Replies

"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.

Your explanation is ever more helpful.

>>Too many of your people are fixated on far more mundane, yet potentially more soul destroying, concerns...to engage in the sort of patristic, long term theological education necessary.<<

We are now leaving a pontificate that has seemed to augment the condition you describe, rather than to make progress toward the engagement you would prescribe, unfortunately. They are saying that Cardinal Arinze is a "front runner" for Pope now. Tell me if you have not heard how he has suggested (not made very prominent in the media, however) that African voodoo should become part of the new, updated liturgy?

JPII made changes in the process for papal election, further fanning the flames of sedevacantism, it seems to me, by making a winning ballot now a simple majority after "so many ballots" fail to register a 2/3 majority. For the meantime, at least, we are all sedevacantists!

It is our prayer that whoever is now elected will be A) someone other than Arinze or any of the other ultra-Modernists "eligible," and B) if possible, that someone exists among the others who will be at least reformable away from the rampant Modernism of today, and he will be the one selected by the others.

In any case, traditional Catholics are in for some rough times ahead. I would not be surprised to see ever more repressive measures taken by Church and State toward our persecution. And I suspect that the Orthodox are not far behind. I have seen very unbecoming behavior from clerics toward traditionalists until they find out the question at issue is one of Orthodoxy, then suddenly it lightens up. I suspect it will not continue to lighten up indefinitely.