Orthodox Article on Differences between "East" and "West"

[josie_L]

You do know that there are Catholic Churches that are ethnic, and Orthodox Churches that are diverse? I go to a very ethnicly diverse Orthodox Church, many of the people not even from countries with Orthodox backgrounds.

There are two apostles in the Gospels who committed apostacy. Judas, and St. Peter. The difference is that St. Peter repented (and eventually gave his life for Christ). To believe that anyone is immune from a certain sin when the man whose authority he claims committed one of the greatest sins of all is just creating an environment where repentence becomes impossible.

St. Peter did not commit the sin of apostasy but rather acted cowardly, i.e., his actions were no different than the other apostles (with the exception of John) who abandoned Jesus in his most darkest hour.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Have you been to an Orthodox church? There’s a lot of “it seems like” or “I can’t imagine” in your posts when it comes to this topic. If you have been, I’m sorry you’ve had this experience but I must say it’s not the case everywhere. I’m white, born and raised American, and I’ve been to several Orthodox churches across the USA and I’ve never felt like a stranger.

In our parish we have white Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans with ethnic Russians, Greeks, Ukrainians, Romanians, Italians, Copts, Jews and lots of converts.

Of course the liturgy is going to feel foreign but that has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. The Divine Liturgy is the heavenly liturgy on Earth. Of course it’s going to feel strange at first.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josie_L]

Actually, if you would notice, I do not wish ill for the Catholic Church, but that it should’ve done better. The fatalistic view that you posted, that Protestantism was meant to be, would in my mind be the one wishing ill the Catholic Church; it would mean then that there is nothing the Catholic Church could’ve done to stop it. That is simply not true; it could’ve done something, as we saw in the counter-reformation. But that came a bit too late to stave off Protestantism. By then, most of Europe had turned to Protestantism, and the Catholic Church had to look elsewhere to revitalize itself or be surrounded by Protestants.

The fact of the matter is that it happened, moreover, the Catholic Church did react quite quickly to Luther’s criticisms/theses in that Johann Eck successfully engaged (i.e., he deftly argued against his heretical beliefs) Luther in a public debate (in 1518). This was one of several debates that Church theologians would have with Luther (hoping he would leave all heresy behind). Needless to say, Luther was already very much wedded to his opinions (it is believed that Luther suffered from scruplosity so believing in sola fide would give him comfort) . Furthermore, if the Catholic Church did lose momentum with regard to fighting off protestantism it is due mainly to the threat of Islam. The aggressiveness which the Turks displayed left no room for doubt that they wished to conquer Rome/Europe.

p.s. Protestantism took root mainly because it became the sanctioned state religion by monarchies/nobility (Sweden, Denmark, Germany, England . . etc.) who were hungry for the monetary rewards they would gain from stealing and stripping monasteries of their worth.

 

[MartinJordan]

until I realized some things in Matthew–first, a few seconds after Peter was given the keys, Jesus rebuked him. Later we see the keys given to the other Apostles as well

Just for clarification :

14 [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.

Taken from
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As far as teachings go, they are not affected, for as long as he teaches what is orthodox. However, when he deviates from that, then it is affected. So do we Orthodox believe the bishop of Rome to be infallible? No, we don’t.

Well I won’t argue with your statements here; I generally agree. There are Protestant hymns that have infiltrated my diocese/parish that make me want to stick my finger down my throat and gag at times. Amazing Grace is the crown jewel of puke for me, no doubt. I’m not a big fan of Calvinist total human depravity and that’s what that song heralds. I think some are beautiful, like the couple I mentioned earlier. But you’re right that someone’s been asleep at the censorship switch. Good point.

This might derail the topic, but I will address the issue nonetheless; yes, the Protestant hymns can be beautiful. I hear them and I enjoy them from a musical viewpoint. However, to introduce them into Mass is another issue; it is not about beauty we are talking here, but what they are actually teaching. There are songs that might be benign and that’s all well and good, but the danger I see here is letting a song that is contrary to the Catholic faith slip through, and that is where everything starts. Already I see charismatic praise-and-worship type of services, and some groups even putting it with more importance than the Mass. I don’t see any bishop making an active effort to halt or even warn people. The Catholic Church has slowly tried to modernize, but in the process it also has begun to accept even those which it previously did not.

