The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?

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

[Romulus]

Count me as one who thinks the filioque question is far from trivial. I don't dismiss it just because I'm not qualified to examine it in the detail it deserves.

Sinkspur, considering that "who do you say that I am?" was the heart and soul of Christian conversation for 250 years, I'd say your uninterest in Christology makes you seriously out of touch with the early Church.

FormerLib, what can you tell me about your translation of the Creed's beginning? Do you say "I believe" or "we believe"?

[Romulus]

I haven't had two conversations in MY ENTIRE LIFE about the Trinity.

Sinky, how many conversations have you had about "God is Love"?

You might invite your RCIA class to ponder what it means to say that love is essential to God's substance from all eternity, and would be so even in the absence of creation. It's a question I like to pitch before muslims on another forum, because it plays havoc with the unexammined theology of islam.

[Romulus]

By the way, doesn't the Roman Catholic church claim that our sacraments, such as the Eucharist, are valid?

Yes we do.

And we honor your faithfulness to tradition. Which is why (speaking of sacraments) we're so baffled and disappointed by your collapse in the face of the contraceptive culture. You don't need me to tell you that Christian marriage is a sacrament of ecclesiology -- of Christ's unreserved, kenotic, life-engendering gift of self for his bride the Church, which he joins and makes one with his body. The Orthodox compromise on contraception undermines every word of the magnificent ecclesiological insights of Christos Yannaras and John Zizioulas.

I am one who considers Paul VI's decision to issue Humanae Vitae, in the face of widespresd, entrenched, and powerful opposition, a prime example of the way "Peter speaks through Leo" (as the Fathers at Chalcedon proclaimed). All the Orthodox piety, learning, and faithfulness are no substitute for the Holy Spirit working even through flawed and inferior men.

[FormerLib]

FormerLib, what can you tell me about your translation of the Creed's beginning? Do you say "I believe" or "we believe"?

We say "I believe" during the Liturgy. The reason for the singular is that we are speaking as individuals within the group. Using the plural would suggest that we have the authority to speak for others within the group, which is why the Councils did use the plural.

[FormerLib]

Which is why (speaking of sacraments) we're so baffled and disappointed by your collapse in the face of the contraceptive culture.

Because the idea that we have 'collapse[d] in the face of the contraceptive culture' is a pure fiction!

To begin with, not all methods of contraception are permitted. The rhythm method approved by the Roman Catholic Church is one of the few that are. The condemnation of contraception that one may find in the writings of the Church Fathers are not addressing those methods that avoid fertilization (or the rhythm method would also be banned) but the more common methods that are nothing more than abortion, which is always condemned.

Next, not all reasons for using contraception are permitted. In my case, my wife's health would be harmed if she were to have another child. This is not something we have approched in a cavalier manner but a conclusion recommended by her physician. So you'll have to excuse me if I take a dim view of those (not meaning you, Romulus) who suggest that we are going to Hell because we are trying to avoid permanent damage to my wife's health.

All the Orthodox piety, learning, and faithfulness are no substitute for the Holy Spirit working even through flawed and inferior men.

I'm sorry, but the Holy Spirit is an inseperable part of Orthodox piety, learning, and faithfulness. And you will have to excuse me, but I am no more willing to give weight to those hostile to my faith than you would be to accept criticism from the likes of Jack Chick.

[Desdemona]

To begin with, not all methods of contraception are permitted. The rhythm method approved by the Roman Catholic Church is one of the few that are.

It isn't the old rhythm method. It's called the Billings Method and using it to avoid conception is sinful without GRAVE reasons - like another child would literally starve to death. And using it should not be an easy decision to make. That is also sinful. That little tidbit never seems to get mentioned.

I don't know what to say to your objections on annulment other than the seemingly ease of it does bother a lot of us. There was an article posted here recently that indicated that the majority of annulments involved non-Catholics and marriages that were deemed unsacramental. The Catholic culture just does not accept annulment as a right.

Honestly, the question of the Creed, if that is really where the theological difference is, deserves to be discussed. There is so much water under the bridge in the last 1200 years, any path to reunification is not going to be easy, but it's worth at least considering, discussing and learning about the two cultures.

[FormerLib]

There was an article posted here recently that indicated that the majority of annulments involved non-Catholics and marriages that were deemed unsacramental.

