Dropping the Filoque

[scottywolf777]

Here I go again into that bleak water.

Re: authority of Peter.
THe Orthodox world as i understand it sees Bishops as co-equal to the apostles. The Bishop of Irkutsk in Siberia is equal to th Bishop of Rome. They consider themselves autocephalous (it sounds like disease doesn’t it) meaning they really don’t have to answer to anyone. However, if two Orthodox bishops have an arguement, their arbiter is none other than the Bishop of Rome. Also most Orthodox lay folks would be shocked to find out that priests in the Orthodox church still pray for the Pope behind the screen because one cannot change the Liturgy of John Crysostem or even Saint Basil.:bigyikes:

The Brothers of New Skete Monastery began as Byzantine Franciscans and after changing Bishops (this one’s too hard, this one’s too soft) are last I knew under the Antiochian Primate in Tennessee. Their book on dog rasing comes highly recommended.
Have no idea whether the dog trats are any good though- never ate one!

Luther by the way changed the creed as I found out when I visited a Lutheran friend’s church where it is “one Holy Christian ans Apostolic church”

I still have yet to figure out the problem other than the first guess of culture, custom and linguistics seem to be getting in the way. Nobody here has bothered to deal with issue of Charlemagne enforcing the filioque on the east at sword point but, that’s another hornet’s nest I want to stay away from. I remember an Orthodox priest demanding I return the original ikon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help from it’s resting place with the Redemptorist in Italy. I didn’t take it and have no pull with the Redemptorists to have it returnd. People in the east have long memories when it comes to grievances.

I actually wandered into this thread to try and understand why this issue and still conclude:
OMNIAM GRAECAM MIHI EST!

 

[Hesychios]

Here I go again into that bleak water.

Re: authority of Peter.
THe Orthodox world as i understand

Apperently…you don’t understand it.

it sees Bishops as co-equal to the apostles.

Is this not what your own church teaches?

I don’t know in which sense a bishop is equal to an apostle or not, but each bishop is equal to any other bishop.

The Bishop of Irkutsk in Siberia is equal to th Bishop of Rome.

As bishops…provided they are both Orthodox. Is that not also true in your church?

They consider themselves autocephalous (it sounds like disease doesn’t it) meaning they really don’t have to answer to anyone.

This is a straw man, and an attempt to be funny. It does not work.

I appreciate a sense of humor as much as anyone. Perhaps more than most, but condescension and ridicule really don’t count. Facts count.

However, if two Orthodox bishops have an argument, their arbiter is none other than the Bishop of Rome.

Uh…no.

Primacy is functional and operative throughout Holy Orthodoxy. Every parish has a pastor, if there are other priests attached there is a clear order of priority (as to who ‘stands in the flame’ and which position each priest takes around the altar). This is true even of the deacons and subdeacons. We practice primacy routinely.

Every bishop belongs to a synod, and every synod has a leading prelate. Sometimes this is a patriarch, sometimes it is a Metropolitan. If the synod is troubled by an issue beyond what can be handled internally, the synod can appeal to a Patriarch which has primacy. Currently the leading primacy would be administered by the Ecumenical Patriarch by default, especially since the bishop of Rome is not Orthodox. There are examples of how this works in recent memory.

Also most Orthodox lay folks would be shocked to find out that priests in the Orthodox church still pray for the Pope behind the screen because one cannot change the Liturgy of John Crysostem or even Saint Basil.:bigyikes:

Uh wrong again.

It would certainly be a shock because you are absolutely incorrect. I wonder if someone told you this? Can you give a reference, or a name?

Patriarchs and Metropolitans commemorate other Patriarchs and Metropolitans.

We also pray for those who love us and those who hate us, but the Bishop of Rome has been specifically off the dyptichs for many many centuries. You are introducing fallacies into cyberspace. The problem is that others will pick this nonsense up in good faith andf innocently repeat it as if it were true, because they read it under the CAF banner.

The Brothers of New Skete Monastery began as Byzantine Franciscans and after changing Bishops (this one’s too hard, this one’s too soft) are last I knew under the Antiochian Primate in Tennessee. Their book on dog rasing comes highly recommended.

That is odd. I could have sworn that the Communities of New Skete were still a stavropegial monastery under the omophorion of the Metropolitan primate of the OCA. Do you have a reference?

