Shift in the Western Understanding of Filioque to Eastern View?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marybeloved
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByzCathCantor said:
Or, compromise. Why should the dates be as far as 5 weeks apart, as will be the case this year? From the twenty first century perspective, I think we should be able to be faithful to the intent of the first ecumenical council yet still set a common date with reference to a modern calendar.
Click to expand...
That would be the so-called “Greek Calendar” with the Julian pascha but the Gregorian calendar for the rest, IIRC.
 
Cyrillic said:
That would be the so-called “Greek Calendar” with the Julian pascha but the Gregorian calendar for the rest, IIRC.
Click to expand...
Could that put Pascha in the middle of the summer? Personally, I like having my basket blessed in the early Spring! 😃 But I’d like it even better if that basket could be shared with Orthodox friends and relatives, who are usually still fasting.
 
Cyrillic said:
No, the latest Julian pascha in the past 30 years has been the 8th of may, and that was in 1983.
Click to expand...
I know, I know! A little unnecessary hyperbole on my part. The sentiment remains the same. Christ arose on one given day - I still hope all Christians can celebrate it on the same date.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
I know, I know! A little unnecessary hyperbole on my part. The sentiment remains the same. Christ arose on one given day - I still hope all Christians can celebrate it on the same date.
Click to expand...
To play the devil’s advocate, the seperate Orthodox pascha is free from commercialism that plagues the western date.
 
Cyrillic said:
To play the devil’s advocate, the seperate Orthodox pascha is free from commercialism that plagues the western date.
Click to expand...
No doubt, but I suppose we should resume to the regularly scheduled programming for this thread 😃

On that note, I find it ironic from a historical perspective that the Filioque was introduced to combat a flare-up of Arian heresy, yet heresies in those days were properly the subject of Ecumenical Councils. Why could not the issue have been dealt with by the workings of a council?
 
ByzCathCantor said:
On that note, I find it ironic from a historical perspective that the Filioque was introduced to combat a flare-up of Arian heresy, yet heresies in those days were properly the subject of Ecumenical Councils. Why could not the issue have been dealt with by the workings of a council?
Click to expand...
Because Nicaea I and Constantinople I were sufficient to deal with arianism.
 
RyanBlack said:
The purpose of the Creed has everthing to do with theology-nothing to do with poetry.
Click to expand...
Ok, the poetic structure (or chant or pause, for that matter) has little value here. I’ll concede that. But as I see it, the theology is about what “procedit” means, and whether “misit” can be included as part of its definition. The Greek verb has narrower meanings, or so I understand, though a Greek scholar may prove me wrong. But to exclude the Son altogether, where Scripture clearly states He has a role? (see #42) Why?
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Therein lies the true origin of the debate.
Click to expand...
And that origin is?
ProVobis said:
Ok, the poetic structure has no value here. I’ll concede that. But as I see it, the theology is all about what “procedit” means, and whether “misit” can be included as part of its definition. The Greek verb has narrower meanings, or so I understand, though a Greek scholar may prove me wrong. But to exclude the Son altogether, where Scripture clearly states He has a role? (see #42) Why?
Click to expand...
Why don’t we just stick with the 381 original? It’s a lot easier that way.
 
Cyrillic said:
And that origin is?
Click to expand...
After getting tangled up in the theological debate when first endeavoring to study the subject, it became increasingly clear to me over time that the contention really originates from the fact that (i) the structure of the Creed was properly agreed at Ecumenical Council and (ii) if amendment was warranted, such should have also been agreed at an Ecumenical Council.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
After getting tangled up in the theological debate when first endeavoring to study the subject, it became increasingly clear to me over time that the contention really originates from the fact that (i) the structure of the Creed was properly agreed at Ecumenical Council and (ii) if amendment was warranted, such should have also been agreed at an Ecumenical Council.
Click to expand...
Partly you’re right, I think. But that’s not what the whole controversy is about.
 
Marybeloved said:
It proves what many Orthodox have claimed right here at CAF before and that I’m sure you’re aware of - they can reject a council even if their Bishops participate and vote on it and accept it. What’s your proof that Florence was not ecumenical like the councils of the first 8 centuries? Please give actual proof and not mere condescension that proves nothing (like asking me if I know what a ecumenical council is without even bothering with so much as an attempt to show why a council like Florence cannot be so) - and while you’re at it, be sure to explain why Chalcedon or any other council after it should be considered ecumenical per that standard you’re using (whatever it is). Thanks. 👍
Click to expand...
I agree. I think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.
 
Green_Umbrella said:
I agree. I think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I don’t think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.
 
Marybeloved said:
It proves what many Orthodox have claimed right here at CAF before and that I’m sure you’re aware of - they can reject a council even if their Bishops participate and vote on it and accept it. What’s your proof that Florence was not ecumenical like the councils of the first 8 centuries? Please give actual proof and not mere condescension that proves nothing (like asking me if I know what a ecumenical council is without even bothering with so much as an attempt to show why a council like Florence cannot be so) - and while you’re at it, be sure to explain why Chalcedon or any other council after it should be considered ecumenical per that standard you’re using (whatever it is). Thanks. 👍
Click to expand...
Chalcedon (properly understood) did not teach heresy, Florence did.
 
Cyrillic said:
I disagree. I don’t think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.
Click to expand...
Please correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.
 
Green_Umbrella said:
Please correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.
Click to expand...
It was never ratified by the local synods, which was a prerequisite for the council to be accepted by the east. St. Mark of Ephesus indeed refused to sign, and for good reason.

The Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria never supported the union.

Besides, no council that teaches heresy can be ecumenical, thus Florence cannot be ecumenical.
 
Cyrillic said:
It was never ratified by the local synods, which was a prerequisite for the council to be accepted by the east. St. Mark of Ephesus indeed refused to sign, and for good reason.

The Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria never supported the union.

Besides, no council that teaches heresy can be ecumenical, thus Florence cannot be ecumenical.
Click to expand...
What heresy would that be?
 
Cyrillic said:
It was never ratified by the local synods, which was a prerequisite for the council to be accepted by the east.
Click to expand...
Is that needed? Where do you get this information?
The Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria never supported the union.
Click to expand...
At face value it would seem they did. Their legates agreed and signed on the dotted line. Those were their representatives. Also, we must remember Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria were under the rule of Islam at the time.

I have no doubt the Islamic rulers did not wanted to see a united Christian church. I am thinking that all hell broke loose when they found out what happened. Massive threats and political pressure came down on those Patriarchs and they rolled over. I bet that is what happened.
Besides, no council that teaches heresy can be ecumenical, thus Florence cannot be ecumenical.
Click to expand...
Who says this and who gets to decide what is heresy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top