0 members (),
335
guests, and
92
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,514
Posts417,578
Members6,167
|
Most Online4,112 08:48 AM
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
My concern is that "false ecumenism" which seems to be an underlying theme in this thread. I think that you have changed direction, and once again turned it into a filioque thread.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Well, of course I believe if the Pope says to remove the filioque from the Creed, it will be removed. Yeah. That's what I said. Alright then, can you guess what mardukm is thinking now?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186 |
Dear brother Talon, I grant you 10/10 for intention, but I believe your presentation here does not address the true distinction between the Eastern and Western debate on filioque. I'm afraid I'd have to disagree that there is no scriptural backing at all for the filioque. John 15:26 says, "When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father...". And this, of course, is what the West is referring to when it speaks of the Spirit "proceeding from" the Father and the Son. It isn't that we believe that there are two "ultimate sources" for the Spirit, only that - from a human vantage point - the Spirit indeed proceeds "ultimately" from the Father, but more "proximately" from the Son as well since He is the one actively doing the sending to the human race. "Proceeding from" in the Latin perspective is not JUST about the temporal, economic sending, but indeed refers to the essential being of the Holy Spirit as He relates to the Son. The concern of the early Eastern Fathers was that the filioque seemed to make the Son a SECOND and EQUAL Source of the Holy Spirit with the Father, as if the Father NEEDED the Son to be the Source of the Holy Spirit. This was never what the Latin Church taught. As explained by Pope St. JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, the Latin teaching did not delve into the mechanics of origination, but intended merely to establish the CONSUBSTANTIALITY of the three persons equally. Who would or could deny that the Holy Spirit was consubstantial with the Father AND the Son (i.e., filioque)? THAT is what "proceeds" means in the Latin Church. It is not merely about the economic sending. Of course, there are extremists on both sides of the camp - I've met Latins who insist in their apologetics/polemics, contrary to the actual teaching of the CC, that the Son IS a Source of the Holy Spirit; I've met Easterns who insist in their apologetics/polemics, contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Fathers, that the manifestation or sending is merely temporal, and not eternal (the modern Eastern argument [by some]goes that since what is eternal refers to the esse of God, then the manifestation/sending cannot be eternal, but only temporal). These extremes only serve to perpetuate disunity, notwithstanding that they actually misrepresent what the Churches are actually teaching on the matter. My concern is that "false ecumenism" which seems to be an underlying theme in this thread. We can't accept each other merely "on the surface," but each respective group needs, through the spiritual fruit of understanding, accept the orthodoxy of the other group's theological expressions by searching out what those expressions ACTUALLY mean. Blessings I don't think I disagree with anything you've said above... 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Recluse,
It was not my intention to engage in spin doctoring at all. I was repeating what Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff said about St Mark i.e. that he came to Florence as a unionist i.e. as someone who sought the union of the Churches - which you yourself appear to have agreed with when you added the words "without compromise" to my earlier post.
He wanted reunion not only within an Orthodox framework (i.e. the original Creed) but also because he went beyond the ecumenist/anti-ecumenist polemic of his day, and ours, to affirm that true Church union is founded upon the Grace of the Holy Spirit - all else depends on that.
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Brother Marduk,
Your post here is really the most insightful one on the subject of ecumenism and church reunion that I've ever come across.
Hats off to you.
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186 |
What you say here is not the issue between the Eastern and Western Churches. Brother Alex hit the nail on the head that it is actually about the eternal (to be more precise) ORIGINATION of the Holy Spirit. The fact is that "procession" means something different to the Latins as it does to the Easterns. To the Latins, "procession" refers to consubstantiality, while to the Easterns "procession" refers to origination. As a lifelong Roman Catholic, I have always been under the impression that procession doesn't just refer to consubstantiality (in the Roman understanding), but to the fact that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and also "from" the Son in sort of "secondary fashion", (from a temporal standpoint) as well. I suppose it's possible that I have been misinformed. I don't know. I don't have the time (or the desire to be perfectly honest) to give the matter a thorough investigation here. The reason I emphasized the "Christ as secondary source" component of the Latin understanding of "procession" above is because the whole consubstantiality issue is not at all in question in the dispute between East and West, and has not been for well over a millenium (correct me if I'm wrong). It's sort of as "taken for granted as breathing", whereas the issue of the Spirit proceeding "secondarily" from Christ is not really something that is in dispute by the East either, it's just the half of the equation that seems to be least often considered in the course of the debate. And that's why I've emphasized it here. The distinction is a difference in theological conception. But both conceptions are thoroughly orthodox, but only if taken within the context of the theological Tradition in which it exists. Trying to impose one's theological presuppositions on the other party will only lead to misunderstanding and disunity. Indeed, which has precisely been my point. Precisely because of the East's conspicuous respect for various theological traditions, it strikes me as rather ironic and perhaps even "out of place" that it would ask Rome to modify what is rightly her own patrimony. Peace.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 186 |
But that's part of the point - that the original creed itself is not altered. It is left in tact, and simply "adorned" by the West in its common usage. Gotta love the internet. I'm sorry, I have a small mind. Unpack what seems to be the put-down for me? 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,346 Likes: 98
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,346 Likes: 98 |
Talon: If you research the arguments during the First Ecumenical council, you'll understand the Orthodox position of why not one letter may be added to the Creed. The terms homoiousios and homoousios mean "similar essence" and "same essence." They were part of a controversy in Christianity during the 4th century when people disagreed over the nature of Jesus Christ and his relationship to God.