Contraception and abortion were decried in the ancient Church. There are plenty of vocal opinions from ECF’s on that. Even Martin Luther was against it as was Calvin. But my point is that Orthodox apologists on here love to decry how the Catholic Church has crashed into an iceberg of heresy and has sunk into the depths of modernism and are lost sheep. The Orthodox don’t like to talk about how birth control has inflitrated and polluted their Church. Divorces are quite common in Orthodoxy as well.
There is a difference between birth control and abortion; the ancient Church decried about abortion, not birth control. Contraception is largely a modern phenomena brought about by the use of pills and medicine. But yes, this is another topic for another thread.

You’re right, only God knows. I won’t try to figure God out. Big mistake!
Seeing such triumphalistic posts like this only, unfortunately, makes me realize how much true Orthodoxy is as opposed to Catholicism, and is it any surprise that I encounter these from Catholics? Then again, as I said, God works in mysterious ways.

**This is a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Orthodox will say there’s so much the Church could’ve done to stave off the Reformation. In your statement the Catholic Counter-Reformation was a good thing and, had it taken place earlier, Protestantism might have been choked out. I don’t buy that. And Orthodox on the other hand argue that Trent and the Counter-Reformation are nothing more than Protestantizing the Church anyway? The Counter Reformation wouldn’t have appeased Luther and especially not Calvin, Zwingli and men like Martin Bucer. These men believed in various Eucharistic views that were far, far away from the Orthodox or Catholic understandings. They believed in justification through faith ALONE. They believed in priesthood of all believers and only two sacraments. Ideas like TULIP from Calvin and irresistable grace, double predestination, the elect, etc. Those crazy ideas wouldn’t have disappeared with the Council of Trent or the Counter-Reformation movement? Protestants only laughed at Trent and other Catholic attempts to counter. I still say you’re playing Monday Morning Quarterback. It’s like saying, why did Orthodoxy allow Communism to flourish and atheism to take hold all over the Balkans, Russia, Ukraine, and Soviet lands in general? Maybe if the Orthodox had fought harder to be a moral compass there wouldn’t have been the Marxist regimes taking over the East? Maybe it’s their fault! Of course not, that’s silly. Just as silly as holding Catholicism responsible for the Reformation. Or how about the Iconoclastic movement in Orthodoxy? Apparently Orthodoxy didn’t have a very strong unity or moral base when that craziness was kicking in? See, anyone can look for splinter groups, times of weakness, and play Monday morning quarterback. It’s useless. My view isn’t fatalistic, it’s realistic. Men like Luther and Calvin existed just like men like Arius and Nestorius existed. They all did a LOT of damage to Christendom and the Church cannot be held culpable everytime a crackpot group of men decide to fall away from Christ. That is the sin of individuals, not the Catholic Church. **
Actually, if you would notice, I do not wish ill for the Catholic Church, but that it should’ve done better. The fatalistic view that you posted, that Protestantism was meant to be, would in my mind be the one wishing ill the Catholic Church; it would mean then that there is nothing the Catholic Church could’ve done to stop it. That is simply not true; it could’ve done something, as we saw in the counter-reformation. But that came a bit too late to stave off Protestantism. By then, most of Europe had turned to Protestantism, and the Catholic Church had to look elsewhere to revitalize itself or be surrounded by Protestants.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

** Hi wynd, I’m glad you threw in your two cents! Just don’t throw too many, this economy is pretty rough…**

Just wanted to throw my two cents in.

**Thanks for noticing. No, I have not been in an Orthodox parish nor do I plan to. In California the Greeks and Ukranians and Russians have played zero role in our history and they’re a non-event really. There are very few Orthodox parishes. There is one about an hour north of here, a small Greek parish. There is also an Armenian Orthodox parish near here. Only Armenians go to it. Just like the with the Greek, only Greeks attend. We do indeed have a Coptic Orthodox Church here in my town suprisingly. Guess what? Drive by there or go to their website and guess what the congregation is? 100% Egyptians and other Middle-Easterners. There isn’t a line of Anglos clammoring to get into any of these churches. On the website of the church an hour from here it has a bunch of Greek writing in the parish bulletin and is catering mostly to that community. I’m glad you yourself never felt like a stranger and I’m happy to hear you’re comfortable. I’m not I would be. **
Have you been to an Orthodox church? There’s a lot of “it seems like” or “I can’t imagine” in your posts when it comes to this topic. If you have been, I’m sorry you’ve had this experience but I must say it’s not the case everywhere. I’m white, born and raised American, and I’ve been to several Orthodox churches across the USA and I’ve never felt like a stranger.

