That’s a rather unenlightened attitude. Siecienski is a learned person, and his monograph on the filioque controversy is excellent. Why would you attempt to dissuade anybody who is interested in learning more from reading a very thorough treatment of the topic? The usccb document just doesn’t cut it for those who are interested in more than just getting their feet wet.
This is only half the story and one sided
Cool, it is up to the standards of most posts on this forum then
Keep try-harding. The statement you provided clearly states at the end that further discussion on the theology of the matter is needed, which Siecienski’s book provides. It’s obvious you didn’t even bother reading your own link that you provided. Otherwise you would have realized that it still remains a big theological issue for discussion, as its conclusion states. This does makes sense as to why you might be so dismissive of a neutral book on the issue since it might be too long for you.
Says the internet maven who doesn’t like reading.
That’s a historically ignorant statement. Chalcedon didn’t just happen and then boom there was a schism. It took over a century after the council. And the fact of the matter is that much of the misunderstanding was due to linguistic barriers in theology. OO Christology isn’t monophysite and there is a growing consensus is that it is Orthodox.
The Eastern Orthodox have what you call a conciliar form of government to help serve them. The Chutch of Rome operates on a first principal type of government. These two types of government is one of the main reasons why they will not reconcile. No one is going to give up their type of government for the other. You must understand that under a conciliar type of government which the Orthodox have been using for this past 2000 years they are not going to change it just because the Church of Rome says so. A conciliar type of government tends to give another missionary Church time to develop before giving it its maturity if you want to say to run its own affairs. For instance the Church of Constantinople would grant the Church of Russia its own affairs to run itself once it has achieved the status to do so. This is vastly different in how government is run in the Roman Catholic Church where the first principal type of government is always directed from the Vatican. There are advantages in either types of government and there are disadvantages. The disadvantages in the Eastern Orthodox conciliar type of government is now seen in the diaspora of its people for instance in North America where there is no central authority to govern all the Eastern Orthodox. This is now the present delimna which the Eastern Orthodox are facing. A first principal type of government would never have this type of problem. Perhaps if the Eastern Orthodox look towards the model government which is now serving the Church of Rome they would understand why a first principal type of government has its benefits and to try to adopt this type of government to help serve them as well. The advantages of a conciliar type of government is how government is shared. Yet even in a conciliar model which the Orthodox has each Orthodox juridisction has the same rights to govern itself just like the Church of Rome so that in effect you have too many people in charge in the Concilar model in the general sense instead of just one. The Eastern Church has too many bosses in the general sense. The problem though in the first principal type of government is that as it is being developed too much power can be seen in one person so that disagreements such as the Protestant reformers had would take effect. This is not the case now in the Church of Rome where it’s Papacy has arrive to deliver the best type of service.
It has mostly to do with chronology of history. The EO and Catholic split happened much much later than the splits between EO/Catholics and OO or even the Nestorians and the EO/OO/Catholics. Due to the nature of the Filioque’s development, the Filioque never was a part of discussion with the OO, Nestorians, etc. because they went their own way long before it developed into an issue. So for them, just as much with the EO, they find it objectionable on much the same grounds.
A. Edward Siecienski is Eastern Orthodox
If we were to exclude work done by people on account of their religious persuasions, we’d have hardly any scholarship left but for a few figures like Runciman.
I’m just saying its a bit ambitious to claim the work is neutral knowing the religious disposition of the author. It will obviously affect the outcome of his work. To what degree is debatable but we can’t seriously call it neutral or else writings of James Likoudis can be called neutral too since we must ignore his religious affiliation.
Doesn’t matter. It is neutral. I don’t dismiss books by Catholics or necessarily consider them biased by virtue of their religious affiliation. Now I might be suspicious, but that by no means necessitates a conclusion.
This is modern stance of the Oriental Orthodox churches due to the influence of the Eastern Orthodox on them during ecumenical discussions
I think it’s both. Even the theological issue was put aside, the Eastern Orthodox habitually claim the Pope is supposed to have a mere primacy of honour with no authority. Look at the Russian Orthodox explanation of primacy to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
It definitely isn’t neutral.
Yes, it is neutral. He doesn’t rail against either side of the issue and sticks strictly with the history of the doctrine. He doesn’t discuss the merits or demerits of either position. I’ve read the book. Have you read the book?
That’s a mistaken understanding of the Russian Orthodox explanation of the primacy. Moscow clearly indicates that the EP has authority, but objects to some of its claims regarding that the EP claims that only it can grant autocephaly. Furthermore, there is great concern over the presumed runner up for the EP throne, Metropolitan Elidophoros Lambriniadis, who claims that the EP is the “first without equals.”
Look even interpretation of evidence is affected by your dispotion on the issue concerned. To deny this is to live in a vacuum. Reality however knows no neutral. That is a fact.
He has no authority. The mere right of hearing appeals and a few subtle things he has constituted no real authority.
Your not making sense.
Specifically, what part of the book shows bias or non-neutrality?