From the cases that I've observed, separation is always the result of one of the partners abandoning the marriage. I'm sure other cases probably exist, it's just that I haven't had any direct contact with such an occurrence.

The Catholic culture just does not accept annulment as a right.

Nor does the Orthodox Church. Somewhere along the line, some people have gotten it into their heads that the Orthodox Church will acknowledge a divorce (and possible re-marriage) at the drop of a hat and it simply is not true.

[Catholicguy]

David, wouldn't it be ironic if the Holy Spirit (despite the Greek or Latin theological conceptions re His progression/actions) was leading our two Communions to a reconciliation and you found yourself on the outside of each condemning both?

[Catholicguy]

One way to get the ball rolling is to tell another God became man so man could become God.

For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" was written by St. Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria , in De inc., 54, 3: PG, 192B, in his refutation of Arius during the First Ecumenical Council.

[Catholicguy]

Drop the hysterics, F L

Romulus is not hostile to your faith and to throw-in the Jack Chcik insult is pure hostility in response to Romulus' dispassionate post.

Now, if'n ya wanna use that rhetoric against me, fine. I deserve it. Romulus never does.

[Catholicguy]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ504.HTM

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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

Thank you for making that point. Some modern Easterners like to say that the Palamite Council in 1351 is Ecumenical without the Pope (879 is another matter).

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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.

Well, first Thomists and Palamites need to come to a good understanding of the other.

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

I would say as equivalent to what Catholics call a "Doctor of the Church". The fact that he is the only singular (i.e. non-conciliar) medieval authority quoted in this document for the Orthodox should give an idea of his standing.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The permission purported among some Orthodox to use artifical contraception does not arise from any official teaching of the Church. It is more akin to the disobedience against Humane Vitae in the Catholic Church, in that certain clerical partisans of error have taken up the standard and fed lies to the people.

If there is any universal "standard of Orthodoxy" to be found among the Orthodox, I would take it as the much revered Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which Patriarchate has never in any way been infested by error, but in fact always stood with Rome to combat the same, whether it be Sophorinus against Monothelitism or Dositheos against Protestantism. (The "schism" of Rome and Jerusalem is a manufacture of the Crusaders who exiled the Patriarch to Cyprus and installed the Frankish Latin Patriarch in his place.)

If you can produce a statement from the Patriarch of Jerusalem saying "artifical contraception is okay", I will accept that arguement that the Orthodox teach the permission of contraception.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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

The Catholic Church of Rome does not consider the Catholic Churches of Greece, Russia, etc. styled "Orthodox" as a "denomination", but as a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is not in communion with Rome. A denomination is an "ecclesial comunity". The Orthodox, OTOH, are a "Church".

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Why is the USCCB involved?

Because the best Orthodox theologians are in America?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It's called the Billings Method and using it to avoid conception is sinful without GRAVE reasons - like another child would literally starve to death.

That's not true. The Magisterium speaks of "just" and "legitimate" reasons coming from "serious" (as opposed to "frivolous") motives. Also, there is no requirement even to reduce oneself to near penury by having children, or to have as many children as physically possible. The Magisterium speaks of the "praise" that is to be given to those who have many children, not the "requirement" of all or most to do so. The procreation of children is an issue of distributive social justice, not sexual morality - they are something owed by the married couple to society, so their number has a rational connection to the needs of society for children. So there is a greater obligation to have a larger number of children in a country like the US than there is in India or China.

[FormerLib]

Drop the hysterics, F L

Still the charmer, I see.

Romulus is not hostile to your faith and to throw-in the Jack Chcik insult is pure hostility in response to Romulus' dispassionate post.

I believe that Romulus knows that was not directed at him in any way. It certainly does apply to certain other posters (one in particular) who have been openly hostile however.

[Catholicguy]

Still the charmer I see

Despite me heroic efforts to conceal them, due to the inherent qualities of the beneficient Graces bestowed upon me, they invaribly are on display in those blessed with the ability to discern Sanctity.

How was Romulus supposed to know it wasn't directed at him when you rpost was pinged to him and him alone?

[FormerLib]

How was Romulus supposed to know it wasn't directed at him when you rpost was pinged to him and him alone?

I would have thought the context was sufficient. Knowing that Romulus is not one who approaches discussion with Orthodox Christians with a chip on his shoulder, I believe he would accurately discern my meaning.

If I was mistaken on this, I will await for his comment, thank you.