I’m not basing it off this solely but I am saying the Catholic Church is far, far more universal and better-epitomizing the word “catholic.” It reached out to the British, Irish, Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, Germans, Swiss, French, Filipinos, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Brazilians, the rest of North America, on and on and on…The Catholic Church reached and touch the lives of far far more races of people across this globe than Orthodoxy. Anyone knows that. And I’ll bet you that my parish which is full of Mexicans, Portuguese, Filipinos, Polish, Irish, Germans, Anglos like me, and even Lahus from Thailand is far more diverse and truly “catholic” than any Orthodox parish. This is one aspect of the Church I’m talking about, not the only important one. I feel Catholicism is more universal and had a stronger sense of mission and still does than Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy was a religion of the East and for the most part, still is.
I’m sure people of other religions feel much the same way about joining the RCC. Does that make the RCC a bad choice?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You believe he committed apostacy.

You see nothing wrong with believing the office to be infallible when the first one to hold it had committed apostacy?

 

[MartinJordan]

Personally I think its very sad that despite the fact that St. Peter died for his Faith, whatever weaknesses he had, we’ve needed to split the Churches several hundred years later.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The 1054 split was born out of hostility and hot-headed foolishness from both sides and it’s probably THE most tragic historical event of all time religiously

Personally I think its very sad that despite the fact that St. Peter died for his Faith, whatever weaknesses he had, we’ve needed to split the Churches several hundred years later.

 

[Milliardo]

the Catholic Church did react quite quickly to Luther’s criticisms/theses in that Johann Eck successfully engaged (i.e., he deftly argued against his heretical beliefs) Luther in a public debate (in 1518).

No, this is not the action I was talking about; if you read my earlier post, I mentioned that instead of acting on Luther’s complaints, the Catholic Church spent more of its time defending itself rather than focusing on what he was complaining. Had those been acted on earlier, the situation might’ve diffused itself. As you can see, debate wasn’t the solution there, but more of looking into the complaints itself and rectifying them. By the time the Catholic Church did act on them it was a bit too late; Protestantism had taken hold by then.

Needless to say, Luther was already very much wedded to his opinions

The early statements of Luther showed he did not wish to separate himself from the Catholic Church. What forced him to take a harder and harder stance was the intransigence of the other side. Perhaps had the Catholic Church been more interested then into dialogue it Luther would at some point had backed down.

Furthermore, if the Catholic Church did lose momentum with regard to fighting off protestantism it is due mainly to the threat of Islam.

Although the threat was very real, by that time the Crusades had more or less put Islam’s advance in check. Though from a military standpoint the Crusades had been largely a failure, it did achieve one aim: it checked the advance of Islam into Europe. By the time of Luther the threat wasn’t as great as it was centuries earlier.

 

[Milliardo]

**

Contraception and abortion were decried in the ancient Church.

**

I’ve studied this matter from the early Fathers onwards, and though the decried about abortion, contraception they did not. However, they did go against mutilation, which some such as vasectomy and the like would fall into; such measures were incidentally contraceptive as well. The Orthodox Church is against abortion and mutilation, but it is more cautious on the point of contraception. It sees it as a two-edged sword: it can be beneficial or it can be harmful. The Orthodox Church is more pragmatic in this in that it sees just as harmful a family with so many children and yet has little to support itself; poverty then becomes a vicious cycle there.

In your statement the Catholic Counter-Reformation was a good thing and, had it taken place earlier, Protestantism might have been choked out. I don’t buy that.

I actually would; if done early, the counter-reformation would’ve diffused much of Luther’s complaints. He wouldn’t rail as much, and the German princes would’nt have used him for their own purposes.
**

The Counter Reformation wouldn’t have appeased Luther and especially not Calvin, Zwingli and men like Martin Bucer.

