OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 07:03:58 PM *
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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation  (Read 5096 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #45 on: May 23, 2011, 06:00:36 PM »

The East-West schism is something of a muddy thing. Nowadays, the general Orthodox position is that rejecting the Filioque is absolutely necessary, and the general Catholic position is that holding it as a valid teaching is absolutely necessary, but east and west were in communion from 867 to 1054 with the west accepting the Filioque and the East rejecting it. Does that invalidate both Churches during that time?

The Pope accepts the Nicene Creed without the filioque, so it no longer appears to be an issue.
More important are the Papal Powers: Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility.
As long as the Pope holds onto those Papal Powers, we cannot have unity or intercommunion.

Sure the Pope accepts the Nicene Creed without the filioque; the question is, do you Orthodox accept the Nicene Creed with the filioque?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #46 on: May 23, 2011, 06:01:47 PM »

The Pope accepts the Nicene Creed without the filioque, so it no longer appears to be an issue.
More important are the Papal Powers: Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility.
As long as the Pope holds onto those Papal Powers, we cannot have unity or intercommunion.

Here is a book with Catholic and Orthodox discussions on the place of the Petrine ministry:
The Petrine Ministry. Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue. Academic symposium
held at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
Edited by Walter Kasper.(New York and Mahwah,New Jersey: The Newman
Press, Paulist Press. 2006. Pp. vi, 257. $24.95 paperback.)
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #47 on: May 23, 2011, 06:02:28 PM »

The East-West schism is something of a muddy thing. Nowadays, the general Orthodox position is that rejecting the Filioque is absolutely necessary, and the general Catholic position is that holding it as a valid teaching is absolutely necessary, but east and west were in communion from 867 to 1054 with the west accepting the Filioque and the East rejecting it. Does that invalidate both Churches during that time?

It was not until 1100 that the West replaced a legitimate Greek bishop with a Latin one for convenience in Antioch. It was not until after that that the West theologically embraced the filioque, as opposed to just using it in the creed. It's one thing to repeat a mistake, another to justify it.

 Huh

I think you are very confused.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #48 on: May 23, 2011, 06:05:04 PM »

The East-West schism is something of a muddy thing. Nowadays, the general Orthodox position is that rejecting the Filioque is absolutely necessary, and the general Catholic position is that holding it as a valid teaching is absolutely necessary, but east and west were in communion from 867 to 1054 with the west accepting the Filioque and the East rejecting it. Does that invalidate both Churches during that time?

The Pope accepts the Nicene Creed without the filioque, so it no longer appears to be an issue.
More important are the Papal Powers: Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility.
As long as the Pope holds onto those Papal Powers, we cannot have unity or intercommunion.

Sure the Pope accepts the Nicene Creed without the filioque; the question is, do you Orthodox accept the Nicene Creed with the filioque?

No, I do not as the filioque implies that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and from the Son. That is not true according to Orthodox beliefs.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 06:05:38 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #49 on: May 23, 2011, 06:13:11 PM »

The East-West schism is something of a muddy thing. Nowadays, the general Orthodox position is that rejecting the Filioque is absolutely necessary, and the general Catholic position is that holding it as a valid teaching is absolutely necessary, but east and west were in communion from 867 to 1054 with the west accepting the Filioque and the East rejecting it. Does that invalidate both Churches during that time?

It was not until 1100 that the West replaced a legitimate Greek bishop with a Latin one for convenience in Antioch. It was not until after that that the West theologically embraced the filioque, as opposed to just using it in the creed. It's one thing to repeat a mistake, another to justify it.

 Huh

I think you are very confused.

I'm not confused. The theological justifications for employing the filioque, to my knowledge, did not appear until after the schism. Can you point to pre-schism Western figures writing to justify its use?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #50 on: May 23, 2011, 06:35:46 PM »

No, I do not as the filioque implies that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and from the Son. That is not true according to Orthodox beliefs.

Well then it isn't right to say "The Pope accepts the Nicene Creed without the filioque, so it no longer appears to be an issue." If you don't/won't accept the filioque, then it is an issue.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #51 on: May 23, 2011, 06:37:33 PM »

The East-West schism is something of a muddy thing. Nowadays, the general Orthodox position is that rejecting the Filioque is absolutely necessary, and the general Catholic position is that holding it as a valid teaching is absolutely necessary, but east and west were in communion from 867 to 1054 with the west accepting the Filioque and the East rejecting it. Does that invalidate both Churches during that time?

