Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JackQ]

If both sides just agreed to use the ORIIGINAL creed sans Filioque, then there would be no problem.

In fact, St Mark of Ephesus at Florence in 1440 did not expect the Latin Church to drop the Filioque (which he believed to be a heresy as all the Greeks did). He simply wanted the Latin Church to drop it from the creed and leave it at that.

The Latin Church has every right to its theology of the Filioque. The Orthodox also have the “Filioque” in the economic sense of the Spirit being sent into the world by both the Father and the Son.

Unity could have been easily achieved in 1440 and it is still open to us all in 2011.

Alex

I’ll say the Creed without the Filioque, but I won’t say that the Filioque is heresy, because it isn’t.

 

[JackQ]

A capital idea.

Well … basically, the west maintains that when it says “Father and the Son” it means “Father through the Son”. So why not just say “Father through the Son”?

Just change it. That would go miles toward resolving this thing and it is practically an effortless and painless change.

There is also the argument that some things are better left unsaid, which does have it’s own attraction to many people. After all, why should we be condemning one another over matters most of us have a scarce chance to really understand in our lifetimes?

Either way, the matter should not have been a church dividing issue - but now it is. There definitely are ways to mitigate the impact of it though.

I don’t think “through the Son” quite gets it. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Son does everything the Father does. It is the gift of the Father to the Son that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well, although it is one procession, not two.

But as I said in a previous post, I wouldn’t have any problem saying the Creed without the Filioque. But I think a lot of Orthodox Christians want me to say it’s heresy too, which I firmly believe it is not. And I wonder how many Orthodox Christians will accept papal infallibility. That, I think, is the ultimate issue.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well the Arians taught something clearly opposed to the Gospel, but they called Nicaea I to deal with it. You keep saying I’m insisting on a central authority for you, but I’m not. I’m just trying to understand your criteria, which frankly seems to me to be a tad amorphous.

Nicea was called specifically to decide between Arianism and Orthodoxy. That has nothing to do with the example I provided of a heresy that was never condemned by a council.
If you aren’t insisting on central authority, why do you insist that we must be rigiddly governed by the councils? That if something isn’t mentioned by the council’s it must be an open question? What criteria are you trying to understand? For our beliefs? I have already stated, everything must be consistant with what came before it. That’s not amorphous, it’s the exact opposite actually.

I’m somewhat familiar with British Constitutionalism. If you’re trying to make an analogy I think it’s inapt, because the British Constitution is subject to change, whereas Orthodox tradition, presumably, is not. Moreover, the British Constitution deals with a very specific area: the structure of British government. Any vagaries are of no moment, since changes in the constitution are accomplished with ordinary legislation.

Yes I am trying to make an analogy, and I’ll say right off that no analogy is 100% perfect.

However British Constitutionalism is based on precedent. While laws and the direction of the state can change, nothing can be passed that flies in the face with what is established, so you’re right that it doesn’t work in that Orthodoxy cannot overtime adopt a Congregationalist form of government, but it does work to the degree that no law can be enacted in Britain that contradicts the established norm. It would be unconstitutional, for example, for the Prime Minister to declare his office to be good for life - or even to pass a law to that effect. In the same light if a man declares himself to be infallible - even in limited circumstances - we can look at the tenants of the faith and see that this is incompatible.

I would also contradict your comment that the British Constitution deals with a very specific area - the same is true of Holy Tradition, it deals solely with the beliefs of the faith and nothing else, Vagarities such as practice (already discussed thousands of times in this thread, most recently a few pages ago) are covered by the local church authorities (Bishops and sometimes priests).

 

[Ignatios]

No, I think I stated the Catholic position pretty accurately.

You stated parts of the those dogmas and you left the other parts out such as the Pope is the Head/supreme head of the Church. therfore the word accurate does not really apply here.

I’m not denying that the Pope has authority over the entire Church, but, as it says in the Catechism, “Christ ‘is the head of the body, the Church.’ He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father’s glory, ‘in everything he (is) preeminent,’ especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.” The Pope is the head of the College of Bishops, and the source and foundation of unity, but the head of the Church is Christ.

The CCC also mentions that the Church, is the Bishops, preists, deacons and I believe the faithful also, therfore he would be the head of the church as well, according to your church’s teaching, unless the church is something other then what the Apostles had taught in your understand it of it.

