The Myth of Schism

[Mickey]

Mickey, how well do you understand Holy Orthodoxy?

Fairly well…how bout you?

when you downplay the importance of the filioque, you frankly sound like a Roman Catholic

That is a silly statement. But I must ask you…what do you have against Roman Catholics? You are in communion with them.

There were Fathers from the West and there were Fathers from the East. They are all considered “Early Church Fathers” of the undivided Church. When someone lays down a challenge by asserting that only “Latin” Fathers be quoted to support the error of the filioque, then that is ludicrous. You can stop your grandstanding now.

 

[Cecilianus]

That is a silly statement. But I must ask you…what do you have against Roman Catholics? You are in communion with them.

Nothing against them, though as an Eastern Christian I do believe the importance of the filioque. Just pointing out your inconsistency in holding a very Western attitude.

There were Fathers from the West and there were Fathers from the East. They are all considered “Early Church Fathers” of the undivided Church. When someone lays down a challenge by asserting that only “Latin” Fathers be quoted to support the error of the filioque, then that is ludicrous. You can stop your grandstanding now.

You denied the existence of the “Latin Fathers”. There were differences in doctrinal expression and tendencies between the Greek Fathers and the Latin Fathers even then, just as Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics today are diverse in their theological expression. Only difference is that they - like we - did not find it a reason to go into schism.

And that’s actually another very Western attitude - reducing the diversity of the Church to one uniform expression of the Faith, denying the distinction between “East” and "West among the Church Fathers. Reminds me of the Roman Catholic apologetics I used to hear about the Church Fathers simply being “Catholic” (as if they were all the same type of Catholic) and Orthodoxy starting in 1054.

This is not the scholarly Roman Catholic view, of course, not the view of the Church, just the view of the teenagers I grew up with. I don’t have anything against the West - it’s just that as an Easterner I respect and love the diversity of the Church. I don’t deny its existence like you did by insisting on the uniformity of the “Church Fathers” without any distinction to Latin and Greek.

 

[Mickey]

I do believe the importance of the filioque.

Of course you do.

Just pointing out your inconsistency in holding a very Western attitude.

Nonsense.

You denied the existence of the “Latin Fathers”.

Nonsense. I call them early church fathers…not Latin Fathers.

There were differences in doctrinal expression and tendencies between the Greek Fathers and the Latin Fathers even then, just as Byzantine Catholics and Roman Catholics today are diverse in their theological expression.

It was far from today’s situation. Today there are concrete doctrinal differences. Rome went on to proclaim a few new ones…but you know the story.

Only difference is that they - like we - did not find it a reason to go into schism.

Yes. Because the differences were not worlds apart…and the Early Church “Western” Fathers did not support ideas such as the filioque.

And that’s actually another very Western attitude - reducing the diversity of the Church to one uniform expression of the Faith, denying the distinction between “East” and "West among the Church Fathers.

Please do not confuse diversity, with real doctrinal differences.

Reminds me of the Roman Catholic apologetics I used to hear about the Church Fathers simply being “Catholic” (as if they were all the same type of Catholic) and Orthodoxy starting in 1054.

Yeah, I still hear a lot of that.

I don’t deny its existence like you did by insisting on the uniformity of the “Church Fathers” without any distinction to Latin and Greek.

I denied nothing. Most of the time there was a consensus of the Fathers. Yes, some of the Fathers disagreed with eachother…they were not infallible.

There was not doctrinal differences between the Fathers which was labeled as “diversity” ----where you get to pick and choose.

It is okay if you choose to turn this thread into, “Mickey has denied the Latin Fathers”…but it is merely your smokescreen.