www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Official Orthodox Positions On The RC Church

Indeed Father! Btw thanks Fr. Anthony for clarifying.

You are right Zan, and I recognize the fact.

The whole thing (East and West) is a mess (not un-functional) but a mess on the human management side.

-ray

More than theological differences, what keeps us apart is the distrust, hurt and lack of humility

Understood, my dismay was directed toward the content and not the poster of it though I would ask why post such divisive content if you don't agree with it?


I don't see it as open minded at all, but closed completely to the the forgiving will of Jesus.


I see division over the defining of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son as petty at best. The real issue between East and West as its always been is the question of authority and obedience.


How then to interpret developements beyond mans control? Gods will perhaps? Jesus promised to protect the Church through the gift of the Holy Spirit and I believe He does so in His time, not ours. If necessity mandated the politics of the time perhaps then they will always do so and there is hope for change. I know of no cases that human rebelion has coerced the will of God to its own.


Scandals have come and will continue to come. My faith isn't formed by focusing on the ill's of the world but on the Will of our Father.


All influential yes but hardly the root of Christs words that Peter was the rock on which His assembly would be built. This is noteworthy that long before any official declaration or schism for that matter Ante-Nicene Fathers had been writing about the primacy of Peter. It cannot be denied by an affirmation by attrocities and abominations.


The point of my post exactly, the comment I denounced was made by hierarchy. It matters not if it was East or West to me. I would call bigotry what it is no matter who I see it come from. What chance of Hope do uniate minded layity have of reunion when such hard heartedness is taught publically. I was hurt by what I can only define as a deliberate subversion of Christs will for unity and as a God loving person feel a responsibility to say so.


I don't intend to make it about who is wright or wrong. Scripture tells me not to.


Thanks for taking the time to reply.

All the best.

I agree and would add some narcisism as well.

The only cure I know is Love, Mercy and especially Forgiveness.

Katholicos Mercy noted, "I see division over the defining of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son as petty at best. The real issue between East and West as its always been is the question of authority and obedience."


I am going to respond to Mercy's comments about the issue of "filioque" being petty. Rather then attempt to address the issue myself, I will use the more eloquent comments of Bishop Kallistos Ware from his book _The Orthodox Church_. I post them and find myself in full agreement with Ware's comments. To use some of Mercy's earlier comments, he may find the following comments of Ware divisive as he found the comments of Father Miltiades which I posted earlier. If he does not want to be disturbed, he should not read Bishop Kallistos' comments because they are very strong.

Kallistos writes, "Orthodoxy objected (and still objects) to this addition in the Creed, for two reasons. First, the Ecumenical Councils specifically forbade any changes to be introduced into the Creed; and if an addition has to be made, certainly nothing short of another Ecumenical Council is competent to make it. The Creed is the common possession of the whole Church, and a part of the Church has no right to tamper with it. The west, in arbitrarily altering the Creed with out consulting the east, is guilty...of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the whole Church. In the second place, Orthodox believe filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the SON as well. IT MAY SEEM TO MANY THAT THE POINT AT ISSUE iS SO ABSTRUSE AS TO BE UNIMPORTANT [emphasis mine for Mercy's sake]. But the Orthodox would say that since the doctrine of the Trinity stands at the heart of the Christian faith, a small change in emphasis in Trinitarian theology has consequences in many other fields. Not only does the filioque destroy the balance between the three persons of the Holy Trinity: it leads also to a false understanding of the work of the Spirit in the world, and so encourages a false doctrine of the Church.(pp 59-60)" Ware notes in a footnote that this is the official position of the Church.

It is better to be blunt and not sugarcoat the issue. BTW, that is why I posted Miltiades's comments. If Mercy has problems with the issue, I apologize.

Not true. It forbade any changes that were heretical. It has yet to be shown that the filioque is heretical. Many Eastern bishops and theologians admitted to the filioque well before the schism.
Theodore Qurra
Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople at the 7th Ecumenical council itself.
Pope St Leo who is lauded as one of the greatest teachers of Orthodoxy following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition in "Quam laudabiliter" proclaimed the filioque well before the council of Chalcedon
John of Damascus
Maximus the Confessor
Epiphanius
Cyril of Alexandria

WHY?
The west was not tampering but clarifying the Latin(its own language). It would be wrong to add the filioque to the Greek because the Greek word for "proceed" means "as from a source" but the Latin doesn't.
It wasn't arbitrary. There were three heresies denying the equality of the Father Son and Spirit. The filioque was added to make it clearer that they are equal.
This is the real problem . The East feels slighted. We apologize. Kiss and make up!
This was a western matter The west was not suggesting that the East needed to change the Greek. Unity? In the eyes of the West, The East broke with the West.

What is the heresy?
The West believes in the monarchy of the Father,one source, one spiration, the equality of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Do you not?

Perhaps you can provide a source for your opinion here?

My read of the Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council seems to contradict this interpretation.

Melkiteman, you apparently challenge Ware's view of filioque. I don't, but for the record, he does note in footnote on the passage, he notes, "I have given here the standard Orthodox of filioque; it should be noted, however, that certain Orthodox theologians consider the filioque merely an unauthorized addition to the Creed, not necessarily heretical in itself." I prefer following the party line, whereas you choose to follow your own. I suggest you read up on Pope Leo III. I wonder why the late Bishop of Rome [jpii] chose to remove the filioque from the Creed while reciting it in common with various Orthodox clergy who visted his see. BTW, that is a rhetorical question.