**

Had Luther been heard and the Catholic Church acted, I don’t think Luther would have much else to complain about, and certainly then neither would Calvin, Zwingli and all the other early Protestants will have much to rally on. Luther went further and further since the Catholic Church pushed him. Yes, Luther does have a problem when it comes to obedience, but I see that it might’ve been caused by what he saw–clergy abusing their power. It would be easy for someone like Luther to think that if clergy can do it, then there is no reason for him to rebel as well. Of course this is a flawed logic, made by men who are weak, but the point is that had the counter-reformation been done earlier these early Protestants wouldn’t have much ammunition to use against the Catholic Church. Yet the Catholic Church was slow in reacting, and in that period the early Protestants had much ammunition to use against it. Them, as well as the nobility with their own vested interests. It didn’t take much for the nobles to use those same arguments for their own purposes.
**

Men like Luther and Calvin existed just like men like Arius and Nestorius existed.

**

The difference back then was that there wasn’t much for Arius or Nestorius to use against the Church; certainly no scandals or abuses back then. The Church then was seen as something that was almost pure as against the corrupt pagan priests and temples. So Arius and Nestorius can rail all they want, but would not succeed much in breaking the Church. By the 16th century the Western Church had fallen much into abuse and scandal, and most people were by then tired of it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**
**But ironically it is arguably more pro-life to have a vasectomy than to take the birth control pill as the pill has been proven to be abortifacient whereas a vasectomy or tubal is not? Which is more destructive? ****
I’ve studied this matter from the early Fathers onwards, and though the decried about abortion, contraception they did not. However, they did go against mutilation, which some such as vasectomy and the like would fall into; such measures were incidentally contraceptive as well. The Orthodox Church is against abortion and mutilation, but it is more cautious on the point of contraception. font]

If you read as many biographies as I have about Luther, he was into Erasmian humanist writings and the writings of Jan Hus early in his Catholic career. He had read several other works that were blatantly anti-clerical. Luther’s initial complaints, you are correct, were about indulgences. But he had a very dim view of clergy, sacramental thinking, church polity, etc. already. His sola scriptura thinking was not a reaction to Catholicism either. He didn’t invent s.s. but rather gained it from his exposure to those ‘pre-reformers’ that preceded him. I highly recommend reading “The Cleaving of Christendom” by Warren Carrol. It really spells out and documents Luther’s descent into the protestant abyss long before nailing anything to the Wittenberg Cathedral doors. And Calvin is a whole other ball of wax. Total human depravity, irresistible grace, s.s., and all his other TULIP nonsense was not a reaction to Catholicism as much as a brew he cooked in his own cellar. Orthodoxy wouldn’t have faired any better.

One thing you’re forgetting, and Josie touched on this, is the POLITICAL reality of Europe. Nation-states were on the rise, greedy, selfish kings and other landed nobility had much to gain by giving the Church the boot and inventing their own national churches. Real estate, monastaries, cathedrals, and Catholic wealth was plundered by men like Henry VIII who had much to gain. Power over religion in those days was also very beneficial for monarchs and nobles. Catholicism covered far more territory than Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy didn’t have to deal with a barbarian assault on Rome, either, and Christianizing the Goths and other invaders. Catholicism is impressive in that it was able to convert its own attackers and spread the faith through Europe unilaterally, without the help of the East.

I actually would; if done early, the counter-reformation would’ve diffused much of Luther’s complaints. He wouldn’t rail as much, and the German princes would’nt have used him for their own purposes.
**

NOthing in Luther’s history or personal pathology shows us that a reasoned sit-down to hear his demands would’ve staved off further outbursts and unreasonable demands against the Catholic Church. If you read about Luther you’ll see he had a fiery temper, a big ego, made enemies easily, was very abrasive, and had no love for the Church polity of his day. He was highly influenced by pre-protestant writers.
**Had Luther been heard and the Catholic Church acted, I don’t think Luther would have much else to complain about, and certainly then neither would Calvin, Zwingli and all the other early Protestants will have much to rally on. Luther went further and further since the Catholic Church pushed him. Of course this is a flawed logic, made by men who are weak, but the point is that had the counter-reformation been done earlier these early Protestants wouldn’t have much ammunition to use against the Catholic Church. Yet the Catholic Church was slow in reacting, and in that period the early Protestants had much ammunition to use against it. Them, as well as the nobility with their own vested interests. It didn’t take much for the nobles to use those same arguments for their own purposes.
**