However, why not look at the teaching of your church and cut down on all this “hide and seek” sort of speak, here is a quick one from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

◦The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual** head of the Church universal**.
◦Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that** he is infallible**.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

I rest my case.

Yes. He cannot teach error as to faith or morals when he speaks ex cathedra.

Thank you very much, since you agree with me that he is infallible.

I don’t know how simple I’m trying to make the issue, but I think you’re arguing with someone else.

It surely seems like I’m arguing with somebody else doesn’t it.

I would never say, for example, that Vatican I didn’t say what it said regarding the Pope. But it didn’t say what it didn’t say either.

but you didn’t say what it said either, rather, you gave only the portion that would support your arguement and shoved behind the portion that would deny what you are trying to emply, such as when you said that" Christ is the Head of the Church" but you didn’t respond to my question whether the Pope is ALSO the Head of the Church, when I am sure you know that he is, AND THAT IS A DOGMA.

And I wouldn’t say that everyone knows about Catholic doctrine.

I wouldn’t either and my words in my previous respond were generaly speaking IOW my words were not to be taken dogmatically, were the Pope head of the church according to your RCC are to be taken as dogma because they r a Dogma in your church.

In fact, I find that a lot of people don’t know very much about it at all. But please feel free to look at the Catechism, the Councils, and the encyclicals that you find online

I have many times over, and likewise, please feel free to do so as well.
GOD bless

 

[shaky]

I don’t think “through the Son” quite gets it. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Son does everything the Father does. It is the gift of the Father to the Son that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well, although it is one procession, not two.

But as I said in a previous post, I wouldn’t have any problem saying the Creed without the Filioque. But I think a lot of Orthodox Christians want me to say it’s heresy too, which I firmly believe it is not. And I wonder how many Orthodox Christians will accept papal infallibility. That, I think, is the ultimate issue.

I think Orthodox Christians could Accept Papal Infallibility If all the bishops are included East and West in Establishing doctrine. It is supposed to be Infallibility of the holy spirit.
If its Just the bishops in the west establishing doctrine for the Pope then maybe the doctrine might not be Infallible.

Look at the new doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. She was not born of a virgin mother because she had a earthly father. At most Mary could have became Immaculate by not Sinning from birth through to childhood and a Young woman.

 

[shaky]

Did you check with Irenaeus? He said this:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Yes i Looked at Irenaeus. If you notice he mentioned Peter and Paul founded and organized the church of Rome.
Peter was the very first Apostle That Jesus called to be his disciple. Peter was later Given the keys to the Kingdom of God and to bind and loose. If you read else where all the Apostles where Given the Authority to bind and loose.

Jesus Christ is the Main ‘‘ROCK’’ = {foundation and Cornerstone} of the Church. Peter is the First ‘‘Rock’’ Used to build this church. Then on top of Peters Rock the rest of the stones=Rocks are placed to build this church.

Obama is the president of the united states. but he does not make all his decisions by himself. He Just speaks the decisions that have been made by others behind closed doors.

It was the same with Peter and Paul and the rest of the Apostles. Peter was Like Obama speaking the decisions that all the Apostles came To.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t think “through the Son” quite gets it. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Son does everything the Father does. It is the gift of the Father to the Son that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well, although it is one procession, not two.

That’s odd, because one of the strongest arguments Catholics have been making is that this is all it means - and you are saying that is not sufficient. I respect that you can say this without spinning it to sound more appealing to Orthodox, the honesty is appreciated.

Until Papal Catholics can speak with one voice on the matter we are not going to get anywhere on the issue. Get everyone behind you in this assertion, or change your own position to match theirs, then dialog would be more fruitful.

But as I said in a previous post, I wouldn’t have any problem saying the Creed without the Filioque. But I think a lot of Orthodox Christians want me to say it’s heresy too, which I firmly believe it is not.

I don’t know if it is heresy, perhaps it is. I would say it is a theological opinion of some people that cannot be imposed upon others. That is the best I can do.

However your willingness to not recite it is not helpful, and it is essentially meaningless when other Catholics will not recite it for traditional reasons, but belong to a church which fully affims it anyway.

As far as I am concerned you might as all just recite what you believe. If you believe it and insist on teaching it not reciting it is an essentially empty gesture.

And I wonder how many Orthodox Christians will accept papal infallibility. That, I think, is the ultimate issue.

It is not the ultimate isue.

If Papal infallibility was denied by your church today, there would still be other problems. It is partly because of the other theological issues that Papal Infallibility has always been so hard to accept.

