, which is why the Melkites are among the biggest headaches for the Vatican.  The Melkites, for instance, haven't waited for the Vatican to approve of the ordination of married men in America.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #372 on: May 02, 2011, 06:51:59 PM »

I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #373 on: May 02, 2011, 07:04:52 PM »

I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
I know you didn't ask me, but I think we are bit further off than that. The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra, and we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #374 on: May 02, 2011, 11:10:13 PM »

I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
It is just not true. I used to think this way because, overall, we seem to be a lot more accepting and willing to unify with the Eastern Orthodox, but as a whole they have many, many problems with us. As Papist said, as long as they remain so anti-Latin and object to everything in the West simply because it is Western there will be no union.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,263



« Reply #375 on: May 02, 2011, 11:31:31 PM »

I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
I know you didn't ask me, but I think we are bit further off than that. The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra, and we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.
Do you think is this reality or perhaps you are having an emotional reaction to some of us less-than-tactful-and-charitable Orthodox? I know of very, very few Orthodox who actually think anything Latin is evil and I would consider the majority of the tiny number to be on this website. I think it's terribly silly to paint such broad strokes with that brush there.

Yes, the Latins have their problems, that's no surprise. I also don't think it's healthy for any of us to gloat over them. Sadly, the tone of postings around here and the rising emotions do not lend to Christian charity for either side (I am guilty of such). Personally, I try to take a different tact when discussing issues with the Latins that I had when I was one. There is much I disagree with the Latin church over a wide range of issues, but I do not hate the Latins or anything Latin. I have a great respect for the Latin church's venerable past and pray for her daily. I sincerely apologize if I ever gave off an impression of "anti-Latinism." As much as I love and desire for them to convert to Orthodoxy (it doesn't matter if it's Eastern or Western), part of me would love to see them be able to reform their church to how it was before the Schism. Perhaps, that is the work Western Orthodoxy is trying to achieve, albeit in a different manner.

Likewise, we Orthodox have our issues to deal with as well. It does neither of us any benefit to our souls or hearts when we engage in these wide-sweeping generalizations of who does what or who thinks this about that person or group. I believe that both (churches) of us have problems in each house that needs a lot of work, much of which is interior in each one of us as well as the other big doctrinal, spiritual, et al. issues that separate us. It saddens me how in my own postings it has been easy for me to devolve into polemics or excessive zeal without possessing that Christian love and hope that passes all understanding. Maybe we can shut the laptop or walk away from the computer when we feel the passions welling up inside us to shoot back with a remark. With God's grace, I will strive to start. I pray others may follow. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #376 on: May 03, 2011, 12:58:33 AM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #377 on: May 03, 2011, 01:28:39 AM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

The bolded portion is where the problem is.

To use biblical language, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Father and the Son and called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

When we (Orthodox) and the creed talk about procession, we talk about what the bible calls proceeding form the Father. The latin understaning of the filioque (please correct me if I'm wrong) deals with the sending forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and being called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. When we (Catholics and Orthodox) say "proceed", we are talking about two different things.

Most Catholic instruction and aplogetiecs I've seen and heard deal primarily with defending the filioque (both as a teaching in general and its usage in the creed) without making a very clear distinction between how the Holy Spirit personally relates to the Father and how the Holy Spirit corporately relates to the Father and the Son together. The only real exception that I can think of to this is the one document that clarifies the difference between the greek and latin usage, which was drawn up for dialogue and not necessarily for instruction of the faithful.
I have always understood this proceeding from both as from one to mean what St. John of Damascus means by the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. If the Father really is the ultimate source, then it is one source.

Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #378 on: May 03, 2011, 01:33:56 AM »

Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?