According to those who adopted homoiousios, Jesus was not the same as God but simply had a "similar essence." According to those who argued for homoousios, the doctrine which was eventually adopted as orthodoxy, Jesus and God had the exact same essence. The Creed was very carefully worded to make sure that it was fully orthodox and stated compleely the Church's Faith and that everyone would be on the same page from that point on. One letter moves one from orthodoxy to heresy. The problem now is that people cannot be in communion who do not have the same creed. How would concelebration work if part of the congregation is adding words that the other part is not? The point of the Nicene Creed was to do away with all other local creeds and put everyone on the same page. Incidently if you research Oriental Orthodox sites you will find the words of the Creed exactly the same as the Byzantine Orthodox. So despite the controversy over Calcedon that separated them from the rest of the Church at the time, they have still carefully guarded the Creed as the Council specified it to be. Finally, there is a perpetual anathema attached to that creed that condemns anyone who adds to or subtracts from it as being outside the Church and outside of Christ. Bob
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,689 Likes: 8
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,689 Likes: 8 |
Incidently if you research Oriental Orthodox sites you will find the words of the Creed exactly the same as the Byzantine Orthodox. So despite the controversy over Calcedon that separated them from the rest of the Church at the time, they have still carefully guarded the Creed as the Council specified it to be. This is not necessarily the case. The Oriental Orthodox allow for slight variations among the sister Churches. Example, Armenian Apostolic Church: Nicene Creed
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, only-begotten, that is of the substance of the Father. God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten and not made; himself of the nature of the Father, by whom all things came into being in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate, became man, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. By whom he took body, soul and mind and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered and was crucified and was buried
And rose again on the third day
And ascended into heaven with the same body and sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father to judge the living and the dead; of whose kingdom there is no end.
We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated and the perfect, who spake in the law in and in the prophets and in the gospels. Who came down upon the Jordan, preached to the apostles and dwelt in the saints.
We believe also in the only One Catholic and Apostolic Holy Church.
In one baptism of repentance for the remission and forgiveness of sins.
In the resurrection of the dead,
In the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, in the kingdom of heaven and in the life eternal.
Amen. Syriac Orthodox Creed: We believe in one true God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Who was begotten of the Father before all worlds; light of light, true God of true God; begotten and not made; and being of one substance with His Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God. And He became man, and was crucified for us in the days of Pontius Pilate, and He suffered, died and was buried, and the third day He rose according to His will, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of His Father; and He will come again with great glory to judge both the living and the dead; and His kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life to all, Who proceeds from the Father; Who together with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the Prophets and Apostles.
And in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the new life in the world to come. Coptic Orthodox version 1: The Creed of Faith
We believe in one God, God the Father the Pantocrator who created heaven and earth, and all things seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy spirit and the Virgin Mary and became Man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. And on the third day He rose from the dead, according to the scriptures, ascended to the heavens; He sits at the right hand of his Father, and He is coming again in His glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.
Yes, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.