In other words, historically we have a church that was already regarded as in heresy for hundreds of years claiming to be infallible. It shouild be no surprise that the claim was rejected in the 1870’s when it was first made. Retracting the claim just puts us back to 1869, it removes a secondary obstacle that was not the cause of schism in the first place.

Personally, I don’t accept Papal Infallibility at all. I don’t think I am alone in saying this, but if the claim is not true (which almost all Orthodox believe) it then in Orthodox minds constitutes either a big honest mistake or a deliberate lie that discredits the Council and the western church. There is already a large body of deliberate lies that were used in the past to strengthen Papal claims, such as the Donation of Constantine and the Psaudo-Isadorean decretals (these I think were uncovered by the Bollandists), so this ‘new’ one would not be very surprising to many people.

Now even if the claim of Papal Infallibility were actually true, it is not the kind of thing a Christian would need to know to attain salvation, it wasn’t in the past, so anathematizing people over it is wrong too, a type of overkill.

This is the kind of issue you are dealing with when discussing unity with the Orthodox.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I don’t think “through the Son” quite gets it. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Son does everything the Father does. It is the gift of the Father to the Son that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well, although it is one procession, not two.

But as I said in a previous post, I wouldn’t have any problem saying the Creed without the Filioque. But I think a lot of Orthodox Christians want me to say it’s heresy too, which I firmly believe it is not. And I wonder how many Orthodox Christians will accept papal infallibility. That, I think, is the ultimate issue.

Good points! There are really two issues with the Filioque. One is that the word should never have been introduced in a Creed that was promulgated by Ecumenical Councils. The Filioque was introduced by a certain part of the Church in Spain and the Popes of Rome initially opposed its introduction vigorously. The papal tablets in Greek and Latin with the Creed without the Filioque were placed on Peter’s Tomb and are a case in point.

The theology behind the Filioque is part of the Trinitarian theology of the West and as such, the Orthodox would have no objection to it (Kallistos Ware). They object to it being in the universal Nicene Creed and to having it demanded of them.

The Filioque is actually not a good theological expression of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. RC Trinitarian theology, as you rightly point out, condemns the idea of two sources for the Spirit within the Trinity. In the Greek, “Father and the Son” mean precisely that. And this is why the Greeks consider the Filioque a heresy (which RC theology would also agree with, if it implied two sources).

Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology affirms that while the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the Spirit proceeds “actively” from the Father but “passively” from the Son (which is why “through the Son” is a better expression that safeguards the Father as the Source/Monarch for the Trinity etc.).

Be that as it may, the Nicene Creed was composed based on scriptural texts. In fact, there is no scriptural expression of “From the Son.” That alone disqualifies the Filioque on the grounds of method of composition.

In fact, the Filioque and the way it was introduced into the Creed (by later popes and outside the conciliar context) does speak to papal infallibility.

There can be no doubt but that the Church, as the Body of Christ on which the Holy Spirit rests, is infallible. Both East and West agreed and continue to agree on that.

The point of contention is how this infallibility is expressed to safeguard the Church from error.

And this relates to the age-old issue of “pope vs. council.”

When Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption, he consulted first with the world’s bishops to ask their views on it. More than 90% responded in favour of it and the pope proceeded etc.

When defining a dogma, which is always a matter of the utmost seriousness, could not the papacy simply work directly with an ecumenical council in this respect and when a Council (in circumstances where a doctrine needs to be formally defined to safeguard the Orthodox faith of the Catholic Church, as in ages past) is agreed on a dogma, then all the patriarchs sign the decretals and when the Pope of Rome, as the First Bishop of the universal Church, is the last to sign, then this can be said to be an exercise of infallibility?

Alex

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t think creating a situation where the question needs to be dealt with works. Vatican I raised the question, it needs to be answered for us to have unity.

 

[JackQ]

Nicea was called specifically to decide between Arianism and Orthodoxy. That has nothing to do with the example I provided of a heresy that was never condemned by a council.
If you aren’t insisting on central authority, why do you insist that we must be rigiddly governed by the councils? That if something isn’t mentioned by the council’s it must be an open question? What criteria are you trying to understand? For our beliefs? I have already stated, everything must be consistant with what came before it. That’s not amorphous, it’s the exact opposite actually.

Yes I am trying to make an analogy, and I’ll say right off that no analogy is 100% perfect.

