www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Do eastern Catholics venerate all the saints Rome canonizes?

Actually the USBCC acknowledges on the website and quotes some Vatican sources stating that the binding version of the Creed IS the original Greek of 381 (council of Constantinople). Do some googling and you'll find it on the USBCC site.

Thank you for this!

It would be quite something if in 2025 a common date for Easter would be set for both East and West. It would also be wonderful if the same original Nicene-Constantinople Creed in its original version, the version that was once normative both both East and West was restored as a common, universal Creed. We can dream - and pray.

My fear is that it would create a new schism. The Latin west is fractured enough! How about the east just accepting the Latin version as Orthodox? After all His Holiness, Pope Francis is willing to accept the revised Julian Pascalion for all. The Latin version of the Creed has been in use for a very long time in the west, and the additions are very small. I think it's widely understood why the "Filioque" was added. "Deum de Deo" is an addition also. This version of the Creed is even used among Anglicans, Lutherans and other main-line Protestants. I think a common acceptance of both versions as orthodox is a stronger expression of unity within a stylistically diverse Church.

Your fears are well-founded! We don't know what 2025 will bring with respect to the Creed - the emphasis appears to be more on the issue of the date of Pascha.

With respect to the Filioque, perhaps a formula could be agreed upon to make both sides happy.

IF the West would go back to the original Creed sans Filioque (Anglicans and others do use both versions with and without the Filioque), perhaps the Orthodox East could affirm that both "Through the Son" and "From the Son" are equally valid statements on the Spiration of the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity. The issue with the Filioque in the East appears to be much more a canonical than a theological one - that the Creed of the earliest Ecumenical Councils was meant to affirm the universal faith of the entire Church, East and West (where the Filioque is an expression of specifically Western Triadology or Trinitarian theology).

So for example, the Orthodox Saint Mark Eugenikos, Archbishop of Ephesus known for his opposition to East-West Union principles established at the Council of Florence, originally came to attend the Council proceedings in the hope that reunion between East and West could be established once more (according to Fr Prof. John Meyendorff in a number of places in his published works). However, the sine qua non for the realization of such unity would, from the Orthodox perspective, be the original Creed without the Filioque. All else, namely theological differences as they developed since the break between East and West (whenever one believes that occurred . . .) were either open to negotiation or could remain as theological opinion or theologoumena that would not affect the unity of the entire Church, East and West.

Should the issue of the affirmation of the original Creed come to the fore during the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council, I personally don't believe a return to the universal Tradition of the first Millennium, if properly explained and handled, would be an insurmountable problem for the West.

I don't know how they will settle the matter of the common date for Easter, if indeed that will be proclaimed in two years' time. If the Pope accepts the Eastern Paschalion as it is now . . . he may have Father Deacon (and Doctor) AJK to deal with!

A blessed Fast!

Alex

Finally, something we agree on!

Bless, Father Deacon and Doctor!

As with the Calendar Issue, I knew it was all just a matter of time!

A blessed Great Fast!

(You are the best - and you know it too!!)