How is this not heresy?

[AlNg]

And was that not wrong?

So the Roman Catholic Church was wrong then?

some Protestants have problems with icons or sacraments, should we abandon those too?

Protestants do not accept the Holy Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus. It is an entirely different situation. I am flabbergasted that you don’t see the difference between the two cases. In the case we are discussing, both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are perfectly fine with the term per filium. Since both sides are perfectly fine with this expression, and since the Roman Catholic Church desires full communion with the Eastern Orthodox, why don’t they go ahead and ease the way toward reunion by adopting this phrase instead of the problematical filioque. Unless, perhaps my assumption about the Roman Church desiring full communion is not accurate.

Good will is important but secondary to integrity of the Church.

Please explain why the expression per filium is an attack on the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church? I thought that Roman Catholic theologians has said that it is perfectly acceptable. Please let us know what you find objectionable about the term per filiu.

We cannot promote good will at the expense of fullness of truth.

So after all, the expression per filium is not an expression with the fullness of truth? And it is an attack on the integrity of the Roman Catholic church, contrary to the many assertions that per filium is perfectly acceptable? Please tell us why the expression per filium is not the fullness of truth and what is your objection to it?

could not be changed like that without causing uproar

It is odd that you imply that Roman Catholics cannot live through uproar. Did not Roman Catholics live through the uproar which occurred when the Tridentine Mass was replaced by the New Mass? That seems to me to have been a huge change - where you change the whole Mass. In comparison, to change from fiiioque to per filium seems quite minor.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So the Roman Catholic Church was wrong then?

Some Bishops were wrong to do so, yes.

Protestants do not accept the Holy Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus. It is an entirely different situation. I am flabbergasted that you don’t see the difference between the two cases.

I do. I liken them to prove a point. If Orthodoxy is fine with per filium why not adopt it? Its the same reason. As I said Filioque as problem for union lies in its inclusion in the Creed, not the meaning. Per Filium does not help that.

Please explain why the expression per filium is an attack on the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church?

It would certainly not please traditionalists. Same way Eastern Catholics can say Creed without it, Latin Church has right to use it. Personally, if Pope changed it I would not mind, but it would not solve Filioque dispute of inclusion in the Creed and would change Creed we share with some Western churches or Protestants, Anglicans etc. It would create disunity with the West.

It is odd that you imply that Roman Catholics cannot live through uproar.

She can, but causing it for such reason is not ideal. Orthodoxy would object against Pope changing Creed anyway. Also uproar from V2 Mass was not as big as some make it to be- wrong interpretations of V2 caused much more uproar.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) LilyM:

We cannot promote good will at the expense of fullness of truth.

No, it is. It is full truth and it would be error to say it is not as its denial is contrary to idea of Filioque itself.

 

[AlNg]

It is full truth

My point. Full truth and good will gestures should not cause an uproar.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Full truth should not cause an uproar.

Yeah that is true, but very unfortunately it is almost never the case. Imagine Orthodoxy adopting per Filium, how many people would be angry about it?

Another case is continuity- great Saints have professed Creed using Filioque and it puts us into connection with them when saying it the same way, it is something done by Christians since 1K. I understand every tradition starts somewhere and we don’t need to cling to everything, but still it is a factor.

 

[Salibi]

Salibi, thank you for the reply. I’ve covered this ground in my above responses. Basically, here is my stance: How can people deny God the Son and still be worshipping the same God as us?

Is Jesus’ entire existence less important than the “number” of gods involved?

Hey, was just revisiting here and realized I’ve forgotten to reply…I’m a bit busy and this is becoming frequent.

Not sure I understand the question. God is God (Trinity). Denying Trinity doesn’t change who God is. Even if I deny the Trinity, the Trinity is, and it is this Trinity that Abrahamic faiths worship, even those who do not believe in it.

Your profile says you are Orthodox. I’m not sure whether your position is the Orthodox Church’s position but none of the Orthodox I know deny that Muslims worship the same God as us.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Athanasius of Alrexandria said Arians blasphemed against our Lord. Hence he did think of them lying about One Triune God- same God that Christian Church worship. In his work against Arians, he continually calls them as ones blaspheming Christ and Holy Trinity and not ones devising their own gods. Athanasius of Alexandria surely knew about their beliefs and was masterful enough in theology to judge this correctly. He attributes respect in words Word, Christ and Son even when explaining Arian theology about our Lord. There is no distinguishing between Son as used when wrongly understood by Arian theology and Son as used in orthodox faith explanation given by Athanasius. Athanasius even says Arius speaks of God;
“… must hate, and justly hate, this Arius jesting on such matters as on a stage ? Who but must regard him, when he pretends to name God and speak of God, but as the serpent counselling the woman?”
“… in the words which He has already uttered by the prophet Hosea, ‘Woe unto them, for they have fled from Me; destruction upon them, for they have transgressed against Me; though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me’ Hosea 7:13”
By same definition Muslims worship same God despite being non-trinitarian. This is my main argument against your concept.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Like the Muslims they did not know the full nature of God. Never does it say they worshipped the Trinity.

Christian did not fully understand God in the first century. We do not fully understand Him now. We grow in our knowledge & understanding through prayer. Even when we see Him face to face (so I’m told) we still won’t fully understand Him.

Still we believe, adore, hope, & love Him.

Genesis 3:15

And God said again to Moses: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me to you: This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

If we believe the God of Abraham is the creator of all that is, how can that not be the same God Christians adore & glorify?

 

[fide]

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth , who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.

The Church is not in heresy when she “regards with esteem also the Moslems.” She certainly does not share the faith of the Moslems, but she recognizes in it a step toward truth (even though a confused one), a belief which can be considered a modification of the (partial) truth of God revealed to Abraham.