The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?

(USCCB) ^ | 29th October 2003 | North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation

[Hermann the Cherusker]

In theology class in high schhol, one of my brothers asked, When the Son was on earth and the Father was in Heaven, where was the spirit if they are supposed to be one?

The teacher's jaw dropped.

Was the teacher an idiot? Did he answer this sophmorism? Did he believe in the imminence and transcendence of God?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

You insist we are simply schismatics and not heretics.

No, we insist you are disobedient, not schismatics. Schism implies a purposeful will to seperate from the Church. But the Orthodox have never done that.

[american colleen]

No the arguement lies in whether in causing the procession of the Holy Spirit towards His manifestation to us, the Father gives to the Son to also be a cause, or whether the Son is a mediate point in the spirit's manifestation, and then whether these positions are truly distinct and irreconciliable.

If your really smart that is the argument ;-)

I read the Creed the "Orthodox way" and I read the Creed the "Catholic way" and I still think of St. Patrick and the shamrock. And then I think of how God has no beginning and no end. And then I realize He is unfathomable and I'm fine with that.

But the arguements I've always heard re: the insertion of the filioque in the Creed by the "Latins" is an arguement on the right of anyone to add anything to the original Creed - the argument over the phrase seems secondary. But I've been wrong a coupla times in my life.

[Desdemona]

Was the teacher an idiot? Did he answer this sophmorism? Did he believe in the imminence and transcendence of God?

I'm not sure. It was a Jesuit high school.

I went to an all-girls HS and these sorts of topics were never addressed. OTOH, I learned a lot of useless things, like memorizing the books of the bible in order. We didn't read that much of the Old Testament, but we knew the books in order.

[dangus]

Would you have the churches concede what isn't true?

I don't know what the OC (better spell it out... the Orthodox Church... Orange County and Eastern Orthodox are just too incompatible) thinks about the "robber synod," but there sure are plenty of Catholic historians who deny that Honorius never spoke the heresy attributed to him, and plenty of theologians who say it doesn't matter since he was at minimum not speaking freely and not from the Chair of St. Peter.

[dangus]

My corrections stand being one-upped by Hermann again in the clarity department.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

but there sure are plenty of Catholic historians who deny that Honorius never spoke the heresy attributed to him, and plenty of theologians who say it doesn't matter since he was at minimum not speaking freely and not from the Chair of St. Peter.

That isn't the point. He was condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council, and this condemnation was accepted by his sucessors and repeated by them in the Papal Coronation Oath until the 11th century. And he was writing to Patriarch Sergius as the teacher of all Christians when he so fumbled orthodoxy.

[FormerLib]

...and the east needs to recognize that an Ecumenical Council needs the Pope.

Needs to recognize? Have you never wondered why the East has never declared an Ecumenical Council since the schism?

[Tantumergo]

I have often thought that it would have been a truly awesome debate and "exploration" of the Trinity if the Palamites and Thomists could have been brought together in an apolemical environment to discuss these issues.

Do either of you know how Palamas is generally viewed by EO theologians these days?

[FormerLib]

But the arguements I've always heard re: the insertion of the filioque in the Creed by the "Latins" is an arguement on the right of anyone to add anything to the original Creed...

That will always be a major part of the Orthodox objection to the filioque.

...the argument over the phrase seems secondary.

How true! But I would say it as "almost being secondary."

[dangus]

>>That isn't the point.

WHOOPS! Doarn right it isn't the point. *sheepish* Wrong guy... I had Liberius in my head.
This is cool: THE SUPPOSED FALL OF HONORIUS AND HIS CONDEMNATION

(http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/honrius1.htm)

It claims, among much else, that while Honorius was condemned for failing to correct Sergiusm he did declared that no-one should affirm whether there were one or two natures; he did not incorrectly affirm either, so there was no false statement by him.

[Tantumergo]

"The Trinity has great significance for our understanding of things."

I would also add that our understanding of the Trinity is of crucial significance for the way we worship - it is at the very heart of the Liturgy.

[dangus]

That's the most screwed up writing I ever committed... Giving up for the day.

[FormerLib]

Here should be a good start on the Orthodox view of Palamas.

[Tantumergo]

Thanks.

This could take some time! ;)

[findingtruth]

...so to justify the existence of their denomination, they trump up differences on doctrinal fine points.

And it is statements such as this that ensure there will never be a reunification.

There won't be, but not because of statements such as mine, nor of statements by your own controversialists who manufacture differences on doctrinal fine points. The reason there will be no reunification is that your denomination has sold its soul. In contravention of 1900 years of Church tradition, you have caved on contraception. Likewise, you have caved on the divorce-and-remarriage question. Are Orthodox now willing to surrender their newly found sexual "liberation" to the unpopular pronouncements of a tradition-bound old Pope? I don't think so. No, no. Having abandoned the straight and narrow for the wide and easy, there is no turning back for you. As individuals, maybe yes; but as a denomination, no.

[FormerLib]

The reason there will be no reunification is that your denomination has sold its soul. In contravention of 1900 years of Church tradition, you have caved on contraception. Likewise, you have caved on the divorce-and-remarriage question.

Wrong on both counts. Contraception is not something that Orthodox Christians are free to use whenever and however they like. Roman Catholics use a form on contraception known as the rythm method with the same desired effect. Also, if you'd actually done anything but the most superficial examination, you would have discovered that the Orthodox process for remarriage is virtually identical to the Roman Catholic annulment.

Yes, it would have been better if you would have attempted to learn about our faith before attacking, but the Pharisee in you won out.

[FormerLib]

You might be interested in hearing how the Orthodox Christian faith is judged by some.

Here's how the tragically misnamed findingtruth put it:

There won't be, but not because of statements such as mine, nor of statements by your own controversialists who manufacture differences on doctrinal fine points. The reason there will be no reunification is that your denomination has sold its soul. In contravention of 1900 years of Church tradition, you have caved on contraception. Likewise, you have caved on the divorce-and-remarriage question. Are Orthodox now willing to surrender their newly found sexual "liberation" to the unpopular pronouncements of a tradition-bound old Pope? I don't think so. No, no. Having abandoned the straight and narrow for the wide and easy, there is no turning back for you. As individuals, maybe yes; but as a denomination, no.

[FormerLib]

As individuals, maybe yes; but as a denomination, no.

By the way, doesn't the Roman Catholic church claim that our sacraments, such as the Eucharist, are valid? How could that be true in light of your diatribe?

[Domestic Church]

Read it but got a headache and a bellyache...too much halloween candy eaten during the reading.

Progress or capitulation? I would like to know what is the underpinning of this new dialogue. Why is the USCCB involved?(they seem to have enough problems to delve into with the scandals.)