www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Co-Redemptrix

Dear Reader Andrew,

I'm happy I'm proving to be so entertaining to you!

Actually, the Latin Church does consider the Filioque to be of the status of a dogma, albeit not declared "infallible."

Many Latins might even consider their faith "violated" if Rome ever decided to remove the Filioque.

But the way in which you phrase your point here seems to indicate, to me at least, a "convert issue" as I've come across it before from converts.

Are you a convert?

It is good if you are!

A blessed Pascha!

Alex

Dear Reader Andrew,

I'm happy I'm proving to be so entertaining to you!

Actually, the Latin Church does consider the Filioque to be of the status of a dogma, albeit not declared "infallible."

Many Latins might even consider their faith "violated" if Rome ever decided to remove the Filioque.

But the way in which you phrase your point here seems to indicate, to me at least, a "convert issue" as I've come across it before from converts.

Are you a convert?

It is good if you are!

But anyone, like yourself, who can get a self-avowed theological liberal, like our Dr. John, to come out and make such emphatic doctrinal statements as he has here, is performing a real service!

A blessed Pascha!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Of course, we're all "converts" or should be. However, they would call me "cradle Orthodox" down in these parts. I don't know of any non-Orthodox ancestor.

And you are right, sometimes I write things just to prove a point.

And then when I'm bad like that, I just grin.

But maybe it is good for us to challenge each other just a little. I know that personally, I've learned a great deal through participation in this excellent forum!

May God grant us all a blessed Holy Week, Pascha, and Bright Week!

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

Right back at y'a, Big Guy!

(I'm trying to be contemporary, you see . . .)

Alex

Brothers,
I for one a Latin Catholic was shocked, offended and scandalizedby the Orthodox liturgical expression "through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior save our souls, That is until I fully understood it.

Mary is and will always be the one through whom the salvation of the world was accomplished by her co operation with the Divine Will.She is not the immediate cause of our salvation, but her "fiat" brought about her Son Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Through her all grace was brought to mankind.
The almighty has done great things for me and holy is his name.
The terms "co redemptrix" is totally appropriate of her, just as it is appropriate of you or me when we lead a soul to Christ the Savior.
the term "mediatrix of all grace" is unique to her, while we can mediate the grace of Christ to others especially through the sacraments, we cant mediate all grace.
Through her co operation we can obtain all grace which comes from her Son, who is himself grace and truth.
Peace upon all,
Stephanos I

This is born out by the ending of the older Slavonic wording of the Hail Mary in the Russian Orthodox Tradition...

'...for thou hast given birth to Christ the Saviour, the Deliverer of our souls.'

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

FYI, this is also the ending that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church uses to this day!

Exciting, no?

Alex

Sorry I came late to the party, but I couldn't resist answering the above.

Dear Alex,

What you've stated is an oxymoron: fallible dogma. There can be no such thing. By its nature, a dogma is considered non-negotiable, immovable, unalterable and infallible. If the Roman church truly believes what you believe about the filioque (and they don't) then it would never have been inserted into the creed, that is, the filioque would not be a dogma. By inserting it into the creed, it is dogma, and it is infallible.

Priest Thomas

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas,

Well, if you'll forgive me, I think that you are definitely NOT a scholar of Roman Catholic theology.

(And I don't believe you take that to be a bad thing!).

What you've left out of the RC equation you've constructed here is the matter of "development of doctrine."

Does the RC Church approve of "fallible doctrine?"

In a sense, yes.

And this occurred throughout the Church's history.

There were times when theological opinions were allowed on certain matters. When the Immaculate Conception was not defined infallibly, then Catholics were allowed, of course, to believe their own theological opinions on the matter. St Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, for example.

In terms of the Filioque, there is more than one level on which it can be viewed.

There is the matter of the insertion of the Filioque into the Creed. This has never been infallibly defined and the term may be removed. We know for a certainty that when the Latin Mass is celebrated in the Greek language, and in the RC church of Greece itself, the Filioque is ABSENT from the Creed, even when the Pope himself celebrates Mass in Greek.

