OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 10:08:28 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 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hopko's list of points  (Read 7624 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,228


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2011, 05:54:25 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?




I thinik that the biggest problem is it is an addition to the creed. No matter how it is interpreted. I know some Orthodox that make that argument and they follow it up with, "Nothing else really matters. They edited the creed and wont back off of it." Thats a pretty big argument to alot of folks.


PP

The core idea of filioque is older than creed, catholics we don't say that such adition is an innovation, but a recognition and emphasis in a truth the church fathers didn'tdiscused in the council.
Thats the problem. Rome is known for its "innovations".

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2011, 05:59:36 PM »

Thats the problem. Rome is known for its "innovations".

PP

Not at all,  perhaps I should recall Nestorius patriarch of Constantinople, or what about iconoclastics, etc. etc.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2011, 06:21:15 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
We can't drop it because its true.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2011, 07:07:23 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

From the opposite end, so long as papal infallibility were gone I'd be more than ok with the Roman Church continuing to recite the filioque (so long as we aren't required to add it). The Western Church has long had many oft recited creeds that weren't from the Ecumenical Councils- the Apostles' Creed for one.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,739


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2011, 07:11:52 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

I'd be pretty happy.
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/
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2011, 07:21:52 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
We can't drop it because its true.

So we can add anything to the Creed if it is "true" and then not drop it in virtue of that?

Like the amount of jolly ranchers I ate last year? (The answer is zero, BTW.)

Oh well Papist, I had higher hopes . . .



Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2011, 07:23:11 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
We can't drop it because its true.

So we can add anything to the Creed if it is "true" and then not drop it in virtue of that?

Like the amount of jolly ranchers I ate last year? (The answer is zero, BTW.)

Oh well Papist, I had higher hopes . . .




Dropping it would be damaging to the faithful. Some might be scandalized.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2011, 07:31:55 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
We can't drop it because its true.

So we can add anything to the Creed if it is "true" and then not drop it in virtue of that?

Like the amount of jolly ranchers I ate last year? (The answer is zero, BTW.)

Oh well Papist, I had higher hopes . . .




Dropping it would be damaging to the faithful. Some might be scandalized.

In the world I suggested, in the thought experiment, you think the unity brought forth over a single dispute would not outweigh the "scandal".

And really, it seems the RCs would delight perhaps in this sorta scandal given your recent ones.

As noted above, I ain't got no problem with the way you all explain it. I don't care if that is how it started.

In our adult education thing at the parish, a disgruntled RC tried bringing up the filioque as the work of Satan basically.

Be happy, that I defended you all to the last breath. Because it is true and charitable.

I think I scandalized nearly everyone else in the room for my comments about the EOs desire not to listen to what RCs TODAY say about the filioque.

Scandal ain't always bad. Truth and love.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #53 on: December 13, 2011, 07:36:06 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...
I would be ok with it being changed to "through the Son" to more clearly express what we mean.

In simple and non-fight with Isa bickering language, why not just drop it?

I mean ,if unity stood in the balance, everything, including Papal infallibility had been resolved and the only thing standing in the way of the unity was simply dropping the filioque and you got to decide what to do:

Would you drop it?

Or keep it in spite of all other matters being resolved and keep the division?
We can't drop it because its true.

So we can add anything to the Creed if it is "true" and then not drop it in virtue of that?

Like the amount of jolly ranchers I ate last year? (The answer is zero, BTW.)

Oh well Papist, I had higher hopes . . .




Dropping it would be damaging to the faithful. Some might be scandalized.

In the world I suggested, in the thought experiment, you think the unity brought forth over a single dispute would not outweigh the "scandal".

And really, it seems the RCs would delight perhaps in this sorta scandal given your recent ones.

As noted above, I ain't got no problem with the way you all explain it. I don't care if that is how it started.

In our adult education thing at the parish, a disgruntled RC tried bringing up the filioque as the work of Satan basically.

Be happy, that I defended you all to the last breath. Because it is true and charitable.