I don't know about St. John, but fwiw this article says that: "in 1136 and 1234, conciliatory solutions were suggested by the Orthodox, such as the phrase 'the spirit proceeds from the father through the son'"... I wonder how common such suggestions were, or if this was a rare aberration...
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,020


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #379 on: May 03, 2011, 06:11:25 AM »

Quote from: Shlomlokh

Likewise, we Orthodox have our issues to deal with as well. It does neither of us any benefit to our souls or hearts when we engage in these wide-sweeping generalizations of who does what or who thinks this about that person or group. I believe that both (churches) of us have problems in each house that needs a lot of work, much of which is interior in each one of us as well as the other big doctrinal, spiritual, et al. issues that separate us. It saddens me how in my own postings it has been easy for me to devolve into polemics or excessive zeal without possessing that Christian love and hope that passes all understanding. Maybe we can shut the laptop or walk away from the computer when we feel the passions welling up inside us to shoot back with a remark. With God's grace, I will strive to start. I pray others may follow. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew


Well said.  Smiley
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #380 on: May 03, 2011, 10:20:36 AM »

I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
I know you didn't ask me, but I think we are bit further off than that. The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra, and we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.
Do you think is this reality or perhaps you are having an emotional reaction to some of us less-than-tactful-and-charitable Orthodox? I know of very, very few Orthodox who actually think anything Latin is evil and I would consider the majority of the tiny number to be on this website. I think it's terribly silly to paint such broad strokes with that brush there.

Yes, the Latins have their problems, that's no surprise. I also don't think it's healthy for any of us to gloat over them. Sadly, the tone of postings around here and the rising emotions do not lend to Christian charity for either side (I am guilty of such). Personally, I try to take a different tact when discussing issues with the Latins that I had when I was one. There is much I disagree with the Latin church over a wide range of issues, but I do not hate the Latins or anything Latin. I have a great respect for the Latin church's venerable past and pray for her daily. I sincerely apologize if I ever gave off an impression of "anti-Latinism." As much as I love and desire for them to convert to Orthodoxy (it doesn't matter if it's Eastern or Western), part of me would love to see them be able to reform their church to how it was before the Schism. Perhaps, that is the work Western Orthodoxy is trying to achieve, albeit in a different manner.

Likewise, we Orthodox have our issues to deal with as well. It does neither of us any benefit to our souls or hearts when we engage in these wide-sweeping generalizations of who does what or who thinks this about that person or group. I believe that both (churches) of us have problems in each house that needs a lot of work, much of which is interior in each one of us as well as the other big doctrinal, spiritual, et al. issues that separate us. It saddens me how in my own postings it has been easy for me to devolve into polemics or excessive zeal without possessing that Christian love and hope that passes all understanding. Maybe we can shut the laptop or walk away from the computer when we feel the passions welling up inside us to shoot back with a remark. With God's grace, I will strive to start. I pray others may follow. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

I never expected to hear this from you.  Truly, and I don't say that in any manner of mean spiritedness.  I had simply come to expect your ordinary manner of speaking here and had started pretty much skipping your posts on Orthodox-Catholic topics.  Other things no, but these topics yes. 

Now to hear you say these words...I just got tears in my eyes.  Thank you!!

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #381 on: May 03, 2011, 10:25:19 AM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 10:25:56 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #382 on: May 03, 2011, 10:43:18 AM »

I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
I know you didn't ask me, but I think we are bit further off than that. The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra, and we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.

Oh that's alright. (Actually, I believe I've asked you that question, or a similar one, on a prior occasion.)

I quite agree with you that "we are bit further off than that".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #383 on: May 03, 2011, 10:48:15 AM »

Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).

Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #384 on: May 03, 2011, 10:48:55 AM »

Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?

I don't know about St. John, but fwiw this article says that: "in 1136 and 1234, conciliatory solutions were suggested by the Orthodox, such as the phrase 'the spirit proceeds from the father through the son'"... I wonder how common such suggestions were, or if this was a rare aberration...
I think that that would have been the best solution.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #385 on: May 03, 2011, 10:50:32 AM »

I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
It is just not true. I used to think this way because, overall, we seem to be a lot more accepting and willing to unify with the Eastern Orthodox, but as a whole they have many, many problems with us. As Papist said, as long as they remain so anti-Latin and object to everything in the West simply because it is Western there will be no union.

Yes, I think there's certain amount of anti-Western bias on this forum. (I say anti-Western, and not just anti-Latin, because it seems like it is at least as much against Anglicans and Protestants as against Latin Catholics -- although it's a little hard to judge because most of the thread I read have very few posts from Protestants.)