Have no idea whether the dog tr[e]ats are any good though- never ate one!

Is this an attempt at humor?

Luther by the way changed the creed as I found out when I visited a Lutheran friend’s church where it is “one Holy Christian ans Apostolic church”

What has this to do with Holy Orthodoxy?

I still have yet to figure out the problem other than the first guess of culture, custom and linguistics seem to be getting in the way. Nobody here has bothered to deal with issue of Charlemagne enforcing the filioque on the east at sword point but, that’s another hornet’s nest I want to stay away from.

Then why did you bring this up?

I remember an Orthodox priest demanding I return the original ikon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help from it’s resting place with the Redemptorist in Italy. I didn’t take it and have no pull with the Redemptorists to have it returnd. People in the east have long memories when it comes to grievances.

Another funny? He was obviously suggesting that your church return the stolen icon. I don’t think he expected you to do it.

After that, It might be a good idea to return Our Lady of Czestochowa. Not you exactly, but your church. That’s my suggestion.

 

[scottywolf777]

Dear brother michael Slava Jesu Christe,
I wish the orthodox folks would quit jumping one me!
I am not trying to represent either church, I am trying to dialogue as best as i can on an issue that is beyond me.
I have always tried to maintain good relations with both lungs of Chrstianity.If part of my family hadn’t moved out of eastern europe and married Roman Catholics I might have been eastern. Jesus didn’t found two seperate churches this was an accident of history… In regards to the filioque I’d not be opposed to dropping it if it would bring Peter and his eastern brothers back together. I have been known at Mass to spend the point in the creed praying for mutual understanding and unity of the two churches…
I love the beauty of the Eastern Liturgy and art etc as well as that which is good and beautiful in the west.both in the traditional latin rite and the novus ordo.
By the way since one of the people in the debate was Lutheran I merely pointed out that Luther has also changed the creed not that I agree with it or not (which I don’t really beleive Luther had the authority to be a dog cathcher with apologies to the Lutherans)
The priest who told me to return the ikon was serious not comical and angry.PS guys lighten up a little! i give up this thread no more responses to me please!

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother michael Slava Jesu Christe,
I wish the orthodox folks would quit jumping one me!
I am not trying to represent either church, I am trying to dialogue as best as i can on an issue that is beyond me…

Dear friend in Christ Scotty,

I am sorry that my post in response to you came off so harshly. I completely misread you, please forgive me.

Peace and all good things,
Michael

 

[prodromos]

I wish the orthodox folks would quit jumping one me!

We are merely correcting your errors. You would not wish to unknowingly spread falsehood would you?

John

 

[Hesychios]

We are merely correcting your errors. You would not wish to unknowingly spread falsehood would you?

John

I would think that Eastern Catholics would be the first to step in and correct errors perpetrated by their co-religionists here, this is their own house.

But, unfortunately…

 

[johnnykins]

Hi Hes. Back in Post #29, I tried to get you to say exactly what you think about the theology of the filioque as it is officially understood by Catholicism.

#29

Originally posted by Johnnykins
Hes are you saying you AGREE with the Catholic theology of the Filioque as clearly defined by Catholicism? If yes, that’s one thing. If NO, well— that’s another. No quibbling, Hes! Do you agree the Catholic Church’s understanding is orthodox (small “o” - and therefore the same as that of the Orthodox (capital “O”) church)?

If you indeed will publicly state, without equivocation, you accept the theology of the filioque, I am willing to publicly state I was wrong about you. You disappeared from this thread after I challenged you. Perhaps, you did not realize you had been challenged? Perhaps you do not want to answer for any number of reasons including: (1) I have pegged you correctly, (2) You know there are consequences from answering, such as having to defend the Orthodox rejection of Florence, (3) You don’t like to get challenged and are willing to bear the stigma of being disingenuous, etc., (4) Perhaps you have another?

I am willing to suppose you didn’t know you were being asked this question, having got bored with this thread. So one more time, Hes:

Hes are you saying you AGREE with the Catholic theology of the Filioque as clearly defined by Catholicism? If yes, that’s one thing. If NO, well— that’s another. No quibbling, Hes! Do you agree the Catholic Church’s understanding is orthodox (small “o” - and therefore the same as that of the Orthodox (capital “O”) church)?