However British Constitutionalism is based on precedent. While laws and the direction of the state can change, nothing can be passed that flies in the face with what is established, so you’re right that it doesn’t work in that Orthodoxy cannot overtime adopt a Congregationalist form of government, but it does work to the degree that no law can be enacted in Britain that contradicts the established norm. It would be unconstitutional, for example, for the Prime Minister to declare his office to be good for life - or even to pass a law to that effect. In the same light if a man declares himself to be infallible - even in limited circumstances - we can look at the tenants of the faith and see that this is incompatible.

I would also contradict your comment that the British Constitution deals with a very specific area - the same is true of Holy Tradition, it deals solely with the beliefs of the faith and nothing else, Vagarities such as practice (already discussed thousands of times in this thread, most recently a few pages ago) are covered by the local church authorities (Bishops and sometimes priests).

Well, the Prime Minister could not declare his position to be good for life, but if a law making it so was passed by parliament, then it would be so. That would probably amount to a constitutional change, but it would be the law whether it was or was not. The difference that is pertinent is that at some point in time you can make a distinction between the essence and energies of God, and that’s consistent with tradition, and I can say the Pope is infallible in certain circumstances, and that is not consistent with tradition. What came earlier to be consistent or inconsistent with the enunciation of these doctrines so that you can make a distinction?

By, the way, I’m not saying that you have to be rigidly governed by the Councils, I just assumed that you were. But if you say that you’re not, then lets go back to Nicaea I. I’m going to take you at this point to mean that if Nicaea I had not been consistent with tradition then it would not have qualified as an Ecumenical Council.

First question: if tradition is readily discernible so that Councils can be judged by them, then what need is there of Councils?

Second question: Prior to Nicaea I there were those who spoke on behalf of the Orthodox Catholic position, and those who spoke on behalf of the Arian position. There had never been an Ecumenical Council before. If you were at that Council, how would you defend the Orthodox Catholic position?

 

[JackQ]

You stated parts of the those dogmas and you left the other parts out such as the Pope is the Head/supreme head of the Church. therfore the word accurate does not really apply here.

The CCC also mentions that the Church, is the Bishops, preists, deacons and I believe the faithful also, therfore he would be the head of the church as well, according to your church’s teaching, unless the church is something other then what the Apostles had taught in your understand it of it.

However, why not look at the teaching of your church and cut down on all this “hide and seek” sort of speak, here is a quick one from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

◦The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual** head of the Church universal**.
◦Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that** he is infallible**.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

I rest my case.

Thank you very much, since you agree with me that he is infallible.

It surely seems like I’m arguing with somebody else doesn’t it.

but you didn’t say what it said either, rather, you gave only the portion that would support your arguement and shoved behind the portion that would deny what you are trying to emply, such as when you said that" Christ is the Head of the Church" but you didn’t respond to my question whether the Pope is ALSO the Head of the Church, when I am sure you know that he is, AND THAT IS A DOGMA.

I wouldn’t either and my words in my previous respond were generaly speaking IOW my words were not to be taken dogmatically, were the Pope head of the church according to your RCC are to be taken as dogma because they r a Dogma in your church.

I have many times over, and likewise, please feel free to do so as well.
GOD bless

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a repository of Church dogma. But, as it turns out, I came across a document of Vatican I that calls the Pope the visible head of the Church Militant. So I have to agree that it is not wrong to say that the Pope is head of the Church in that qualified sense, provided you mean what the Church means by it. But the qualifiers there should give a hint. The Pope is not the Head of the Church in the same sense that Christ is the Head of the Church. If I work in a company with an immediate supervisor, I might call that supervisor my boss, even though the real boss is the owner. Yes, we should submit to the Pope in matters of faith and morals, and there is no human on earth above his head that we can appeal to. But he is answerable to Christ. That places Christ over the Pope, which makes Christ the Head of the Church.

Now let’s go back to your initial statement: “as long as the Bishop of Rome is claiming himself to be the Head of the Church of GOD and that he is Infallibile and that he is the rep. of GOD on earth as dogma, there will be no reconciliation.”

You capitalized “Head,” which implies something that the Church does not teach. You did not qualify what was meant by infallibility, and I believed that I was justified in assuming that you were making the same mistake that many make, believing that the Church teaches that the Pope is infallible in all respects. If you did not mean that, I’m sorry I misunderstood you. I also took you to mean that the Pope is God’s representative in an exclusive sense that the Church does not teach. So, if you did not mean what I thought you meant, I guess that’s all there is to say. You, of course, will decide whether you will reconcile with the Catholic Church, and you will determine the terms of that.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, the Prime Minister could not declare his position to be good for life, but if a law making it so was passed by parliament, then it would be so. That would probably amount to a constitutional change, but it would be the law whether it was or was not.