As far as Fr. Neuhaus' idea goes, I think it's safe to say that most of the Orthodox posters -- in addition to you, me, and Chris -- would disagree with it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #386 on: May 03, 2011, 12:05:25 PM »

Christos resurrexit!
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).


Yes, that Latin preposition confusion of "from" and "through."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #387 on: May 03, 2011, 12:10:30 PM »

Christos resurrexit!
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).


Yes, that Latin preposition confusion of "from" and "through."
It's not a confusion in Latin. It's only a confusion for the Greeks.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #388 on: May 03, 2011, 02:15:27 PM »

Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?

And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation. Wherefore the Holy Spirit is the perfecter of the creation of the universe. All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, as cause, source, begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone: while those that are appropriate to the caused, begotten Son, Word, immediate power, will, wisdom, are to be ascribed to the Son: and those that are appropriate to the caused, processional, manifesting, perfecting power, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit: Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Effulgence, Impress of the Father and derived from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #389 on: May 03, 2011, 02:17:32 PM »

I know you didn't ask me, but I think we are bit further off than that. The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra, and we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.

I don't think this would solve everything, but it would be a huge step and bring us much closer together.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #390 on: May 03, 2011, 02:26:15 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!

Mary, I don't care about your church's revisionist interpretation of its historic dogma on the filioque any more than I care about the Byzantines' revisionist interpretation of their two natures dogma at Chalcedon. What a church says was the nature of their historic dogma is not necessarily true.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #391 on: May 03, 2011, 02:28:02 PM »

Somewhere, I remember saying that St John taught that the greek and latin expressions were complementary in theological writings. I was wrong, it was St Maximus.

Quote
With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

...

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodal letters] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #392 on: May 03, 2011, 02:51:27 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!

Mary, I don't care about your church's revisionist interpretation of its historic dogma on the filioque any more than I care about the Byzantines' revisionist interpretation of their two natures dogma at Chalcedon. What a church says was the nature of their historic dogma is not necessarily true.

There is no revision.  That's fact.  You aren't really in a position to judge in any event.
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #393 on: May 03, 2011, 03:33:41 PM »

A pause, especially in light of Melodist's recent post.

After all the sound and fury of this thread, can folks chime in on whether they believe that difference is primarily an unhappy linguistic misunderstanding compounded by surrounding complications of the time and further complicated by the time the RC and OC spent out of touch with each other?

Or is the difference such a stumbling block in and of itself?

After reading this thread and the limited writings by EO authors on this issue, I've come to believe the former.

And in this thread, it seems to me that the RCs, for the most part, have been the more accommodating and willing to compromise, as it were, than the EOs here.

IIRC, even Papist would be for the removal of the filioque with the caveat that understanding of it within RC theology be allowed to remain, if it were to help bring the RC and OC closer together.

In terms of division, I just don't see the filioque being a strong reason, especially at the grass roots level, for the division between the Churches today. Papal authority much so.

If in the letter of this thread, the EOs might have the upper hand, it seems to me that the RCs have demonstrated a greater degree of charity and willingness to compromise.



 
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #394 on: May 03, 2011, 03:41:55 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!

Mary, I don't care about your church's revisionist interpretation of its historic dogma on the filioque any more than I care about the Byzantines' revisionist interpretation of their two natures dogma at Chalcedon. What a church says was the nature of their historic dogma is not necessarily true.

There is no revision.  That's fact.  You aren't really in a position to judge in any event.

I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

If EOs and RCs have come to develop a more generous understanding of the differences of the past, is that a bad thing?

If EM is offering a RC view of the difference which makes reconciliation more likely, why is that a problem? The Church has developed over time in understanding of many things. If RCs and EOs have come to a better understanding of each other's point of view, which could eliminate this divisive subject, I just don't see the problem.

   
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #395 on: May 03, 2011, 03:43:41 PM »

Christos resurrexit!
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).


Yes, that Latin preposition confusion of "from" and "through."
It's not a confusion in Latin. It's only a confusion for the Greeks.
Of course, because the Fathers at the Second Ecumenical Council-who were not in communion with Rome at the time-only spoke Latin. Roll Eyes
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #396 on: May 03, 2011, 03:56:22 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!

Mary, I don't care about your church's revisionist interpretation of its historic dogma on the filioque any more than I care about the Byzantines' revisionist interpretation of their two natures dogma at Chalcedon. What a church says was the nature of their historic dogma is not necessarily true.