 

[johnnykins]

C’mon Hes. Here’s what you’ve already posted:

#16
I for one, as an Orthodox Christian, would be satisfied if this change in interpretation were made formally and recited as corrected for: through the Son. I think that the issue of the canonicity of the interpolation could be eventually worked out (understood as an amplification of the text, not as an addition), if the distinction were made clear.

#20
I just think that if the true sense of the Latin understanding were correctly translated into English, Swahili or what-have-you, instead of the unfortunate ambiguity carried over from the Latin, we would see enormous progress.

#24
I feel strongly that either the church should change the (accurate but inferior) translation from the Latin to more closely conform with the theology or drop it out completely. I have noticed most joint commissions on the subject will suggest that the interpolation be dropped when possible, I guess that’s been why all along.

All you gotta do is say the Catholic Church’s official understanding of the filioque is orthodox - the same as the Orthodox Church. You come real close above. Just say it. Show you really believe the Catholic Church has the same understanding as Orthodoxy and that you are not being deceptive, nit-picking , pedantic and disingenuous. I really want to believe you are truly trying to “close the gap” - not by conversion.

 

[JohnVIII]

All you gotta do is say the Catholic Church’s official understanding of the filioque is orthodox - the same as the Orthodox Church. You come real close above. Just say it. Show you really believe the Catholic Church has the same understanding as Orthodoxy and that you are not being deceptive, nit-picking , pedantic and disingenuous. I really want to believe you are truly trying to “close the gap” - not by conversion.

How will changing the Creed to “Through the Son” instead of “and the Son” help fight Arianism? Maybe you should keep it the way it is so that the Catholic Church’s un-official understanding of the filioque can fight Arianism.

 

[jimmy]

Hesychios doesn’t come here to proselytize. He has been coming here since before he was Orthodox. He was a Byzantine Catholic a few years back and was one of the best of the Catholic posters on these forums. Now he is Orthodox and continues to come and discuss things with Catholics.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Hes. Nice to see you’ve returned.

Johnny,

I am not convinced that the Papal Communion (the Papacy, the Roman Catholic church and the other associated Autonomous Ritual churches under the Pope) consistently teaches an Orthodox understanding of what could be the “filioque”. Sometimes some do - sometimes some don’t. The proof is in the pudding. I cannot understand why there is resistance to making the change, where appropriate, in every language that the distinction can be made clear. It would be a big help.

After all, the Creed is a teaching tool, and a rule of Faith. It should be unambiguous.

Also, it is very clear from history that the Roman Catholic hierarchy forced an incorrect interpretation on the Greeks in the past. So there is an inconsistency here, it shows that the Latin hierarchy, the “Magisterium”, has been confused in the past about this.

Interestingly today, the Greeks are not required to recite the filioque at all, even in the Latin parishes within Greece.

I am now familiar (since contributions to this thread) with the canonical ‘rule’ that everything must match the Latin, but that is just not good enough. It is a poor excuse, especially since the Creed was originally composed in Greek, a Latin translation of the Greek original cannot possibly supercede it, most especially when it adds or increases ambiguity. It does not make the least bit of sense.

Latin was not even the liturgical language in Rome for 300 years or more, so to make it the absolute standard today is nothing if not inconsistent.

I would suggest that all translations of the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed be from the Greek and match the Greek. I would likewise suggest that all translations of the Creed that unavoidably must include the filioque specifically state that the Holy Spirit spyrates *through *the Son.

In this way, at least a more correct theology will assuredly be taught to the masses of innocent Christians if we do not succeed in getting that thing deleted from the Creed.

I think that I, as an Orthodox Catholic Christian, was being very reasonable in suggesting this. I think that it would be a terrific start towards healing old wounds. At least for me and other Orthodox like me who want to see the schism begin to fade away. It would be a demonstration of good faith we could be encouraged over.

 

[prodromos]

… deceptive, nit-picking , pedantic and disingenuous.

I cannot seriously believe that anyone could come to such a conclusion from reading Hesychios’ posts. I would suggest that you need to remove those tinted glasses you are wearing so you can read his posts without your presuppositions as to his motives. You might learn something.

John

 

[justacloserwalk]

Here I go again into that bleak water.