It was not until 1100 that the West replaced a legitimate Greek bishop with a Latin one for convenience in Antioch. It was not until after that that the West theologically embraced the filioque, as opposed to just using it in the creed. It's one thing to repeat a mistake, another to justify it.

 Huh

I think you are very confused.

I'm not confused. The theological justifications for employing the filioque, to my knowledge, did not appear until after the schism. Can you point to pre-schism Western figures writing to justify its use?

The West knew that the filioque is theologically correct long before inserting it into the creed.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #52 on: May 23, 2011, 06:44:21 PM »

The East-West schism is something of a muddy thing. Nowadays, the general Orthodox position is that rejecting the Filioque is absolutely necessary, and the general Catholic position is that holding it as a valid teaching is absolutely necessary, but east and west were in communion from 867 to 1054 with the west accepting the Filioque and the East rejecting it. Does that invalidate both Churches during that time?

It was not until 1100 that the West replaced a legitimate Greek bishop with a Latin one for convenience in Antioch. It was not until after that that the West theologically embraced the filioque, as opposed to just using it in the creed. It's one thing to repeat a mistake, another to justify it.

 Huh

I think you are very confused.

I'm not confused. The theological justifications for employing the filioque, to my knowledge, did not appear until after the schism. Can you point to pre-schism Western figures writing to justify its use?

The West knew that the filioque is theologically correct long before inserting it into the creed.
Oh Lord. Now you've done it.  Tongue
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 06:44:45 PM by Wyatt » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 23, 2011, 07:55:45 PM »

The East-West schism is something of a muddy thing. Nowadays, the general Orthodox position is that rejecting the Filioque is absolutely necessary, and the general Catholic position is that holding it as a valid teaching is absolutely necessary, but east and west were in communion from 867 to 1054 with the west accepting the Filioque and the East rejecting it. Does that invalidate both Churches during that time?

The Pope accepts the Nicene Creed without the filioque, so it no longer appears to be an issue.
More important are the Papal Powers: Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility.
As long as the Pope holds onto those Papal Powers, we cannot have unity or intercommunion.

Sure the Pope accepts the Nicene Creed without the filioque; the question is, do you Orthodox accept the Nicene Creed with the filioque?

No, I do not as the filioque implies that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and from the Son. That is not true according to Orthodox beliefs.

It is not entirely clear that the reality of our respective views is this black and white.  It seems to me that there are ways in which universal Orthodoxy can accept filioque, and I include the possibility of accepting it through eternity..."as from one principle" does cause a few problems but the explanation on the part of Catholics is rejected rather than having the reality be refuted.  In other words Orthodox believers who are dead set against any western clarification of filioque simply say that we mean and meant something else than what we say we mean.

So it is not quite as clear as you write it above.
Logged

James Joseph
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Rite (Latin)
Posts: 15



« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2011, 08:51:29 PM »

The Pope accepts the Nicene Creed without the filioque, so it no longer appears to be an issue.
More important are the Papal Powers: Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility.
As long as the Pope holds onto those Papal Powers, we cannot have unity or intercommunion.

I have come across something like that before. A knowledgeable man who attends Eastern Catholic liturgies said that they don't say it.

Speaking of my Papa, could someone explain to me the expression 'protos of the praxis' and maybe expand it in terms of collegiality?
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2011, 08:59:59 PM »

The Pope accepts the Nicene Creed without the filioque, so it no longer appears to be an issue.
More important are the Papal Powers: Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility.
As long as the Pope holds onto those Papal Powers, we cannot have unity or intercommunion.

I have come across something like that before. A knowledgeable man who attends Eastern Catholic liturgies said that they don't say it.

Speaking of my Papa, could someone explain to me the expression 'protos of the praxis' and maybe expand it in terms of collegiality?

That might be best discussed in a new thread, if you would kindly start such a thread
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 09:00:20 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,193


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #56 on: January 30, 2013, 09:50:13 PM »

The East-West schism is something of a muddy thing. Nowadays, the general Orthodox position is that rejecting the Filioque is absolutely necessary, and the general Catholic position is that holding it as a valid teaching is absolutely necessary, but east and west were in communion from 867 to 1054 with the west accepting the Filioque and the East rejecting it. Does that invalidate both Churches during that time?

No, only one.
Logged
Tags: intercommunion 
Pages: « 1 2  All   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 0.072 seconds with 40 queries.