[donbosco74]

Thanks for the link:

http://www.goarch.org/print/en/news/releases/articles/release8676.asp

After reading it, I have some comments.

It seems to me that you have presumed I knew about this North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation under the joint chairmanship of Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh and Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati. I did not.

You say: that the Consultation
>>has urged us to "refrain" from refering to each other's formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit as heretical, but since various Romans on these threads feel no compunction about adopting the Frankish position of the barbarian Charlemagne (a position rejected by the then Pope, by the way) that the original counciliar formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit is heretical, let me state as clearly as I can that the Roman formulation of filioque, a formulation which the Consultation urged be dropped in all new translations of the Creed and in catechetical settings, is a massive heresy!<<

In other words, even though you knew about the directive for us to "refrain" from refering to each other's formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit as heretical, you now choose to ignore that directive (to which you owe deference?) when you have observed someone else (who is not subject) possibly ignoring it, even if you are wrong in assuming that he even knew it existed!

If this is any clue to how this problem has progressed over the centuries, I can understand now WHY there is a problem!

>>It proclaims a strange double procession of the Holy Spirit which destroys the unity of the Trinity both within and without the Godhead.<<

I am really sorry, but I cannot follow you here. I do not see how the unity of the Trinity is at risk in any way, here. This "strange double procession" is nothing but the reciprocal divine, eternal love of the Father for the Son and of the Son for the Father. It's the same divine love we (Roman Catholics, anyway) contemplate before the crucifix (and before the Blessed Sacrament), which is at the very foundation of our faith. How does that "destroy the unity of the Trinity?!"

Apparently I, and perhaps others, have hit your hot buttons but you do not have the patience (or do you?) to deal with the irritation in a manner becoming one who seeks to help resolve the dispute. If that's true, that's unfortunate. If it's true of the Orthodox at large, it becomes clear to me why the resolution of this dispute would not reasonably be expected to come from the Orthodox side.

>>[B]oth sides of the debate have often caricatured the positions of the other… The Consultation recommends that the Catholic Church declare that the anathema pronounced by the Second Council of Lyons against those who deny that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is no longer applicable.<<

This statement would require a fundamental denial of all Apostolic tradition. IF defined dogma can be obliterated, THEN nothing is possible to define AND Peter did not recieve the Keys from Our Lord AND all previous definitions are up for grabs. How's that for logic? Any Catholic who agrees that such anathemas are "no longer applicable" put themselves outside the Church. I don't look at this principle as a "deep hole into which the Western Church has dug itself" but rather a bastion of defense against the attacks of errors on divine Revelation. One ultra-Modernist prelate has proclaimed that the Church's bastions must be demolished. JPII ("the great?") did not condemn him for saying this.

Frankly, I am a bit scandalized that a prelate of the Roman Church (Pilarczyk) would participate in negotiations with schismatics toward his contradiction of previously defined articles of the Faith. This would appear to constitute his own latae sententiae excommunication. And if it does, no Catholic owes him ANY obedience, especially in the very error for which he is at fault.

On one point, it is not fair for you to characterize "a formulation which the Consultation urged be dropped in all new translations of the Creed and in catechetical settings" as "a massive heresy!" because the recently deceased Pontiff was apparently not included in the discussion (if JPII's approval was included, I'm sure the Consultation would have announced it loudly!). Are Catholics supposed to break ranks and follow the lead of the Greek Orthodox?? It would seem to me that Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati participated in an event embarrassing for the Pope. Since I am not under the authority of Pilarczyk, especially if he is in error, I have no obligation to observe his directives on which the Pope did not pronounce.

Now Orthodox are (or at least one is!) going around pronoucing "Massive Heresy!" on Roman Catholics who recite the Creed the same way they have been praying it for over one millenium. Are you okay with that?

(As an aside, I am wondering what kind of form this type of discussion would take if women from each group were debating, knowing the cat fights in which they are known to engage!)

Well, not being able to read the pertinent parts of the 10,000 pages, I have to ask whether it adresses something that is of great theological consequence; for the link you provided does not mention it. But I will:

The Gospel of John (ch. 1) refers to Jesus Christ as "the only begotten of the Father." Now, if the Son proceeds from the Father, and we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father but NOT from the Son, doesn't that at least confuse the identification of the Son as the "only begotten?"

Since you say He proceeds only from the Father, how would you respond to a cult that springs up announcing that the Son has a twin brother(?!?!), or whatever, and the Holy Ghost (or Spirit), is therefore... (fill in the blank)?

Some examples: the twin brother of Jesus is satan (Mormonism), the Holy Spirit was incarnated in St. Joseph (a cult in California holds this error), or that the Holy Spirit is coming for a New Pentecost in which the whole world will receive the new revelation for the New Age, which makes the Revelation of Jesus obsolete? I hope I don't have to point out how the Antichrist would squeal with diabolical glee over such a false doctrine becoming widely accepted.

I don't pretend omniscience, or ability to list all the possibilities. I just want to know how the Greek Orthodox would deal with this confusion.