Re: authority of Peter.
THe Orthodox world as i understand it sees Bishops as co-equal to the apostles. The Bishop of Irkutsk in Siberia is equal to th Bishop of Rome. They consider themselves autocephalous (it sounds like disease doesn’t it) meaning they really don’t have to answer to anyone. However, if two Orthodox bishops have an arguement, their arbiter is none other than the Bishop of Rome. Also most Orthodox lay folks would be shocked to find out that priests in the Orthodox church still pray for the Pope behind the screen because one cannot change the Liturgy of John Crysostem or even Saint Basil.:bigyikes:

The Brothers of New Skete Monastery began as Byzantine Franciscans and after changing Bishops (this one’s too hard, this one’s too soft) are last I knew under the Antiochian Primate in Tennessee. Their book on dog rasing comes highly recommended.
Have no idea whether the dog trats are any good though- never ate one!

Luther by the way changed the creed as I found out when I visited a Lutheran friend’s church where it is “one Holy Christian ans Apostolic church”

I still have yet to figure out the problem other than the first guess of culture, custom and linguistics seem to be getting in the way. Nobody here has bothered to deal with issue of Charlemagne enforcing the filioque on the east at sword point but, that’s another hornet’s nest I want to stay away from. I remember an Orthodox priest demanding I return the original ikon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help from it’s resting place with the Redemptorist in Italy. I didn’t take it and have no pull with the Redemptorists to have it returnd. People in the east have long memories when it comes to grievances.

I actually wandered into this thread to try and understand why this issue and still conclude:
OMNIAM GRAECAM MIHI EST!

They are not under the Antiochian Primate in Tenn…no such animal. pardon the pun.

They are under the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) not the Antiochians. We are all Orthodox though. The difference is our service is entirely in English.

newskete.com/history.htm
I don’t know where you got the idea that Rome arbitrates when two Orthodox Bishops have a dispute.

I don’t think we are the only ones with long memories…people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I think that is part of our fallen nature

Barbara

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother scottywolf,

However, if two Orthodox bishops have an arguement, their arbiter is none other than the Bishop of Rome.

Your statement is not the full story. The NORMATIVE means of resolution between two bishops within a Metropolitan See or a Patriarchal See is to first appeal to the Synod of that See. That has been the way of the Church since the beginning.

It is canonically possible that, even after the decision of a Synod, the bishop wants his case reheard. At that point, he has two options. The first option is that he can appeal to the bishop of Rome, who would then determine if his case deserves another hearing. If so, the Pope would appoint judges who will rehear the case. This is a very rare occurrence. An even more rare occurence is the second option, which is to have the appeal heard during an Ecumenical Council. This is even more rare because an Eumenical Council would never be called merely to settle the internal affairs of a particular Church. In the past, an Ecumenical Council has dealt with such local matters only coincidentally - i.e., an Ecumenical Council just happened to be convened at the time the local matter was brought to its attention.

The above matter was the way of it when the Churches were still united. Currently, the highest court of appeal for the Eastern Orthodox world would be a plenary Council of Eastern Orthodox Churches. But, like the situation with an Ecumenical Council, a plenary Council would never be called simply to settle such matters. If it did so, it would be a coincidental matter, while the NORMATIVE means of resolution for such matters has, as stated above, always been the local Synod.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

The Council of Florence, with consent of the Byzantine Orthodox delegation, resolved that the Pope was the final arbiter.

The Byzantine churches as a generality then promptly decried the Council of Florence, and the Popes along with it, for claiming authority not theirs to have.

So one who does not know of the overall Byzantine dismissal of Florence might come to think the Orthodox accepted it (since their delegation did), but that general acceptance never happened. Only the delegation accepted it.

 

[justacloserwalk]

Dear brother michael Slava Jesu Christe,
I wish the orthodox folks would quit jumping one me!
I am not trying to represent either church, I am trying to dialogue as best as i can on an issue that is beyond me.
I have always tried to maintain good relations with both lungs of Chrstianity.If part of my family hadn’t moved out of eastern europe and married Roman Catholics I might have been eastern. Jesus didn’t found two seperate churches this was an accident of history… In regards to the filioque I’d not be opposed to dropping it if it would bring Peter and his eastern brothers back together. I have been known at Mass to spend the point in the creed praying for mutual understanding and unity of the two churches…
I love the beauty of the Eastern Liturgy and art etc as well as that which is good and beautiful in the west.both in the traditional latin rite and the novus ordo.
By the way since one of the people in the debate was Lutheran I merely pointed out that Luther has also changed the creed not that I agree with it or not (which I don’t really beleive Luther had the authority to be a dog cathcher with apologies to the Lutherans)
The priest who told me to return the ikon was serious not comical and angry.PS guys lighten up a little! i give up this thread no more responses to me please!