I think I scandalized nearly everyone else in the room for my comments about the EOs desire not to listen to what RCs TODAY say about the filioque.

Scandal ain't always bad. Truth and love.
Well, I really appreciate your honesty, and the more I think about it, if dropping it from the Creed, while maitaining it as an article of faith, would bring unity, then I wouldn't be against it. Not everything we believe is in the Creed. Thank you for giving me some food for thought.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 14, 2011, 01:03:04 AM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

From the opposite end, so long as papal infallibility were gone I'd be more than ok with the Roman Church continuing to recite the filioque (so long as we aren't required to add it). The Western Church has long had many oft recited creeds that weren't from the Ecumenical Councils- the Apostles' Creed for one.

Thank you!  I think that's the solution.  There is a theology of filioque that is not heretical, and it is the long tradition of the western church now.  Allow them to hold to their tradition as you wish to hold to your own.  There is room for that between us.

M.
Logged

Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2011, 12:14:42 PM »

wow he left some stuff off the list...if you're gonna aim for the stars...
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2011, 01:10:07 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christijavascript:void(0);an be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen
Then there will never be union.
So be it. The Church will continue to be the Church with or without the East.

I am truly glad that we, the self appointed representatives of both the Orthodox Churches and the Church of Rome, have exhausted any efforts regarding union, determining them to be futile, and have reverted to our time honored traditions. Who is sending out the snail mail notices to everyone else? Roll Eyes
I don't think what I said was that scandalous. It's simple. We believe that we are the Church, you guys believe that you are the Church. Neither of us needs union with the other one to become the Church because we both view ourselves as whole and complete already, with or without the presence of the other. Would reunion be nice? Sure. Do I think it will happen any time soon? Not at all.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2011, 01:14:45 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

From the opposite end, so long as papal infallibility were gone I'd be more than ok with the Roman Church continuing to recite the filioque (so long as we aren't required to add it). The Western Church has long had many oft recited creeds that weren't from the Ecumenical Councils- the Apostles' Creed for one.

Thank you!  I think that's the solution.  There is a theology of filioque that is not heretical, and it is the long tradition of the western church now.  Allow them to hold to their tradition as you wish to hold to your own.  There is room for that between us.

M.
schism and heresy has made plenty of room.  A chasm in fact.

Persisting in heresy does not stand as the equal of holding to Orthodoxy.

There are plenty of theologies of filioque which are heretical (even by the Vatican's standards) which more than obviates and voids any "theology of filioque that is not heretical."  There is a long tradition of heresy in the western church now.  It needs to loose it.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #58 on: December 15, 2011, 01:17:04 PM »

Thats the problem. Rome is known for its "innovations".

PP

Not at all,  perhaps I should recall Nestorius patriarch of Constantinople, or what about iconoclastics, etc. etc.
or what about Pope Honorius of Rome?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #59 on: December 15, 2011, 01:19:42 PM »

The Orthodox would do well to show that an infallible head of the Church is not necessary by settling some of the more ridiculous antics by its own leaders over authority and prestige.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #60 on: December 15, 2011, 01:26:27 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?
Rather odd you should ask, as the Emperor Theodosius I was bred, born and baptized in Hispania, where he grew up, and he called the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I which set its seal on the Catholic Creed (without filioque), and he made it the state Creed (without filioque).

We won't accept anyone to preserve filioque.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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: 37,124



« Reply #61 on: December 15, 2011, 01:30:02 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

The Pope recites the Creed without filioque in greek.

In Spanish filioque is as old as the year 400, and spanish speakers are as many as half of all catholics. I turn the question back to you, if the ancient christians of the east accepted hispanic chiristians despite filioque, Would you accept hispanics to preserve it?




I thinik that the biggest problem is it is an addition to the creed. No matter how it is interpreted. I know some Orthodox that make that argument and they follow it up with, "Nothing else really matters. They edited the creed and wont back off of it." Thats a pretty big argument to alot of folks.


PP

The core idea of filioque is older than creed,

So is the core idea of Arianism.

catholics we don't say that such adition is an innovation, but a recognition and emphasis in a truth the church fathers didn'tdiscused in the council.
Coulnd't have desearved recognition and emphasis if the Fathers, discussing the Truth of the matter (and the divinity and consubstantial nature of the Holy Spirit was THE topic of the Council) picked a term right out of the mouth of Christ Himself to define the Gospel Truth that precludes filioque (which now even your supreme pontiff admits, not allowing it to be said in the Greek).
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
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #62 on: December 15, 2011, 10:57:24 PM »

I thinik that the biggest problem is it is an addition to the creed. No matter how it is interpreted. I know some Orthodox that make that argument and they follow it up with, "Nothing else really matters. They edited the creed and wont back off of it." Thats a pretty big argument to alot of folks.


PP
The core idea of filioque is older than creed, catholics we don't say that such adition is an innovation, but a recognition and emphasis in a truth the church fathers didn'tdiscused in the council.

The western traditional theology of the filioque and the context of the procession of the Holy Spirit as it is written in the creed are two entirely different things. Filioque is fine in theology, but not in the creed. Editing the creed (we do it at the consecration of a bishop) or writing a different one (there is nothing wrong with the apostles creed) aren't that big of a deal, but defending the filioque in the creed is like saying that because ducks and geese are both types of birds, then ducks are the same thing as geese, and because we've been saying it long enough, it must be true.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #63 on: December 23, 2011, 01:38:52 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

YES!
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #64 on: December 23, 2011, 01:50:08 PM »

Are there any catholics here that would be ok with removing the filioque? Just curious...

YES!

If my Church sees fit to remove the filioque from the Creed, I will obey and happily recite it sans filioque.  If it sees fit to not do so, I will happily continue to recite the Creed with the filioque.  For me it really is a non-issue.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« Reply #65 on: January 12, 2012, 10:08:18 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen

I quite agree. Nevertheless, it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

I guess, from the Orthodox p.o.v., it's kind of a "glass half empty vs. half full" situation: on the one hand, they aren't happy that we have "and from the Son" in the creed; on the other hand, they can be glad that we haven't inserted the word "eternally" (although we could do so, since we do of course believe that the procession of the Spirit from both Father and Son is eternal).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #66 on: January 12, 2012, 10:24:37 PM »

Quote
•He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)
Not gonna happen

I quite agree. Nevertheless, it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

I guess, from the Orthodox p.o.v., it's kind of a "glass half empty vs. half full" situation: on the one hand, they aren't happy that we have "and from the Son" in the creed; on the other hand, they can be glad that we haven't inserted the word "eternally" (although we could do so, since we do of course believe that the procession of the Spirit from both Father and Son is eternal).

You will have noticed that Archpriest Hopko's explanation completely eviscerates the Roman Catholic teaching on the filioque.  This, after all. is what must be done away with....

"•He [the Pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)"


Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #67 on: January 12, 2012, 10:30:39 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #68 on: January 12, 2012, 10:39:18 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #69 on: January 12, 2012, 11:21:24 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #70 on: January 12, 2012, 11:36:26 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #71 on: January 12, 2012, 11:41:14 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #72 on: January 13, 2012, 02:05:57 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 02:06:17 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #73 on: January 13, 2012, 03:30:49 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #74 on: January 13, 2012, 03:40:15 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
What is wrong with saying that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but that filioque, correctly understood means the sending of the Spirit by the Son? That is exactly what St. Photios thought. His musings on whether the filioque might be retained in some churches as a pastoral issue has nothing to do with theology but rather with discipline. His theology on this issue is Orthodox.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 03:40:52 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #75 on: January 13, 2012, 03:56:57 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
What is wrong with saying that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but that filioque, correctly understood means the sending of the Spirit by the Son? That is exactly what St. Photios thought. His musings on whether the filioque might be retained in some churches as a pastoral issue has nothing to do with theology but rather with discipline. His theology on this issue is Orthodox.

The filioque has become so tainted given its crucial role in the Schism that nothing short of its complete rejection would be satisfactory. What next - a pastoral accommodation for the likes of the immaculate conception?
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #76 on: January 13, 2012, 04:23:02 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
What is wrong with saying that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but that filioque, correctly understood means the sending of the Spirit by the Son? That is exactly what St. Photios thought. His musings on whether the filioque might be retained in some churches as a pastoral issue has nothing to do with theology but rather with discipline. His theology on this issue is Orthodox.

The filioque has become so tainted given its crucial role in the Schism that nothing short of its complete rejection would be satisfactory. What next - a pastoral accommodation for the likes of the immaculate conception?
Oh come on, where did Fr. Thomas Hopko say anything remotely like that? Let's look at what he wrote again:
Quote
[The Pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

It's clear that what he believes to be the ideal scenario would be one where Pope confirms the original text and defends its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. He then goes on to say that if for some reason some churches are allowed for pastoral reasons to keep the filioque in the creed, then the pope should make it clear that it can only be understood as the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit. When you read that line in context, it doesn't seem anywhere nearly as distasteful as you are making it out to be.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #77 on: January 13, 2012, 04:31:35 AM »

So what's wrong with cutting out all ambiguity and insisting on the removal of the filioque, instead of coming up with a weasel-word version of it? So many former RCs who've converted to Orthodoxy have happily accepted our doctrine, without qualms, as they have accepted other Orthodox doctrines which are at odds with what their former denomination teaches. We are not Anglicans, with their "comprehensiveness" which has, over the decades, blown up in their faces time and time again.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #78 on: January 13, 2012, 04:34:52 AM »

So what's wrong with cutting out all ambiguity and insisting on the removal of the filioque, instead of coming up with a weasel-word version of it? So many former RCs who've converted to Orthodoxy have happily accepted our doctrine, without qualms, as they have accepted other Orthodox doctrines which are at odds with what their former denomination teaches. We are not Anglicans, with their "comprehensiveness" which has, over the decades, blown up in their faces time and time again.

Quite frankly, I don't think his openness to this possibility makes him somehow "comprehensive" like the Anglicans.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #79 on: January 13, 2012, 04:42:32 AM »

So what's wrong with cutting out all ambiguity and insisting on the removal of the filioque, instead of coming up with a weasel-word version of it? So many former RCs who've converted to Orthodoxy have happily accepted our doctrine, without qualms, as they have accepted other Orthodox doctrines which are at odds with what their former denomination teaches. We are not Anglicans, with their "comprehensiveness" which has, over the decades, blown up in their faces time and time again.

Quite frankly, I don't think his openness to this possibility makes him somehow "comprehensive" like the Anglicans.

Why not? Given some of his other dissident pronouncements of late, I'm not convinced by your assessment.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 04:43:08 AM by LBK » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #80 on: January 13, 2012, 04:44:12 AM »

So what's wrong with cutting out all ambiguity and insisting on the removal of the filioque, instead of coming up with a weasel-word version of it? So many former RCs who've converted to Orthodoxy have happily accepted our doctrine, without qualms, as they have accepted other Orthodox doctrines which are at odds with what their former denomination teaches. We are not Anglicans, with their "comprehensiveness" which has, over the decades, blown up in their faces time and time again.

Quite frankly, I don't think his openness to this possibility makes him somehow "comprehensive" like the Anglicans.

Why not? Given some of his other dissident pronouncements of late, I'm not convinced by your assessment.
What has he said? I haven't seen these dissident pronouncements that you speak of. Do you have any links?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #81 on: January 13, 2012, 04:48:05 AM »

His reduction of the events of the entry of the Mother of God into the Temple as a midrash, for starters. This flies in the face of more than 1200 years of accepted doctrinal and liturgical history.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #82 on: January 13, 2012, 04:53:55 AM »

His reduction of the events of the entry of the Mother of God into the Temple as a midrash, for starters. This flies in the face of more than 1200 years of accepted doctrinal and liturgical history.