The Roman explanation that has the Holy Ghost as an eternal reciprocation between the Father and the Son, and an equal sharer in the Diviity of Persons, etc., makes these errors, above, impossible. But if the Holy Ghost is something like a twin brother of Jesus, we are left open to such further errors, are we not?

I repeat, for what it's worth, that I don't expect we can resolve anything here, but I desire a deeper and clearer comprehension of the nature of this ancient dispute between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. In case it is not evident, as a traditional Catholic, I feel a large degree of appreciation toward the Orthodox congregations for maintaining as well as they have the multiplicity of trappings and their liturgical beauty under the modern assault on same.

[Kolokotronis]

"It seems to me that you have presumed I knew about this North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation under the joint chairmanship of Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh and Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati. I did not."

Actually I was referring to a seemingly unending stream of accusations of heresy coming from some Roman Catholics on these threads, yourself now included, on any of a number of issues with regard to Orthodox/Latin relations. In fact, my assumption was that you were fully aware that the late Pope himself, recited the Creed in the Vatican, during the Mass without the filioque and not only when the EP or other Orthodox hierarchs were on the altar with him, though one memorable moment was on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul in 1995 when, during the Liturgy of the Word he and the EP recited the Creed in its original formulation together. The EP, and the other hierarchs of Orthodoxy, to my knowledge, have never recited the Creed with the filioque. This indicates to me that the Pope certainly didn't regard recitation of the Creed without the filioque to be heretical and it should be clear that the Latin group in the Consultation, which made its report some years after 1995, didn't either.

Now I was certainly aware of the urgings of the Consultation that we all refrain from calling each other heretics. Such polemics seldom lead to anything fruitful. On the other hand, there is the fact that filioque was inserted into the Creed only irregularly and after a number of Popes had condemned it. As such it is a heresy since it does not really seek to explain, all protestations here to the contrary notwithstanding, the actions of the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation in the here and now. That is quite well covered in the original formulation. It was inserted to satisfy a peculiar desire of a Spanish Council and a theologically illiterate barbarian emperor and several of his successors. Ultimately it was used to attempt to subvert the authority of the Eastern Patriarchs and advance the position of the Pope. Its theological significance has been discussed at length here and need not be repeated. Personally, I wouldn't have used the word heresy, but frankly, the the drumbeat of papal infallibility, submission to Rome, the Magisterium, accusations that the Orthodox, who have preserved the Faith of the One Church through the most monstrous, centuries long, oppression, are heretics for holding to that Faith or are pounding on an "open door" of the Vatican seeking admission when all we have to do is walk in, is just too much, no matter what Met. Maximos, whom I know and love dearly, and his fellow Orthodox members of the Consultation have asked me to do.

Later in your post you seem to equate " only begotten", that is "monogeni" or "begotten", that is "gennethenta" with "proceeds", that is "ekporevomenon". These are not the same words and do not mean the same thing at all. Why would anyone think they do? If the Fathers of the Council meant to say the same thing, do you think they were linguistically incapable of doing that? You ask how I would respond to various cultish theories on the relation of the the hypostasia within the Trinity. I'd tell them to learn Greek, read the Fathers and if they persisted in the foolishness you outline, I probably dismiss them as nutcases.

Many Roman Catholics, yourself included apparently, believe that the Orthodox position is we won't change on the filioque so you Latins must if we are to have reunion. You're all right! As I said on another post, I have heard excellent "nuances" about the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, indulgences, the claims of papal infallibilty and universal jurisdiction (though none at all which can gloss over the infamous Dictatus Papae!) and even the Latin/Augustian concept of Original Sin which might resolve those issues without a Great Council (though having one would be better). But never, ever, have I heard of anything which can resolve the filioque issue short of Rome abandoning it. This is not to say that the Creed could not be expanded to speak about how Christ, in a non-exclusive manner, sends the Holy Spirit to the Church. It was expanded before. I don't see the necessity of that, but perhaps it is necessary for some people. I think the better course would be for the West to come to understand what the Nicene Fathers were saying in the Creed and accept that.

To be fair, I don't think that the foregoing is going to happen any time soon, if only because the misunderstanding of the Greek words I quoted above is so deeply ingrained in the West that it will take generations of catechesis in the West to create a mindset among the Western Faithful which will accept the change, and at least for Orthodoxy, unless the people proclaim their "Axios", no pronouncement, from a Great and Ecumenical Council or any Pope can have any dogmatic effect. Given the state of the Latin Church, the reality is that it cannot perform that sort of catechesis even if there were consensus among the hierarchy that it was a good idea. Too many of your people are fixated on far more mundane, yet potentially more soul destroying, concerns like making sure that women can get abortions, that politicians who support abortion can receive the sacraments, that persons, straight, gay or otherwise living in unsanctified relationships can exercise their "right" to receive the Eucharist (because to say that they would thereby receive unworthily is "judgmental" and we are not to judge and in any case God wants us to "fulfill" ourselves!) and that the God inspired liturgies of the Western Church continue to be disregarded as not fully affirming the place of the all people in "God's Plan for us" or some such bunk, to engage in the sort of patristic, long term theological education necessary.