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