And St. John Chrysostom thought the Theotokos sinned. Perhaps he was a dissident too? I don't know if I agree with Fr. Thomas Hopko on that point, but he is free to bring up questions about it until he is rebuked by his bishop or a synod. If you are really that scandalized, write to his bishop, to Metropolitan Jonah, and to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 04:55:24 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #83 on: January 13, 2012, 06:10:56 AM »

Can anybody say something about the "Augustinian Filioque"?  I recall, I think, it was discussed in Dublin in 1984 and the Orthodox said they could accept it as a theologoumenon.  Even the fearsome Professor Archpriest John Romanides agreed that the "Augustinian Filioque" was acceptable to the Orthodox.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 06:22:09 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #84 on: January 13, 2012, 06:20:58 AM »

I think (the memory is waning) that it was described by the Orthodox as a legitimate Roman Orthodox Filioque.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #85 on: January 13, 2012, 06:55:04 AM »

Can anybody say something about the "Augustinian Filioque"?  I recall, I think, it was discussed in Dublin in 1984 and the Orthodox said they could accept it as a theologoumenon.  Even the fearsome Professor Archpriest John Romanides agreed that the "Augustinian Filioque" was acceptable to the Orthodox.

Even St Augustine made a distinction that while the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, that it was from the Father alone that the Son was begotten and the Holy Spirit "principally proceeds".
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,244


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #86 on: January 13, 2012, 07:03:57 AM »

His reduction of the events of the entry of the Mother of God into the Temple as a midrash, for starters. This flies in the face of more than 1200 years of accepted doctrinal and liturgical history.

And St. John Chrysostom thought the Theotokos sinned. Perhaps he was a dissident too? I don't know if I agree with Fr. Thomas Hopko on that point, but he is free to bring up questions about it until he is rebuked by his bishop or a synod. If you are really that scandalized, write to his bishop, to Metropolitan Jonah, and to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

What's to question, when the Church has clearly spoken through her hymnography and iconography? Faced with a choice between this and a man's dissident opinion, I know where to put my trust.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #87 on: January 13, 2012, 07:30:18 AM »

His reduction of the events of the entry of the Mother of God into the Temple as a midrash, for starters. This flies in the face of more than 1200 years of accepted doctrinal and liturgical history.

And St. John Chrysostom thought the Theotokos sinned. Perhaps he was a dissident too? I don't know if I agree with Fr. Thomas Hopko on that point, but he is free to bring up questions about it until he is rebuked by his bishop or a synod. If you are really that scandalized, write to his bishop, to Metropolitan Jonah, and to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

What's to question, when the Church has clearly spoken through her hymnography and iconography? Faced with a choice between this and a man's dissident opinion, I know where to put my trust.

Ok, then, if you truly believe that his opinions are dissident and dangerous, then you have a moral obligation to write to the OCA bishops to see to it that he is rebuked for holding such an opinion so that the laity might not be deceived by him, do you not? Again, I don't disagree with you on the point that the feast of the Presentation of the Theotokos its well established by tradition, but if you are so scandalized by Fr. Thomas Hopko's questioning of tradition, then I think you should write to people (who are in charge) about it. This hardly seems like the proper venue for calling a member of the clergy a dissident.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 07:36:36 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« Reply #88 on: January 13, 2012, 09:33:03 AM »

So what's wrong with cutting out all ambiguity and insisting on the removal of the filioque, instead of coming up with a weasel-word version of it? So many former RCs who've converted to Orthodoxy have happily accepted our doctrine, without qualms, as they have accepted other Orthodox doctrines which are at odds with what their former denomination teaches.

There have, certainly, been a great number of "unions" over the years; but I believe the whole purpose of Fr. Hopko's paper is to consider the possibility of a "mega-union" as it were.

We are not Anglicans

Oh? Why am I just now being told this?

 Grin
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,044



« Reply #89 on: January 13, 2012, 09:34:19 AM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

That's the part that makes his proposal unacceptable to Catholics.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: atonement 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.185 seconds with 72 queries.