Such a law would inevitably be challenged as unconstitutional, whether or not Parliament voted it in or not. Regardless, as I said analogies are never 100% correct. The analogy is still valid - it is a growth over time.

The difference that is pertinent is that at some point in time you can make a distinction between the essence and energies of God, and that’s consistent with tradition, and I can say the Pope is infallible in certain circumstances, and that is not consistent with tradition. What came earlier to be consistent or inconsistent with the enunciation of these doctrines so that you can make a distinction?

Well to start with Scripture says that God and Christ are One, but at the same time we know that there is only one God and that Christ refered to God in the third person. The doctrine of the Trinity, with its “essence and energies” distinction, is based on this, so yep, that’s consistant with something that came before that.
Since you bring it up, what is infallibility consistent with? And please don’t cite Matt 16:18, because the idea that it indicates infallibility is contradicted just a few verses later.

By, the way, I’m not saying that you have to be rigidly governed by the Councils, I just assumed that you were. But if you say that you’re not, then lets go back to Nicaea I. I’m going to take you at this point to mean that if Nicaea I had not been consistent with tradition then it would not have qualified as an Ecumenical Council.

That is correct. Consistancy is one of the requirements of being Ecumenical.

First question: if tradition is readily discernible so that Councils can be judged by them, then what need is there of Councils?

To reiterate what I’ve said already (you didn’t contradict this, I just want to make this point clear), the Council’s are all part of Holy Tradition. What the council’s have done is collect tradition, gone through the beliefs, and shown us what is consistant with Holy Tradition. The fact that we had Nicea has no impact on the reality of the trinity or the incorrectness of Arienism, but it helped to make the truth absolutely clear.

Second question: Prior to Nicaea I there were those who spoke on behalf of the Orthodox Catholic position, and those who spoke on behalf of the Arian position. There had never been an Ecumenical Council before. If you were at that Council, how would you defend the Orthodox Catholic position?

Assuming I was worthy of such an honour - and keeping in mind that I am far less learned on the theological than anyone there, I would defend the Trinity as I above showed the “essence/energies” question to be rooted in Scripture. Of course I would also have extended the argument further to discuss the Holy Spirit coming from the Father, through the Son. For while what we call the Bible had not yet been compiled in its modern form, the four Gospels had been long ago accepted, and I would have cited Father’s to this effect if needed.

 

[JackQ]

That’s odd, because one of the strongest arguments Catholics have been making is that this is all it means - and you are saying that is not sufficient. I respect that you can say this without spinning it to sound more appealing to Orthodox, the honesty is appreciated.

Until Papal Catholics can speak with one voice on the matter we are not going to get anywhere on the issue. Get everyone behind you in this assertion, or change your own position to match theirs, then dialog would be more fruitful.
I don’t know if it is heresy, perhaps it is. I would say it is a theological opinion of some people that cannot be imposed upon others. That is the best I can do.

However your willingness to not recite it is not helpful, and it is essentially meaningless when other Catholics will not recite it for traditional reasons, but belong to a church which fully affims it anyway.

As far as I am concerned you might as all just recite what you believe. If you believe it and insist on teaching it not reciting it is an essentially empty gesture. It is not the ultimate isue.

If Papal infallibility was denied by your church today, there would still be other problems. It is partly because of the other theological issues that Papal Infallibility has always been so hard to accept.

In other words, historically we have a church that was already regarded as in heresy for hundreds of years claiming to be infallible. It shouild be no surprise that the claim was rejected in the 1870’s when it was first made. Retracting the claim just puts us back to 1869, it removes a secondary obstacle that was not the cause of schism in the first place.

Personally, I don’t accept Papal Infallibility at all. I don’t think I am alone in saying this, but if the claim is not true (which almost all Orthodox believe) it then in Orthodox minds constitutes either a big honest mistake or a deliberate lie that discredits the Council and the western church. There is already a large body of deliberate lies that were used in the past to strengthen Papal claims, such as the Donation of Constantine and the Psaudo-Isadorean decretals (these I think were uncovered by the Bollandists), so this ‘new’ one would not be very surprising to many people.

