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

Hi 7968, welcome aboard.
I have always enjoyed the technique of saying let's not talk about something which itself is then discussing it. A Good move.

However, you have not backed up your statement that the filioque is either non-biblical or non- Catholic.(BTW this forum is Eastern Catholics and Orthodox who both hold to sacred tradition] Thanks for pointing out that it was unilateral. It was unilateral because it didn't affect the East. The West was changing the Latin not the Greek.
It was non conciliar only in that a council did not make the changes. More on this later.
You have not shown how anything was misapplied.
You have not shown how anything was misappropriated.
You have not shown how the west put itself above the councils.
And what is the Spanish Error? There were three Spanish heresies prevalent at the time the filioque was added. The filioque was added precisely because these heresies denied the equality of the Son and the Spirit with the Father.
Why ? She did not make a "hetera pistis" a different faith as the councils prohibited. She clarified the creed. She did not make a different faith!
The west didn't revise a council but the translation of the creed into Latin.

It wasn't the erring bishops that made the change. It was against the heretical bishops that the changes were made!
Not in this case. With hindsight, maybe it was not wise. The Eastern Orthodox affirm "through the son". so filioque doesn't really change anything.
I think the real issue is that the East felt left out.

I hope this helped clarify some of the issues involved.
I think a better starting point for this discussion would be the official dialogue between the Catholics and the Orthodox instead of trying to rehash history and re-invent the wheel.

True, but that does not entirely justify the unilateral action of the West in this regard. I sometimes wonder whether there could have been another way of addressing the issue with the semi-Arians than changing the unified Creed of Nicea-Constantinople.

Then again, I was NOT there! But I still wonder...

And the change DID affect the East insofar as they perceived the Latin West to have changed the faith of Nicea and Constantinople, and it became a divisive issue in the communion of the Churches. (I do not believe that the West changed the faith of the councils, BTW.)

God bless,

Gordo

I wonder if things had been done differently if it would have made a difference. Or was it just an excuse for bigger things?
Photius is famous for exposing it but he misunderstood the Latin thinking that it meant two spirations and two sources.
Unfortunately, the Latin isn't all that clear on certain issues either!
I vote for "through the Son" as the clearer expression but it is not perfect either. In the end, the trinity is ineffable! I like that word. How many times is it in the Divine Liturgy?

Where to begin Melkite? You say the actions of bishops changing the wording of the Ecumenical Creed doesn't affect the East? Again history, later actions of both Orthodox and Latin Bishops, show that to be naieve and untrue. It wounded, like all heresies and errors are wont to do, the peace and unity of Christ's Catholic Church. This is something the contemporaries of that period understood if not yourself.

Here are some words from Pope John VIII to Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople regarding the papacy's "then" understanding of the issue. Admittedly it is rather difficult to gauge what Rome thinks about most anything at any particular time given it's penchant for novelty and flip flopping. But here is what a Pope solemnly concurred in at that time.

Again the following are the words of Pope John VIII to the Patriarch after the West along with her legates and those of the Eastern Patriarchial Sees condemned in the sixth session of the Council of 879. The Pope himself after receiving the transactions wrote the following.

"We know the unfavorable accounts that you have heard concerning us and our Church; I therefore wish to explain myself to you before you write to me on the subject. You are not ignorant that your envoy, in discussing the creed with us, found that we preserved it as we originally received it, without adding or taking anything from it; for we know what severe punishment he would deserve who would dare tamper with it. To set you at ease, therefore, upon this subject, which has been a cause of scandal to the Church, we again declare to you that not only do we thus recite it, but even condemn those who, in their folly have had the audacity to act otherwise from the beginning, as violators of the divine word, and falsifiers of the doctrine of Christ, of the Apostles, and of the fathers, who have transmitted the Creed to us through the councils".

He then continues with some choice descriptions referring to those who would dare tamper with the creedal wording to be traitors and blasphemers. Again Pope John VIII puts a little more importance on this matter and it's affect upon the Universal Church than you might. Rome has spoken the matter is settled eh? Well at least until the next Pope says something.

Your statement, "the West didn't revise a council but the translation of the Creed into Latin" means what? They did not "translate" they created and changed. There is no way you insert something completely new and foreign to a text and then excuse it as a translation?

