I don't see where the Latins have recanted their heretical understanding of the filioque. Certainly not in the "Clarification" of 1995, which was an ambigous adventure in ecumenistispeak which doesn't hold any water. Comparing that document with what the Orthodox Church synodically defined in 1285 at Blachernae, one understands that the Latins are still very much in heresy.
Don't get me wrong, I think that document was a good first step, but it did not resolve the issue.
The inherent problem with the filioque is that it either it leads to the destruction of the hypostasis of the son by absorbing it into the father or it causes the Father and the Son to both be the source of the Spirit which is ditheism. That the Latins confess the Distinctness of the Father and the Son in the Trinity is clear from their Confessions of Faith, all that remains is that the confess the father alone as the source of the Trinity and all creation. Yet the Latins never contested this point, the problem lays in the fact that the Latin verb used, 'procedit' has a property of motion while the original Greek verb 'εκÀοÃÂÂÂÂÂεÃÂÂ…ÃÂŒμενον' has the property of origin. The real problem is linguistic, of course the solution is for the Latins to say the Creed in Greek to avoid the Confusion, or perhaps find a different verb than 'procedit,' though the former would be more percise and preferable. But in any case, they withdrew the anathemas from the Fourth Lateran Council, so there is really no theological issue here to divide us.
GiC, have you ever been a member of modern RC parish that "lives in the spirit of Vatican II"? Converting to Orthodoxy in those parishes will not happen by simple modifaction of Papal authority and the creed.ÂÂ
I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Church of Rome. However, if we can be in communion with the so-called 'western rite orthodox churches,' it's a relatively small step to be in communion with these Latin churches.
What can I say Silouan? You are right on the mark. What does the Filioque matter when you have "politically correct" Masses that don't use "masculine language" to address The Trinity, when you have Holy Communion treated with Gross disrespect, and priests who don't believe in the existence of the Devil.
And this prevents the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of Rome from being in Communion how? Communion would ultimately be between those two
persons, thus it is individual names that are read in the dyptics of the Church, not synods or ecclesiastical bodies, everyone else falls into communion by connection to the persons who are in communion with each other...the point being that it doesn't have to mean immediate agreement at the grass roots level.