There is no revision.  That's fact.  You aren't really in a position to judge in any event.

I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?
   

The truth is most important.  There has been no change in the formal teachings of the Church on filioque.  In fact the language has not even developed over time.  So what point would there be to yielding because someone says on a discussion forum that the teaching has changed?

M.
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #397 on: May 03, 2011, 04:04:39 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!

Mary, I don't care about your church's revisionist interpretation of its historic dogma on the filioque any more than I care about the Byzantines' revisionist interpretation of their two natures dogma at Chalcedon. What a church says was the nature of their historic dogma is not necessarily true.

There is no revision.  That's fact.  You aren't really in a position to judge in any event.

I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?
   

The truth is most important.  There has been no change in the formal teachings of the Church on filioque.  In fact the language has not even developed over time.  So what point would there be to yielding because someone says on a discussion forum that the teaching has changed?

M.

Well, the post was more directed at deusveritasest, but . . .

If you and I disagree on something past, and after discussing it we realize that perhaps we are more in agreement than we thought or never in disagreement, does it make sense to end the discussion and say well, we might be in agree now, but forget it cause we didn't understand each other before.

Weird.

I guess you can say "Truth is Truth", but then an EO can say well then why the addition of the filioque to begin with, if you agree the Creed is Truth without it, and thus we begin all over again.

Guess I am tired of watching RC and EO back-and-forths over stuff which probably few outside very small circles care much about.

Guess, with this subject, I've had my fill, OK?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #398 on: May 03, 2011, 04:16:18 PM »


I guess you can say "Truth is Truth", but then an EO can say well then why the addition of the filioque to begin with, if you agree the Creed is Truth without it, and thus we begin all over again.

Guess I am tired of watching RC and EO back-and-forths over stuff which probably few outside very small circles care much about.

Guess, with this subject, I've had my fill, OK?

Yup!! Got it now.  Sorry for being dense...

M.
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,020


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #399 on: May 03, 2011, 05:49:49 PM »

A pause, especially in light of Melodist's recent post.

After all the sound and fury of this thread, can folks chime in on whether they believe that difference is primarily an unhappy linguistic misunderstanding compounded by surrounding complications of the time and further complicated by the time the RC and OC spent out of touch with each other?

Or is the difference such a stumbling block in and of itself?

After reading this thread and the limited writings by EO authors on this issue, I've come to believe the former.

It would seem to be; let's remember that the formal Schism didn't come about until 1054, although ultra-purists may insist on something else- but 1054 is the date on which most historians agree; and yet that was hundreds of years after the appearance of the actual clause. There was not a one day-one year-one step jump from the filioque to *kaboom* the Schism. It wasn't an all-of-a-sudden thing. We hardly ever hear people mention that, but there it is: the final split actually took a long time.

This whole thing reminds me of the confusion over the Council of Chalcedon and the language used there. It took a long time, but the EO and OO seemed to figure out that their actual beliefs were not very different, rather that the language of certain decisions had caused confusion and complication. Today, we have heard many times that the two groups are not far from drafting some sort of declaration which clears up the issue and corrects the division. That will allow them to be in full communion again.

I don't think there are too many things that can 'never' be solved. What would you do if you actually got what you wanted? What would anyone say if they got up one morning and saw a headline that read, "RCC amends Creed..." and it's bye-bye filioque? I'm not sure that alone is enough for full communion, but it would be a big step. It would be *something.*

I hope it's not a case of people on both sides being so ticked off forever, that they are determined to hold onto some kind of conflict for its own sake; or that they like to be separated because it gives 'em something to feel bad about. It'd be even more of a shame if this business carried on for *another* 950 years.  Cry

Christ made one church. Not two, not 30,000, one. It seems sometimes that people want to ignore each other, instead of trying to heal the body of Christ. Let's just pretend such-and-such people have fallen off the face of the Earth, instead of calling a council and fixing what needs to be fixed. If you don't think your side is the one that needs fixing, then you should at the very least want to bring your former brethren back into the fold. Christians should want to bring people to Christ.