Let me remind you that the Roman got stuck with flioque because of Charlemagne and his court. I will rely on Ware again because my copy of Dvornik's book is down at the university in my office, Ware notes, "Rome with typical conservatism, continued to use the Creed without the filioque until the start of the eleventh century. In 808 Pope Leo III wrote in a letter to Charlemagne that, although he himself considered filioque to be doctrinally sound, yet he considered it a mistake to tamper with the wording of the Creed. Leo deliberately had the Creed, WITHOUT THE FILIOQUE [emphasis mine], inscribed on silver plaques and set up in Saint Peter's."

You have did not address the issue as to whether it was right to tamper with the Creed without an ecumenical council being called to do so.

My source is the canons. Show me I am wrong. You said your read of canon VII seems to contradict this interpretation. Does it contradict or not? Or does it just seem to contradict. Three persons seems to contradict one God too. So what is your version of canon VII?

OK let's assume to start with that it gave no provision for any change at all, right? It certainly didn't say except by ecumenical council. Ware just threw that in as an opinion.

God from God was dropped after Nicea. [BTW the West still uses God from God. Where is the gripe about that?] Many things were added. So it couldn't have meant no additions and no deletions. OK so succeeding councils changed the Creed. Therefore it couldn't have meant no change at all.

As mentioned Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople at the 7th Ecumenical council itself affirmed the filioque!! It is part of the acts of the council!
The other people mentioned [Theodore Qurra,Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople, Pope St Leo,John of Damascus,Maximus the Confessor,Epiphanius,Cyril of Alexandria ]affirmed it so it is not a novelty. And certainly not believed only in the West.

Yes and no. I disagree that the filioque was against the canons and that it is heretical. I think he shows a misunderstanding of the filioque. The filioque doesn't challenge the monarchy of the father and I believe since that book he has acknowledged that.
What is the party line? As I have shown even before the schism there were many Eastern hierarchs who believed in the filioque! Are they heretical? Recently St. Augustine was declared a Greek Orthodox saint! Did they canonize a heretic?

Besides, the filioque has never been condemned by an ecumenical council! Therefore it isn't heretical.

Why? Is he missing?

Not a problem. It has been the policy now for quite some time that The East doesn't need to add the filioque. It would be wrong to add it to the Greek as I mentioned earlier. So The late Pope JPII didn't use it when with the East! Simple! Sorry I couldn't resist.

Yes, Charlemagne was looking for fight, it is true.

I guess you are helping me. Thanks for the passage.
Right! So what? At that time the West could take it or leave it. We don't have to have it any more but, for the history of it, it won't be removed in the West. Now that it has been added , to remove it in the West would change the meaning. It would deny the Son's part in the Spiration. Before it was added it was wrongly interpreted by the heretics.
I did a few minutes ago.

There is plenty of material available on the state of the dialogue about the filioque.

Dear melkiteman ...

I take back every nasty thing I ever said about you (welll... I only said one time that I thought you lacked charity). I was wrong.

This line here ...

(Someone else said)> I suggest you read up on Pope Leo III.

(melkiteman responds)> Why? Is he missing?

cracked me up no end ! A laugh I needed.


Peace to you.
-ray

Ray,
Yes, that was meant as a levity.
But I do sometimes become uncharitable. Do send me a PM if I do get out of hand.

But you never told me if you found Leo! I'm still looking. I'm not giving up.

Forgetting the very real doctrinal consequences of affirming the benefit of the non-biblical and non-Catholic "Filioque" there remains another critical issue for the Catholic and Orthodox East.

This once again represents Romes unilateral and non-conciliar approach. Again she mis-applies and mis-appropiates her episcopal prerogatives and attempts to elevate herself above the authority of true Ecumenical Councils.

The venerable and learned Alcuin a noted Churchman writing to the brethern at Lyons during this very controversey says the following which is one of the most instructive and "Catholic" pieces of advice I've seen written by a Latin cleric.

"Beloved brethern, look well to the sects of the Spanish error; follow in the faith, the steps of the holy Fathers, and remain attached to the holy Church Universal in a most holy unity. It has been written, Do not overstep the limits laid down by the Fathers; insert nothing new in the creed of the Catholic faith, and in religious functions be not pleased with traditions unknown in ancient times." Alcuin 804 a.d.

She had no right and still has no right for any reason to tamper with that which the ancient fathers affirmed. Theologize to your hearts content but there remains no good reason to tamper with something so firmly entrenched in Catholic Tradition. Just as you would not change the words of sacred scripture to better clarify Catholic understanding neither should any individual Bishop or even a regional collection of Bishops have the authority to revise a true Ecumenical council.

If there truly is a need to better clarify Catholic understanding then let it happen in a true Ecumenical setting and not the transitory whims of erring Spanish Bishops.

Which are...?


Another perspective is that Rome sees herself as a guardian of orthodoxy as expressed by the true Ecumenical Councils. Rome decided (at the request of some of the Churches in the West) to insert the filioque in response to a pastoral need due to the residual semi-Arianism that was still infecting many parts of the West. It's original intent was hardly a power play - it was pastoral.

And I say this as one who would favor its removal from the recitation of the Creed in the Latin Church.


Interesting quote. Can you cite the source? I may want to use it.


I think your hyperbolic drive may be overloading here, 7968. There was nothing whimsical about any of this. I'm not excusing anything, but let's not make it out to be something it was not.

God bless,

Gordo