And in one holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the coming age. Amen. Coptic Orthodox version 2: Truly we believe in one God; God the Father the Almighty; creator of heaven and earth, and all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord; Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of light, true God of true God, Begotten not created. Who, for us humans and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnated of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried, and on the third day, He rose from the dead according to the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Life Giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And in One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. Ethiopian Orthodox v1: We believe in one God, maker of all creation. Father of our Lord and our God and our Savior Jesus Christ, because his nature is unsearchable. As we have before declared, he is without beginning and without end, but He is ever living, and He has light which is never extinguished and He can never be approached. He is not two or three and no addition can be made to Him; but He is only one, living for ever, because He is not hidden that He cannot be known, but we know Him perfectly through the law and the prophets, that He is almighty and has authority over all the creation. One God, Father of our Lord and our Savior Jesus Christ, who was begotten before the creation of the world, the only-begotten Son, coequal with Him, creator of all the hosts, the principalities and the dominions; Who in the last days was pleased to become man, and took flesh from our Lady Mary, the holy Virgin, without the seed of man, and grew like men yet without sin or evil; neither was guile found in his mouth. Then He suffered, died in the flesh, rose from the dead on the third day, ascended unto heaven to the Father who sent Him, sat down at the right hand of Power, sent to us the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who proceedeth from the Father, and saved all the world, and who is co-eternal with the Father and the Son. We say further that all the Creatures of God are good and there is nothing to be rejected, and the spirit, the life of the body, is pure and holy in all. And we say that marriage is pure, and childbirth is undefiled, because God created Adam and Eve to multiply. We understand further that there is in our body a soul which is immortal and does not perish with the body. We repudiate all the works of heretics and all schisms and transgression of the law, because they are for us impure. We also believe in the resurrection of the dead, the righteous and sinners; and in the day of judgement, when every one will be recompensed according to his deeds. We also believe that Christ is not in the least degree inferior because of His incarnation, but He is God, the Word who truly became man, and reconciled mankind to God being the High-priest of the Father. Henceforth let us not be circumcised like the Jews. We know that he who had to fulfill the law and the prophets has already come. To Him, for those coming all people looked forward. Jesus Christ, who is descended from Judah, from the root of Jesse, whose government is upon his shoulder: to Him be glory, thanksgiving, greatness, blessing, praise, song, both now and ever and world without end. Amen Ethiopian v2: "We believe in one God, Maker of all creation, Father of our Lord and our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, because his nature is unsearchable.
As we have before declared (i.e. in Didascalia), he is without beginning and without end, but he is ever living, and he has light which is never extinguished, and he can never be approached.
He is not two or three, and no addition can be made to him, but he is only one, living for ever, because he is not hidden that he cannot be known, but we know him perfectly through the law and the prophets, that he is almighty and has authority over all the creation.
One God, Father of our Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who was begotten before the creation of the world, the onlybegotten Son coequal with him, creator of all the hosts, the principalities and the dominions:
Who in the last days was pleased to become man, and took flesh from our Lady Mary, the holy Virgin, without Me seed of man, and grew like men yet without sin or evil; neither was guile found in his mouth.
Then he suffered, died in the flesh, rose from the dead on the third day, ascended unto heaven to the Father who sent him, sat down at the right hand of Power, sent to us the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, and saved all the world, and who is co-eternal with the Father and the Son.
We say further that all the creatures of God are good and there is nothing to be repented of, and the spirit, the life of the body, is pure and holy in all.
And we say that marriage is pure and childbirth is undefiled because God created Adam and Eve to multiply. We under stand further that there is in our body a soul which is immortal and does not perish with the body.
We repudiate all the works of heretics and all schisms and transgression of the law, because they are for us impure.
We also believe in the resurrection of the dead, the righteous and sinners; and in the day of judgment, when every one will be recompensed according to his deeds.
We also believe that Christ is not in the least degree inferior because of his incarnation, but he is God the Word who truly became man, and reconciled mankind to God being the High-Priest of the Father.
Henceforth let us not be circumcised like the Jews. We know that he who had to fulfil the law and the prophets has already come.
To him, for whose coming all people looked forward, Jesus Christ, who is descended from Judah, from the root of Jesse, whose government is upon his shoulder: to him be the glory, thanksgiving, greatness, blessing, praise, song, both now and ever and world without end, Amen." Ethiopian v3: We believe in one God, in the Lord the Father, who holds the whole world, omnipotent, who created everything visible and invisible in heaven and in earth (Gen. 1, 20; Neh. 9. Rom. 1.20).
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the one Son of the Father, who was with Him before the Creation of the world. Light begotten of Light, True God begotten of True God, not created. He is equal with the Father. There is nothing in heaven and earth which exists without Him. Mt. 3,17, In 1. 1,4.