Truth be known the theologians in the West are now much more inclined to be on the Orthodox side of this issue today. I would also venture a guess that whatever Christological issue you believe is better explained by the Filioque which of course the Orthodox East never accepted as legitimate is long past a moot issue also.

So this Sunday at Mass stand tall, stand proud, better yet make that humble and confess the symbol of Catholic Faith adding or taking nothing away from the wisdom of the fathers.

My work here is done!

7968,

Whatever the value of your argumentation (and I value many of the quotes you are posting, but have yet to receive their source) your haughty and patronizing tone, not to mention your tendency to periodically cast aspersions against other Churches without substantiation, makes it difficult to fully appreciate. Truthfully, this is not the first time I have seen you do this on the forum.

Mind you, I am all for vigorous, but respectful, debate on the issues and defense of positions. But that will only take us so far, which is why I tend to favor open and respectful dialog. All of us here have inherited for the most part a mutually difficult ecclesiastical history which none of us had a hand in creating. I believe that this should be taken into account as we discuss these issues.

I certainly am no saint, and have had my share of bad moments over the years. But as one poster to another, would you mind toning it down a bit? It really is starting to get offensive, and to my mind (since I can only speak for myself) you would probably get more of a sympathetic hearing if you practiced a little more reserve in your triumphalism.

God bless,

Gordo

JPII mentioned returning to the use of the Creed as given at II Constantinople. It is scriptural, as well as ancient and traditional.

My problem with having the Filioque in the Creed is that it destroys the Creed's universality. The West may wish to continue following Augustine's (inferior) theology of the Trinity, but to add this word to the Symbol of Faith necessarily implies that the West rejects communion with those who do not follow Augustine in this matter!

BTW, it was at the Council of Florence that the Filioque officially became a part of the Creed. Theoretically, the Eastern Church ratified it at that time, and that is why the West considers it legitimate.

I like that word as well, which is one reason I cannot go along with the notion (held by many OCs) that the Filioque is heretical.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

And since no ecumenical council has declared it so...

One of my favorite quotations of the fathers is from St. Ephrem the Syrian who wrote something like this (paraphrased from my poor memory):

Contemplate the Name of the Father and put a fence around it...
Contemplate the Name of the Son and do the same...
Do the same with the Name of the Holy Spirit!

I am probably not doing the quote from the good father justice here, but I believe I've essentially captured some of his thinking on Trinitarian controversies.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo, I am always up for a good chastising no matter the source whether from Latin or Orthodox brethern. It is often deserved and seldom defensible

I do however find it ironic, to be accused of "triumphalism" debating the merits of Christianity's all time champion in this regard Papal Monarchism. You must realize also given the stated and dogmatic understanding of the Latin West and it's assertions that all of Christendom falls under it's direct and immediate authority and not to recognize or succumb one risks the loss of salvation. (Pope Boniface VIII and of course the later infamous Vatican I) you just might begin to understand my difficulty in properly expressing myself with Christian decorum. This is not an excuse of course just a very real and ongoing temptation.

Until and unless the papacy refutes it's invented indefectibility i.e. a special and unique charism of infallibility residing in the person of the Roman Pontiff and it's non-Catholic assertion of rule over fellow Bishops in the East it will always remain fair game for those who value Catholic Tradition.

If you would really like to hear strident and angry tones I would direct your attention to many of the latins fathers speaking on much less important matters than this.

Since this topic is the Orthodox position on the RC Church I think it is an appropiate forum to bring these issues.

God keep us all through the prayers of the Theotokos.

There is plenty of "triumphalism" on all sides, and very little of it is useful or good. And please - references to "Papal Monarchism" or "Papo-Caesarism" are as unhelpful as accusations of "Caesaro-Papism" against the Orthodox. Neither are entirely accurate, but both are inflammatory.



I again return to my earlier statement: we have each inherited an ecclesial situation and history which none of us had a hand in creating. The temptation will always exist to forgo Christian decorum, as you put it, when discussing issues which divide us. But I guess the question you need to ask yourself is: what does it serve? (And whom?) Truth and charity are never served by haughtiness.

When I read any statement from an historical figure, I find it best to seek first to understand its historical context. Have you ever studied what precipitated Pope Boniface VIII's statement? Or Vatican I for that matter?...from a Catholic perspective?