Now even if the claim of Papal Infallibility were actually true, it is not the kind of thing a Christian would need to know to attain salvation, it wasn’t in the past, so anathematizing people over it is wrong too, a type of overkill.

This is the kind of issue you are dealing with when discussing unity with the Orthodox.

I don’t really discuss unity with the Orthodox: that’s up to the bishops. Even if you and I agreed to unify, it would mean nothing. The conversations that take place on these forums are academic exercises, or something less than that for some. So, I’m sure the Catholic Church speaks with one voice where the talks between the Catholics and the Orthodox are taking place. As for me, I just give my opinion here. I don’t speak for the Church, nor do any of the other posters.

Honestly, I get a sense, and I could be wrong about this, that, outside of Russia, Orthodox bishops are nowhere near as strident in opposing reunification as the Orthodox who post here. If they are, reunification isn’t going to happen.

I know the Filioque isn’t heresy, because it was upheld at the Council of Florence. But I am informed that there is no way to talk about the Spirit proceeding from the Son in Greek without also implying a double procession, which would in itself be wrong. In any event, Eastern Catholics don’t use it, and that is acceptable from a Catholic perspective. You see that as a contradiction. We don’t.

On the other hand, we have a hard time understanding how an apostolic church can be comfortable being separated from the rock of Peter on which the Church is built. From my standpoint, I’m not smart enough to figure out whether or not the Filioque is correct. Some say this, some say that. So I have to go to the Church. But where’s the Church? Both Catholic and Orthodox claim to be the Church. How am I supposed to decide from their arguments? I can’t. Even if I decide I agree with one side or the other, how can I be certain that I have considered everything? My mind is capable of mistakes on much less weighty matters. I can pray about it, sure. But self-will can be subtle. How do I know that I’m not deceiving myself about what God is telling me? But then I take notice that the Church is built on the rock that is Peter, and only one Church can really make that claim. And so I go to that Church and believe what she teaches me.

 

[JackQ]

Yes i Looked at Irenaeus. If you notice he mentioned Peter and Paul founded and organized the church of Rome.
Peter was the very first Apostle That Jesus called to be his disciple. Peter was later Given the keys to the Kingdom of God and to bind and loose. If you read else where all the Apostles where Given the Authority to bind and loose.

Jesus Christ is the Main ‘‘ROCK’’ = {foundation and Cornerstone} of the Church. Peter is the First ‘‘Rock’’ Used to build this church. Then on top of Peters Rock the rest of the stones=Rocks are placed to build this church.

Obama is the president of the united states. but he does not make all his decisions by himself. He Just speaks the decisions that have been made by others behind closed doors.

It was the same with Peter and Paul and the rest of the Apostles. Peter was Like Obama speaking the decisions that all the Apostles came To.

No, there are a few differences between the constitution of the Church and the U.S. Constitution. And as an Orthodox Christian I’m sure you’re aware that Andrew and John were actually the first disciples.

Irenaeus is making the statement that everyone has to agree with the Roman church. You can agree with him, or disagree, but that’s what he says. I agree with him.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I don’t think “through the Son” quite gets it. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Son does everything the Father does. It is the gift of the Father to the Son that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well, although it is one procession, not two.

But as I said in a previous post, I wouldn’t have any problem saying the Creed without the Filioque. But I think a lot of Orthodox Christians want me to say it’s heresy too, which I firmly believe it is not. And I wonder how many Orthodox Christians will accept papal infallibility. That, I think, is the ultimate issue.

You forget Purgatory as well, JackQ.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I’ll say the Creed without the Filioque, but I won’t say that the Filioque is heresy, because it isn’t.

I agree with you! (You are a true religious gentleman).

In fact, if it was left out of the Nicene Creed and kept as a theological tradition of the Latin Church (without imposing it on the East), the Orthodox would agree with you as well.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

No, there are a few differences between the constitution of the Church and the U.S. Constitution. And as an Orthodox Christian I’m sure you’re aware that Andrew and John were actually the first disciples.

Irenaeus is making the statement that everyone has to agree with the Roman church. You can agree with him, or disagree, but that’s what he says. I agree with him.

And the Orthodox would agree with St Irenaeus - although they believe Rome excommunicated itself over the Filioque etc.

And RC Traditionalists today who don’t agree with Vatican II or the Novus Ordo hold to a similar view where they will accept all RC councils, papal pronouncements and teachings - but wonder about Vatican II and Pope John Paul II in varying degrees that can go as far as sedevacantism.