For us and for the salvation of men He came down from heaven; by the operation of the Holy Spirit He put on flesh of the holy Virgin Mary and became man. In the time of Pontius Pilate He was crucified for us, suffered and died and was buried, and on the third day He was separated from the dead and rose, and with glory He ascended to heaven and sat on the right hand of His Father, and He shall come again in honour and glory that He may judge the living and the dead, and there is no finish, no end of His Kingdom. Mat. 1: 20,21; I Pet. 3. 18; Phil. 2. 6,8; Rom. 5. 8; Cor. 15. 3,4; 1 Pet. 3. 19,20.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord who saves, Hc who proceeds from the Father; together with the Father and the Son we worship Him, we honor Him, we glorify Him. Jn. v. 3, 4; Jn. xv. 26.
And we believe in one Holy church, which is over all, the assembly and congregation of the Apostles, Eph. ii. 19, 20,22.
And we believe in one Baptism, that it was given for the forgiveness of sin. Eph. 4. 3,6; Ps. 32. 1,2; Eph. 1. 6.
And believing in the resurrection of the dead, we hope for everlasting life to come. Jn. 5. 285,29; 1 Cor. 15. 22,24; Jn. 10. 27, 28 ( The Teaching of the Abyssinian Church ) .
The dogmas we believe are contained in this symbol of the Faith. No one has any right to add to or take from it. Other dogmas are contained in the dogmatic definitions of the Third Council in Ephesus which declared that Christ is one in hypostasis, perfect God and perfect man, is the Son of God, without a mother on the higher plane, and the Son of His Mother without a father on the lower. His ever-Virgin Mother is properly and truly called the Mother of God, as having properly and truly given birth in the flesh to God the Logos.
Last edited by Michael_Thoma; 06/06/14 01:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Hi Alex. Recluse,
It was not my intention to engage in spin doctoring at all. I was repeating what Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff said about St Mark i.e. that he came to Florence as a unionist i.e. as someone who sought the union of the Churches - which you yourself appear to have agreed with when you added the words "without compromise" to my earlier post.
He wanted reunion not only within an Orthodox framework (i.e. the original Creed) but also because he went beyond the ecumenist/anti-ecumenist polemic of his day, and ours, to affirm that true Church union is founded upon the Grace of the Holy Spirit - all else depends on that.
Alex Are ecumenist and unionist interchangeable?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
But that's part of the point - that the original creed itself is not altered. It is left in tact, and simply "adorned" by the West in its common usage. Gotta love the internet. I'm sorry, I have a small mind. Unpack what seems to be the put-down for me?  Alright, that's fair enough. (If it was a put down, my apologies for that.) I guess an unpacked form would be an emoticon of someone being half-asleep, then being suddenly woken up by some occurrence and saying "Huh, what was that? ... Eh, never mind, it's just the internet" and becoming half-asleep again. Anyhow, as far as trying to argue with you about your "not altered, adorned" idea, I'll say No comment.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357 |
I see it as a flaw. Some Orthodox are so afraid of the Papacy that any effort by one or more hierarchs to assert some sort of leadership or vision is typically shot down by the naysayers who apparently prefer disorder and chaos and arguments about dyptychs and small parishes in Muslim countries. Nonsense. Some (many) Orthodox do not appreciate ecumenistic compromise. This brings to mind the shift in the thinking of the Antiochans that I have noticed lately. After the repose of Met. Phillip that is.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Peter the Rock,
The two terms certainly can be interchangeable from the POV of some (or many).
This is the great fear among those who are against ecumenism which they see as a desire to achieve unity at the expense of dogma i.e. orthodoxy.
The Orthodox feel that ecumenism is "creeping uniatism," while RC's can be afraid it will mean a rejection of the "later Latin dogmas" for the sake of reunion with the Orthodox (or a "Protestantization" of the RC Church - some feel that ship has already sailed).
Again, the two need not be interchangeable.
But before any meaningful dialogue can occur, it is always important for both sides, in this case, Rome and Orthodoxy, to understand one another, as Marduk outlined with his usual keen insight (wouldn't you agree?), and to establish the parameter of what the Orthodox Catholic Faith today should be in order to achieve union.
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
I was repeating what Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff said about St Mark i.e. that he came to Florence as a unionist i.e. as someone who sought the union of the Churches I think "unionist" is a rather innovative word to use in describing St Mark (regardless of what prof. Meyendorff has to say). St Mark participated with great trepidation and spoke out against issues such as purgatory, unleavened bread, and filioque.....before the synod even began. The Latins considered him to be a hindrance to union. He attended the synod with the best intentions.....but to call him a "unionist" is a far reach.
|
|
|
|
|