There are grounds for this belief within the Patristic Tradition. I think you play loose with facts to weave a tapestry of accusations...without doing your research, except perhaps from anti-Catholic sources. I would challenge you to read sources that explain the Catholic position, if you have not done so already. We are not so bufoonish as to believe in something that was pulled out of thin air with no basis in Tradition.



Not especially, no.



I agree. And you should both understand the Catholic perspective and defend your own. I don't think anyone here thinks otherwise. Just do it with respect.



Amen.

Gordo

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html

This the latest dialogue by the Orthodox and Catholics in the USA. October 2003
I include one of the recommendations
IV. Recommendations

* that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Gordo, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the invented belief of papal infallibility ala 1870 and even many of the Roman Bishops attending that convocation resisted it's assertion saying the very same thing.

Rome can make much better arguments for universal papal jurisdiction using patristic sources but it can only do that by quoting them out of context and ignoring the much more substantial body of works to say nothing of the Church's actual dealings with the papacy when it had in fact gone wandering from the Faith.

Are there ecclessiastical faults to be found in the East? Of course and feel free to point any out that you would care to do. One thing you will not find as part of a rebuttal if that is even neccessary, is the specious argument that error on our part is not possible in certain circumstances because we have a special charism without any basis whatsover in antiquity.

You can also serve your own salvation by resisting your compulsion to call me haughty or my positions somehow related to my own defects. It may of course be true but keep the ad hominems to yourself.

Facts are usually helpful when backing assertions. Blanket assertions themselves do not substantiate an argument.

You seem convinced that no evidence exists and that the other side simply quotes things "out of context", an accusation I have read before.

Any specific examples of out of context quotations from the Catholic side? I'd like to see those sources too.


As you and I are not the focus of this discussion, I choose not to respond to matters pertaining to my own salvation or to your supposed defects. I have no window into your character, but base any assessment of your position solely on what you have written. I have said my peace and leave it for others to make their own determination. It should suffice to say that I did not write what I did out of any compulsion, only a desire to serve the truth and charity, neither of which are served by glib, dismissive remarks. As for ad hominems, I have no prejudice against you or any other Orthodox Christian or Church. I only ask for a bit more respect for the Church with whom I am in communion.

God bless,

Gordo

I love refuting absolutes. All I have to do is find one case and the debate is over.
a-You are Peter(Cephas) and upon this very Rock(Cephas) I will build my church.
b- the gates of hell will not prevail against it
c-I will be with you all days even to the end of the ages.

In a Jesus builds his church on rock not on sand. If the sand shifts the house goes down. If the foundation rock moves the house goes down.
In b and C Jesus is guaranteeing that he will protect the church.
So we have a triple guarantee that the church will not fail.

If Peter fails the church goes down because he is the Rock, the foundation. So that Peter doesn't fail he must not be able to fail-Not being able to fail is called infallibility.
QED There is at least one basis and it is ROCK (CEPHAS)- rock solid!
It wasn't invented.

You do know that infallibility of the church is a doctrine of the Orthodox church too?
An Australian Orthodox Archbishop turned in his doctoral dissertation to the dean and the dean commented that he hadn't known that it was a doctrine of the Orthodox church!
The Eastern Churches have failed (been in heresy) 6 times in the first 1000 years and most of the patriarchs at the same time! How many times has she failed in the second 1000? If she hasn't failed, what protects her after failing 6 times times in the first 1000 years?
There were various reasons to be against.
1- they thought it was wrong.
2- they believed it but thought it was not needed to be declared.
3- they believed it but thought the timing was wrong.
4-they weren't convinced either way.
5- not sure of the conditions
The first option was not the most popular for those against declaring it.

Even the most outspoken against the doctrine came over to defend infallibility. Not one bishop left the Catholic church over infallibility! The most ardent antagonist Bishop Von Ketteler (of Mainz) wrote a wonderful article in 1871 (not even a full year later) defending infallibility of the pope.
The article in its entirety can be found in "Divine Primacy .." by James Likoudis pages 239 to 299

I can see that.
But the Latins for centuries thought incorrectly that the divine liturgy(mass) was said in Latin everywhere in the world -the same everywhere. I still hear some moaning for the good old days when everyone said the mass the same in Latin.
As nice as it sounds that everything be the same it isn't necessary for unity. The variety is also beautiful.