Author Topic: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation  (Read 5271 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,194
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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.)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,194
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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.

 ???

I think you are very confused.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,526
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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 »
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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.

 ???

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?
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.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,194
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,194
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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.

 ???

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.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,395
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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.

 ???

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.  :P
« Last Edit: May 23, 2011, 06:44:45 PM by Wyatt »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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.

Offline James Joseph

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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?

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,526
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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 »
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,260
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation
« 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.