I started this thread to reply to this comment because the Mod has asked posters to start another thread for those who wish to discuss the Filioque.
This seems to be indicative of a reconciliation, of sorts, of the Western tradition to the Eastern, in the words of the Catholic Church.
Well then, we have to deep dive into what was written by the Western scholars from the late First Millennium to today.
I think a lot of it really is indicative of a shift in the Western mentality. One recurrent problem in medieval theology was that multiple Greek words were conflated in translation into the same verb, procedere. Similarly, the Latins seemed to have little understanding of the difference between being from the Son and being through the Son. If I recall correctly, even Thomas Aquinas was stumped by this distinction, saying that those who admitted through the Son but not from the Son were doing do out of obstinance. All of these distinctions between multiple Greek verbs and between through and from are now generally acknowledged, and the Vatican’s (at least I think it was a statement from the Vatican) statement on the filioque attempts to interpret the Latin filioque through this framework, with a level of precision that the medieval Latins simply could not have achieved. This is certainly an improvement, from the Orthodox point of view, at least.
Dear brother, I think sometimes that retrospective approach to these issues bogs us down in the problems of the past. The premise here, and some of Cavaradossi’s points, permit us to view this subject from the understanding of the present day. Perhaps that permits some more open acknowledgement on both sides as to the present state of “theological rapprochement” on this particular subject.
But how do we know there is this development of understanding if we do not compare the understanding from then to the understanding from today?
This is the same question that frustrates the rapprochement between the non-Chalcedonians and the Chalcedonians. Even if we agree that our faiths are compatible, there is still the problem of how both sides understand the Council of Chalcedon.
I comfortably leave that to the theologians of the Catholic Church (His Holiness being a great one, in his own right) to resolve. A view has been expressed in the CCC and elsewhere, acknowledging the issue of the Filioque and explaining it in relation to the teachings of the Council of Nicea. This tells me that (i) the Catholic Church sees the importance of the exercise, (ii) does not deny the integrity of the Council nor the Creed set forth by it and (iii) as seems to be the case more often than not, is willing to go beyond entrenchment in its own standards to seek true reconciliation with the Apostolic Churches. I see the effort here as being truly significant in that regard.
I was at one talk with Fr. John Behr and he said that unity with the Oriental Orthodox must start at the grassroots level, the laity. The theologians aren’t getting it done because they can’t stop arguing
I fully agree with respect to that challenge, yet the Filioque seems to be a less complex situation. The Catholic Church is not denying a Council, although I understand how the persistent usage of the Filioque could be seen as such. As I said above and in related threads, I would love to see the Catholic Church simply drop it as a quintessential ecumenical gesture. Still waiting …
likely because they are stuck in the pastI was at one talk with Fr. John Behr and he said that unity with the Oriental Orthodox must start at the grassroots level, the laity. The theologians aren’t getting it done because they can’t stop arguing
They can’t drop the dogma. Only dropping the word in the creed is meaningless.
What dogma?
Orthodox not yet - more of a catechumen really. That’s why I have inquirer in my status.
We will pray for your full conversion (which I assume is not from Catholicism)
No, it’s from non-practicing protestantism, so nobody will get angry with me here
I want to express that, the Roman Catholic Church accepts both phrases:
That sounds accurate–but it also doesn’t sound like a shift in belief, but like a clearer understanding of the Eastern position.
Hey Edwin, I posted that the Roman Catholic Church accepts both phrases and the reason it does. The post is right above yours, I hope that it helps!
Also if you ever consider joining the Catholic Church, from me personally, you are always welcome! And which gesture of good will, my brother, are the Orthodox willing to make?