The Church has always had drama, sinners, saints, and scandal. Nothing new under the sun. Imagine the scandal and drama when a great man like Tertullian became a Montanist! Look at how the bishops, especially in the East, treated Athanasius! Poor ole Origen was even anathemized later on. There was back-biting, deceit, and posturing between bishops, spats between guys like Stephen and Cyprian, and the early Church was loaded with drama. But I won’t disagree with you one bit that the Catholic Church got itself into some sickening scandal and corruption by the time Luther came onto the scene. Sickening indeed. But the Church will always have sinners in its ranks like the Catholic Church’s pedophile scandal or the OCA Orthodox Church’s financial scandal where Treasurer Protodeacon Wheeler misappropriated millions and millions of parishoner dollars. It happens, sadly.
**The difference back then was that there wasn’t much for Arius or Nestorius to use against the Church; certainly no scandals or abuses back then. The Church then was seen as something that was almost pure as against the corrupt pagan priests and temples. So Arius and Nestorius can rail all they want, but would not succeed much in breaking the Church. By the 16th century the Western Church had fallen much into abuse and scandal, and most people were by then tired of it.

 

[Volodymyr]

This is very sad commentary about Lenin, Marix, Engels, Stalin and their atheism which created so many martyrs for Orthodox church. Only those entered into kalendar are seen in holy icon, but communist government did was trying to destroy belief in God, of Orthodox, Catolics, protestants and others. But most to suffer were Orthodox.

The obvious error in paplism is seen by those on outside who see what you have done to bishop of Rome. From Peter being helper of his brothers- you have now a bishop of Rome with so-called universal authority who does not helps his brother bishops but dominates over them. Why on earth have 12 apostles if only Peter was to become dictator of his vicars. Christ if he were a good paplist would only choose Peter and let Peter choose some apostles to be dominating over.

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

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is very sad commentary about Lenin, Marix, Engels, Stalin and their atheism which created so many martyrs for Orthodox church. Only those entered into kalendar are seen in holy icon, but communist government did was trying to destroy belief in God, of Orthodox, Catolics, protestants and others. But most to suffer were Orthodox.

God bless the Martyrs who stood up against “communism”. We have not seen the last of this beast who seeks to kill God. If you were referencing my commentary to the founders and leaders of communism I agree that it is sad what communist believe to seek out to invade the Catholic church through her members and priesthood and “Kill the eunich priests”. We must remember not to mix secular governments with what God has joined together.

The obvious error in paplism is seen by those on outside who see what you have done to bishop of Rome. From Peter being helper of his brothers- you have now a bishop of Rome with so-called universal authority who does not helps his brother bishops but dominates over them. Why on earth have 12 apostles if only Peter was to become dictator of his vicars. Christ if he were a good paplist would only choose Peter and let Peter choose some apostles to be dominating over.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

God works in mysterious ways. It makes one wonder why God had twelve tribes with one brother, Joseph, sitting above the others as well, doesn’t it? I wonder why Christ gave Peter the keys alone in Matthew 16 and discusses the Rock only within Peter’s context, his confession, his person. The other apostles receive their keys in a different context. I wonder why we see Peter in charge every time making the big decisions and the others “falling silent?” I wonder why it is to Peter and not all the apostles that Christ says to feed his sheep. Interesting how Peter is the first to see the Risen Christ, not all 12. I’ve also found it fascinating how Rome was given obvious primacy at the councils, was always the See that had the last say in everything, and that any disputes or issues were always finalized with Rome. I also wonder why the word “dominance” is used instead of “loyalty” and “piety.” This inflammatory rhetoric toward the Holy Father with words like “dictator” show a spirit unwilling to be led. Joseph’s brothers didn’t like the idea of being led, so they dumped him in a well. Some of the Hebrews didn’t like Moses leading, so they crafted a golden calf. Some people just don’t like to be led…

This is very sad commentary about Lenin, Marix, Engels, Stalin and their atheism which created so many martyrs for Orthodox church. Only those entered into kalendar are seen in holy icon, but communist government did was trying to destroy belief in God, of Orthodox, Catolics, protestants and others. But most to suffer were Orthodox.

