Topic: Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Intercommunion and Sunday Obligation

[Peter J]

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?

[stanley123]

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.)

[Peter J]

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.

[Maria]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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?

[Peter J]

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 J]

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.

[Wyatt]

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. 

[elijahmaria]

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.

[James Joseph]

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?

[Maria]

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

[JoeS2]

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.