We can sit here and call each other heretics forever. Everyone, again, is forgetting that the excommunications of 1054 of both churches against each other were rescinded in 1965.

Yep. Game's over. I'm sorry for those of you who still want to scrap it out.  Roll Eyes

Yes, there is a long way to go. But why is it so bad to want to go?  Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #400 on: May 03, 2011, 06:01:16 PM »

I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

"Revisionist is just baiting"? No, it indicates that I believe that they have revised their historical dogmatic teaching.

Why is this a problem? It isn't totally problematic. Them coming to a more Orthodox doctrine is certainly not a bad thing. What is the bad thing is them insisting that a heretical document was indeed Orthodox and that to have reunion we must accept that, when we are convinced that it was in fact heretical. If there was reunion between the RC and EO, even if the RC had come to an Orthodox interpretation of Florence, I think Florence must be abandoned because the Church determined that it was heretical and their interpretation of it is delusional. I say the same about Chalcedon. The problem is that the Orthodox still view the dogmatic definition of Florence as heretical and therefore it cannot have any place in the faith of the Church.

If EOs and RCs have come to develop a more generous understanding of the differences of the past, is that a bad thing?

If that had actually happened, things would be different. As it is, it still appears to me that the Orthodox position is that "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle" is heretical and thus must be abandoned for reunion to be accomplished.

If EM is offering a RC view of the difference which makes reconciliation more likely, why is that a problem?

It doesn't make reconciliation more likely if the Church's position on the actual, original meaning of the formulation remains the same.

The Church has developed over time in understanding of many things. If RCs and EOs have come to a better understanding of each other's point of view, which could eliminate this divisive subject, I just don't see the problem.

If the RC have an Orthodox interpretation of this, then that is fine and they should be able to retain that. I don't find Mary's interpretation of the filioque to be heretical, and I wouldn't have a problem with that doctrine being expressed within the Orthodox Church. However, so long as judgment of the nature of Florence's doctrine remains distinct, and as long as the RCs continue to insist that they be allowed to confess Florence, then reunion cannot happen.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #401 on: May 03, 2011, 06:02:51 PM »

The truth is most important.  There has been no change in the formal teachings of the Church on filioque.  In fact the language has not even developed over time.  So what point would there be to yielding because someone says on a discussion forum that the teaching has changed?

Mary, I did not suggest that the teaching of the Roman church has changed. I only said that I think that your teaching on the filioque is different from that of your historical church. For all I know it has not changed and your teaching is different even from your church as it is now.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #402 on: May 03, 2011, 06:10:03 PM »

I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

"Revisionist is just baiting"? No, it indicates that I believe that they have revised their historical dogmatic teaching.

Why is this a problem? It isn't totally problematic. Them coming to a more Orthodox doctrine is certainly not a bad thing. What is the bad thing is them insisting that a heretical document was indeed Orthodox and that to have reunion we must accept that, when we are convinced that it was in fact heretical. If there was reunion between the RC and EO, even if the RC had come to an Orthodox interpretation of Florence, I think Florence must be abandoned because the Church determined that it was heretical and their interpretation of it is delusional. I say the same about Chalcedon. The problem is that the Orthodox still view the dogmatic definition of Florence as heretical and therefore it cannot have any place in the faith of the Church.


Frankly my Church teaches what was taught at Florence today.  The difficulty is that it was misunderstood then and it is misunderstood now.

Who the dickens are you to gainsay that?...

M.
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #403 on: May 03, 2011, 06:11:47 PM »


We can sit here and call each other heretics forever. Everyone, again, is forgetting that the excommunications of 1054 of both churches against each other were rescinded in 1965.

I am probably being lazy here, but could you say more about this or provide a link. Not famliar with this at all.

Thanks.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,020


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #404 on: May 03, 2011, 06:15:19 PM »

Here you go:

"July 16 – Cardinal Humbertus, a representative of Pope Leo IX, and Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, decree each other's excommunication. Most historians look to this act as the final step in the initiation of the Great Schism between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian Churches. In 1965, those excommunications are rescinded by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras when they meet in the Second Vatican Council. However, to this day each church claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and each denies the other's right to that name. (See East-West Schism)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1054


(I added the underline.)
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Tags: filioque 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.194 seconds with 72 queries.