The obvious error in paplism is seen by those on outside who see what you have done to bishop of Rome. From Peter being helper of his brothers- you have now a bishop of Rome with so-called universal authority who does not helps his brother bishops but dominates over them. Why on earth have 12 apostles if only Peter was to become dictator of his vicars. Christ if he were a good paplist would only choose Peter and let Peter choose some apostles to be dominating over.

http://www.svelizaveta.ru/ikona/icona.jpg

 

[The_Pilgrim]

Sure you if you are sincere in seeking Truth, here is neutral site that explains from both East and West sides that “Filioque” is not heretical. “And that an attempt to divide the bone from the marrow does not negate it is not of the bone” Mine in quotations.

In fact Early Church Fathers are quoted here as defining “Filioque”. The more you expose yourself to this apostolic teaching and not bury your head in Orthodoxy, the more you will see “filioque” by Eastern and Western standards is not heretical as Schismatics falsely claim.
< SNIP >
Besides we are not far from reaching agreement on this invisible line that exists. Those who try to make protest of it today remain in the Past and have not progressed (eaten meat) in the gospel and remain on the milk. sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

Very good website, and the person who wrote the article, Stephen Tod Kaster, Franciscan University of Steubenville, has some very interesting things to say about East and West on the Filioque.

Perhaps you did not read as far into the article as I did i.e. all the way to the end, but the author comes down firmly on the side of the East, and says that the only way for the catholic Church to resolve the issue is to remove the Filioque –

“Clearly, the best solution put forward so far to resolve the problem of the filioque can be found in the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation, which put forward the recommendation that the Latin Church remove the filioque from all liturgical and catechetical documents. [23] The use of the original creed by the Latin Church in its liturgical celebrations, and catechetical instructions, would facilitate ecumenical dialogue, while simultaneously removing one of the major obstacles to the restoration of communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.”

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Very good website, and the person who wrote the article, Stephen Tod Kaster, Franciscan University of Steubenville, has some very interesting things to say about East and West on the Filioque.

Perhaps you did not read as far into the article as I did i.e. all the way to the end, but the author comes down firmly on the side of the East, and says that the only way for the catholic Church to resolve the issue is to remove the Filioque –

Your quite mistaken, Iam fully aware of the author’s bias personal views. But I respected his professional respect to both views in definition, placing both views “nuetrally.”

What I hoped to gain from referencing this site, is a response from the OP, so that from reading this site, the True Catholic Position can be realized from an Eastern neutral view. You see no matter how you view “Truth” in the “filioque” it remains “Truth”. It is the personal view of pride from thos who protest this biblical Apostolic defined Truth from an authority they protest, and refuse to accept this revelation from God, remaining on the milk and fear of eating meat.

Again it is not the “filioque” Apostolic faith, it is the authority from which it was defined in time against the enemies of the Catholic faith, that Orthodoxy in schism with the authority of the Pope in Peter’s chair they object too.

A Person viewing this article without a bias view, will see the objections are “unreasonable” and so fine that they do not justify any removal, but an objection to the Truth and authority placed in them.

Your are mistaken again Rome is in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church’s. She and other Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church’s are not in communion with those claiming to “Orthoodoxy” who remain in schism with our Roman and Eastern Catholic Church Authorities. Let us speak the truth here.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

One thing that drives me nuts is the disrespect of calling the Catholics “papalists.” It’s derogatory and sets a nasty tone for interaction and dialogue. Catholicism is the religion, it’s about Christ, it worships Christ, it follows Christ, it’s led by the pope. It’s not papalism and I’m not a papalist. Eesh.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Perhaps you did not read as far into the article as I did i.e. all the way to the end, but the author comes down firmly on the side of the East, and says that the only way for the catholic Church to resolve the issue is to remove the Filioque –

 

[The_Pilgrim]

Gabriel12,

I read all of your explanation in defense of the Filioque, and I was very perplexed by it all, until I got to your statement:

“Now I must mention here that this is not an official Roman Catholic Teaching.”

I have come here to find the differences and likenesses of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, behind and beyond the usual quick answers of “Filioque, Immaculate Conception and Assumption.” I would like to hear the Catholic thinking behind the addition of the Filioque.

Please cite the scriptural basis for the Catholic addition to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

And I will leave it at that.