Alex

 

[shaky]

There was talk about it in early history:shrug:. It was 1854 when the doctrine of Immaculate conception of Mary was made Infallible by the west. The East seems to have a different opinion on this.

The problem lies not with ‘‘POPE’’ of Rome Infallibility. Its the western bishops of Rome from the beginning of the split in 1054 AD trying to Assert there Authority and supremacy over the Eastern bishops.
You can call it Infallibility of the western bishops over the Eastern bishops.

 

[JackQ]

Good points! There are really two issues with the Filioque. One is that the word should never have been introduced in a Creed that was promulgated by Ecumenical Councils. The Filioque was introduced by a certain part of the Church in Spain and the Popes of Rome initially opposed its introduction vigorously. The papal tablets in Greek and Latin with the Creed without the Filioque were placed on Peter’s Tomb and are a case in point.

The theology behind the Filioque is part of the Trinitarian theology of the West and as such, the Orthodox would have no objection to it (Kallistos Ware). They object to it being in the universal Nicene Creed and to having it demanded of them.

The Filioque is actually not a good theological expression of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. RC Trinitarian theology, as you rightly point out, condemns the idea of two sources for the Spirit within the Trinity. In the Greek, “Father and the Son” mean precisely that. And this is why the Greeks consider the Filioque a heresy (which RC theology would also agree with, if it implied two sources).

Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology affirms that while the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the Spirit proceeds “actively” from the Father but “passively” from the Son (which is why “through the Son” is a better expression that safeguards the Father as the Source/Monarch for the Trinity etc.).

Be that as it may, the Nicene Creed was composed based on scriptural texts. In fact, there is no scriptural expression of “From the Son.” That alone disqualifies the Filioque on the grounds of method of composition.

In fact, the Filioque and the way it was introduced into the Creed (by later popes and outside the conciliar context) does speak to papal infallibility.

There can be no doubt but that the Church, as the Body of Christ on which the Holy Spirit rests, is infallible. Both East and West agreed and continue to agree on that.

The point of contention is how this infallibility is expressed to safeguard the Church from error.

And this relates to the age-old issue of “pope vs. council.”

When Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption, he consulted first with the world’s bishops to ask their views on it. More than 90% responded in favour of it and the pope proceeded etc.

When defining a dogma, which is always a matter of the utmost seriousness, could not the papacy simply work directly with an ecumenical council in this respect and when a Council (in circumstances where a doctrine needs to be formally defined to safeguard the Orthodox faith of the Catholic Church, as in ages past) is agreed on a dogma, then all the patriarchs sign the decretals and when the Pope of Rome, as the First Bishop of the universal Church, is the last to sign, then this can be said to be an exercise of infallibility?

Alex

You make some good points here. I’m going to render my own opinion here, and I realize that I have no Church pronouncements to back this up, so I don’t want anybody accusing me of trying to water down the Church’s papal doctrines to be more palatable to the Orthodox or for any other reason. So here goes.

First, let’s take a look at the famous passage from Matthew 16:

"13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?

14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.

15 Jesus says to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: You are Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Notice that Jesus and all of the disciples are together discussing the issue. Various opinions are put forward, and then Peter speaks. It turns out that Peter has the dispositive answer, and Jesus goes on to say the words that have been a subject of contention between Catholics and Orthodox.

Right after this incident, something else happens:

"21 From that time Jesus began to show to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again.

22 And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from you, this shall not be unto you.

23 Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, you are a scandal unto me: because you savour not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men."

Peter didn’t get it right this time. Pertinent to the point I want to make is that the other disciples weren’t involved in this particular incident; Peter took Jesus aside. [CONTINUED IN NEXT POST]

 

[JackQ]

Now, as has been pointed out many times in these discussions, the binding and loosing language in what Jesus said to Peter shows up again in Matthew 18, where Jesus says to all of the 12 disciples:

"15 But if your brother shall offend against you, go, and rebuke him between you and him alone. If he shall hear you, you shall gain your brother.

16 And if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to you as the heathen and publican.

18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."

This time the binding and loosing language is addressed to all of the apostles. But there is a difference. In the first instance, when it was addressed to Peter alone, the subject at hand was a matter of doctrine, i.e., who Jesus is. In the second case the subject is a matter of the imposition of Church discipline, more of a judicial act. [CONTINUED IN NEXT POST]