Another level is the theological understanding of what the Filioque means.

If it means that the Spirit proceeds in the SAME WAY from the Son as from the Father, then this is an HERETICAL understanding, condemned by RC theology itself.

RC theology does NOT make this contention, a contention that is often made by Orthodox theologians in interpreting the Filioque.

RC theology asserts that the Spirit proceeds ACTIVELY from the Father and PASSIVELY from the Son.

In other words, there is no way that RC theology sees the origin of the Spirit in the Son, since the Son has all that He has from the Father, the Origin of the Trinity.

This means that Eastern phrases like "from the Father through the Son," "From the Father, and rests on the Son" etc. are all perfectly in sync with RC theology on the procession on the Spirit as well.

I've also had occasion to converse with RC theologians here at the Toronto School of Theology who have not only confirmed this, but have also indicated to me that RC conferences held on this matter (without the Orthodox) have come to the conclusion that the Filioque itself ought to be dropped from the Creed etc.

The Orthodox understanding of the Filioque as held by the RC church is an outdated one and should be changed to reflect the actual RC theological position.

The dropping of the Filioque from the Creed is an important issue that will eventually be resolved as well with a papal order to so drop.

Orthodoxy will have to change its view on the Western understanding of the Filioque.

But I know how hard some experience change . . .

(Feel free to come down harder on me, Father. My heart is just humming with love today!!)

Alex

Dear Alex,

My heart is also overflowing with love today. Because of that, I thought to let you know that I wholy agree with what you have posted regarding the filioque.

The "other dogmas" are the ones that separate us!

Good to have you around!

In Christ,
Andrew

Unfortunately, you've changed midstream (not surprisingly!). You went from "fallible dogma" to "fallible doctrine"; two entirely different things. While I understand the Catholic view of the filioque (I think you've told me about 20 times now - I get it, I'm not that slow) what you've not defended is the idea of a "fallible dogma." While we all understand that the filioque is theological opinion par excellence the oxymoron of the so-called "fallible dogma" remains. By it's nature, it cannot be both dogmatic and fallible.

PT

Do we have to resort to tones of sarcasm???

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas,

Actually, I'm the one who is slow.

Not having had the benefit of a theological education, there are wide gaps in what I call my knowledge on these topics.

Frankly, I don't know the difference between "doctrine" and "dogma" other than the latter seems more "absolute" and "unchangeable."

My repeating the Orthodox view here has less to do with my argument that the Latins have "finally come around" , but more with showing off the results of years of my own struggles with this issue.

There was a time when I would probably have given my life in defence of the Filioque, considering it a probable act of martyrdom .

I'm not like that anymore, Father!

So if you acknowledge that I've attained to an Orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity, then I make my own the Canticle of Simeon!

Have a great day!

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

Again, you are not referring to me, are you?

If you are, I apologise.

One of the great thrills of participating on this Forum is to be in such wonderful sacerdotal company!!

Alex

Without sounding argumentative, no, I don't believe that you have, only because you make for an allowance of what you've termed a theological opinion to be inserted into the Symbol of Faith. Regardless of how Orthodox or close-to-Orthodox that theological opinion may be, inserting it into the creed makes it, by definition, a dogmatic statement. So to even allow for it, or to explain it away under the development of doctrine is rather unOrthodox. (Yes, yes, I know, "Meyendorr, Ware, etc...)

Finally, although I rejoice at the prospect that the entire Roman Church would remove the phrase from the creed (I think we can safely speculate that this will not happen in our lifetime) there is still the problem of the belief (even in a distorted form) that will still hang around. That is, the doctrine (as you've called it) would not completely be repudiated. So, while I am excited at what you've reported from this Toronto assembly of RC theologians, ultimately, talk is cheap but actions will greatly benefit the cause of unity.

PT