No one is jumping on you. Hes corrected errors in your post, I don’t think it was personal. My post wasn’t intended to be taken personally.

What you said was incorrect (about the Orthodox Church) and it would be taken as correct info because it was posted (if left unchallenged) on this site.

I have seen the same thing happen on sites when wrong info about the RCC was posted.

No one corrected the posters info…interestingly this poster was a former Roman Catholic…lol…who obviously had not attended Catechism classes.
As a Protestant (at that time) who was inquiring into the RCC I knew the poster was wrong but felt I should not post the correct info.

New Skete sells cheesecake…it is supposed to be wonderful from what I hear.

Barbara

 

[marlo]

I definitely agree on your points below.

if the Greeks would say the creed, I believe in the Holy Spirits which originates from the Father and we Latin would say the creed, I believe in the Holy Spirit which spirates through the Son (as this is now our creed). People would automatically understand that the insertion was to clarify the faith for the purpose of fighting Arianism.

Lets petition for this.

I would suggest that all translations of the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed be from the Greek and match the Greek. I would likewise suggest that all translations of the Creed that unavoidably must include the filioque specifically state that the Holy Spirit spyrates *through *the Son.

In this way, at least a more correct theology will assuredly be taught to the masses of innocent Christians if we do not succeed in getting that thing deleted from the Creed.

I think that I, as an Orthodox Catholic Christian, was being very reasonable in suggesting this. I think that it would be a terrific start towards healing old wounds. At least for me and other Orthodox like me who want to see the schism begin to fade away. It would be a demonstration of good faith we could be encouraged over.

 

[mardukm]

How will changing the Creed to “Through the Son” instead of “and the Son” help fight Arianism? Maybe you should keep it the way it is so that the Catholic Church’s un-official understanding of the filioque can fight Arianism.

Today’s Arians do not exist under the banner of “Arianism.” They belong to groups such as Iglesia Ni Kristo, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other fringe “Christian” groups. Iglesia Ni Kristo is mostly a phenomenon in the Philippines. It is rather popular, being married to nationalist/jingoist agendas. It would be very beneficial for the Church in the Philippines to retain the filioque.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

The question that I rarely see, if ever, is whether it is even acceptable to have a compromise. How can one part of the Church have one form of the creed and another part have another form of the creed? Is this really acceptable? The creed is our baptismal faith. It is what we profess either through our own profession or through that of our parents at our baptism. Maybe the corresponding theologies are the same but you can’t say that the creed is the same. One says From the Father, the other says From the Father and the Son. Is it really acceptable to have different baptismal professions of faith?

By the way, I am open on this. I am not necessarily opposing a compromise.

 

[scottywolf777]

“For what does it profit if we abstain from fish or fowl and yet bite and devour our brothers and sisters? The evil speaker eats the flesh of his brother and he bites the body of his neighbor” -Saint John Chrysostem

I chose to start here because I think this quote really speaks to us in Lent which is almost over about something that I have felt for a long time dealing with my eastern bretheran. We have a chasm spanning nearly 1000 years over an argument between the Patriarch of Constantinople and a Papal envoy both of whom are dust and whom history really recalls as bull-headed jerks. i am with the deacon who found the excommunication order and ran after the Papal envoy begging for reconsideration over a rash act we are all still paying for 1000 years later.

Going beyond the word in the creed, what can we do to make peace with our eastern bretheran and how do we encourage them to make peace with us? What actual difference in terms of lex credendi, lex orandi does it actually make? Please no more quotes from early church fathers which don’t seem to tell me much in terms of actual spiritual praxis to me here in the pew and not in the curia.

The modern arian or even aryan wouldn’t even have half a clue about the Nicene creed and their eyes would be glazed over long before we got to the filioque.:byzsoc: