Replies

Yes, it is immensely helpful, actually, because of all of the things that it indicates.

First, there is serious, sustained, scholarly effort by heavy hitters in both branches of the Universal Church to craft language and policy that gets around this road-block and makes it a bump in the road.

Second, the Consultation recommended that everyone on both sides stop calling the others "heretical" (if they ever were doing so).

Third, it identifies where I think the problem originated and lies: in the power structures of the Church, in an historic fight over power and the will to dominate, by the West in the instance, which was rebuffed by the East.

Fourth, it recommends the same solution I did: agree that the original Nicene Creed is still good (I went farther and recommended an especial reverence for and ecumenical use of the Apostles Creed, given its great antiquity and the lack of any disagreement over it), and suggesting a preference for its use in documents and transactions between the Western and Eastern Orthodox Rites. In Roman Catholic Churches, we can continue to recite the Creed, filioque intact, because that is how (some among) we look at it. But we do not need to assert it in lateral relations across the East and West. (I say "some among" because I don't really believe that most people standing in the pews are theologians, or want to be, and that if you said "and from the Son" or did not say "and from the Son", 80% of the Catholics present at a Mass would notice the difference, 60% would think it was a slip of the tongue, and of the remaining 20%, half would be severely exercised by it, and the other half would understand the ecumenical solution being sought and agreed to it. Of course the 10% who strongly, violently opposed any change like that would be on the streets in a hurry, pouring torrents of ink, and everyone else would be influenced by what they said, but the truth of the matter is that, before someone beat the drums and told him to be outraged...OUTRAGED!!! by this assault on the faith, 80% of Catholics would not think it was a big deal, and 10% would think that it was a GOOD think, bringing the faiths together. The outraged 10% would quickly educate their more staid and apathetic brethren that the Church was under attack, the termites are in the foundation! dogs and cats will soon be living together! and every other apocalyptic vision imaginable in the parade of the horribles...and that is why you can't stop saying filioque in the Catholic pews.

The final point I'd make is not in the article: God doesn't seem to care about this filioque business. If it is wrong, He has not only forgiven it, but given us Lourdes. And if God is not angry enough to withhold His grace from us over this business of understanding the Holy Spirit to proceed from Jesus as well as the Father, then we should not erect it as a barrier between us either.

Conversely, the history of the heavy handed, brutal politics by which the West attempted to impose filoque on the East through fiat and excommunication of Patriarchs is an object lesson in what it does NOT mean to the the Pope. This was a grave error on a disciplinary matter by the delegates sent to speak with the East about this, all those long years ago, and it opened a wound that is still sore in the Eastern Wing of the Church. Therefore, on this issue, the Pope must exercise his authority in the Western Wing of the Church, and agree to the truth: the exact nature of God is a MYSTERY. The Catholics say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Do not the Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son? That being the case, it does not take a lawyer to see the subtlety here, the grounds for a compromise. The Pope can reconcile the West to the concept by observing that the words "Father THROUGH the Son" is saying "Father and the Son" in a different way (both parties are there), and emphasizing the origin in the Father, and leave it at that. I do not know the internal mental dynamic of God, neither does the Pope, neither do you, and neither does the Patriarch of Constantinople. We BELIEVE this, and we BELIEVE that, "through" versus "and", but we don't really KNOW, do we? It is a mystery, isn't it? And given that we don't really know, but we each believe, slightly differently, we can respect the difference, never again attempt to impose a solution by brute administrative fiat on the other half of the Church, tacitly agree that a lesson has been learned, and share the Lord's table.

That is the best answer.
I don't think that the East is heretical for adhering to early Conciliar creeds. They were infallible when pronounced, and did not subsequently fail. Personally, I believe that the Western filioque view is an improvement in understanding, but I do not think that it is a MANDATORY understanding for the East, and I certainly do not think that it was ever a very good idea to take such a deeply held and sincere view and try to ride roughshod over it by force of command. THAT certainly failed, and the Papacy knows it failed. I cannot imagine that any Pope will ever assume he has such power again: we all know that the Pope can no longer even command with certitude parts of the avant garde of the Western Clergy. The days of pretence of commanding the East to change 1500 year old words is over. If the days of the East considering the West to be heretical for saying "filioque" are also over, and we can agree to believe what we each respectively believe on the mystery-shrouded aspect of the interior of God's mind, and both admit lovingly that we are seeing this thing through a glass darkly, perhaps we will be less impatient with each other's beliefs.

Other than the filioque, what is there that separates us theologically?

I return to what I thought before: the separation had its origins in ecclesial power. With time, that power has evolved so far in the West that in the most offensive matters, it is not what it was in the Middle Ages. And there is wisdom too: the wisdom of the Schism. And if the Schism is healed, the wisdom of what caused the Schism, and I believe the love to not ever do that again.

"Fourth, it recommends the same solution I did: agree that the original Nicene Creed is still good (I went farther and recommended an especial reverence for and ecumenical use of the Apostles Creed, given its great antiquity and the lack of any disagreement over it), and suggesting a preference for its use in documents and transactions between the Western and Eastern Orthodox Rites."

What the statement says is "... in view of the fact that the Vatican has affirmed the "normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381" in its original Greek version, the Consultation recommends that the Catholic Church use the same text (without the Filioque) "in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use,".

Now that is hardly saying that the two formulations are equally correct and that the original form only be used in inter Church matters, but rather in fact recommends that the Western Church in both teaching the Creed and in using it in the Liturgy, drop the filioque.

I don't mean to count coup here, but what the agreed statement says is pretty clear. By the way, I agree that for the overwhelming number of people in the pews, it won't make a tinker's dam worth of difference, but in the East, given our 2000 year old tradition of arguing fine points of theology at the "meat market" or the "barbershop", a change to include the filioque would probably, after awhile, give rise to some fairly broad based objection. Now, whether the objectors would have a clue about what they were arguing would be a totally different matter!

Other theological differences? That would take some thought, but the obvious ones are original sin, transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, Papal Infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception, all matters which we have batted about here before to no useful end that I can see. There are undoubtedly others.

One final point. You refer continually to the miracles at Lourdes as some sort of proof that God indeed shows His favor on the Roman Church. Well of course He does. The Roman fascination with miracles and visions has always puzzled me, though. In the East, these things happen all the time and while we think of them as a wonderful blessing, the fact that God, through the intercession of Panagia or a saint would heal a Christian doesn't surprise us particularly. A loving Father would do that for His children. As for visions, our old people have them regularly. My great grandmother's best friend was Panagia. She was a woman with a simple Faith, and a very powerful best friend. She was sharp as a tack to the day she died. We think this is likewise wonderful, but not remarkable particularly. I think maybe in the West we think to much about religion, trying to rationalize, or perhaps a better word is intellectualize the Faith. This can cloud our souls so that when the love of God bursts through at a place like Lourdes, we don't recognize it for what it is and see it as something from beyond us in every sense of the word. In the East, the connection between us here and Panagia and the saints in heaven is intimate, close. There is no great gulf between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant. I'm sure I'm not explaining this well, but its like there is a constant heavenly presence with us here, with saints and Panagia moving back and forth, like on a visit and then going home. In the 6th century, a monk named John Moschos wrote a book called the Spiritual Meadow about his travels around the Middle East fro Greece down to the Great Oasis in Egypt visiting monasteries. His stories of visions and miracles are told in a very matter of fact manner which reflected not only his beliefs, but those of his readers. We still read the book to this day. Get a copy; it will tell you a lot about the way the Orthodox still view the world.