www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Filioque clarification

Dear Qathuliqa,

Actually, as we are on the topic of defending our friend, Anastasios the Seminarian, I found Gerard's statements about St Peter the Aleut to be rather annoying too . . .

I think I tried my best to be friends with him when he was here, but he kept coming back with "you are just spouting etc." whenever I said anything he didn't agree with 100%.

But he is most pious and sincere in his faith which he takes most seriously. And I like anyone who loves dogs! Much can be forgiven such people!

Alex

Dear Alex:

You posted above:

If I may be allowed to import into this thread a portion of what Alex is referring to:

And my counterpost was:

My knowledge of the "facts" was based on what you, yourself, said and, frankly, I did not impute any motive on your part at all.

However, it is now clear that I have offended you during that discussion which, I must admit, I never intended to do so, I ask for your forgiveness.

And if anastasios feels being left behind, I do sincerely also ask for his forgiveness for encroaching on his right to express his own opinions.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

If what you said bothered me, it is because of my sincere appreciation and love for you.

Otherwise, it would have meant nothing to me.

I thought I had offended you or that you saw in what I said to be unworthy of a CAtholic - and that would really hurt me, because I am a Catholic who struggles with the issue of the relationship between my Particular Church and Rome.

There is nothing to forgive as you have explained that you are not condemning me in any way.

May God bless you and your family.

Mabuhay Anh Filipinas!

Magandang hapon!

Alex

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Allow me to quote myself from previous posts:

So what we have me writing is: I am troubled by Rome's clarification of the filioque because it does not address concerns that the Orthodox have (and hence we have since we are "Orthodox in communion with Rome"). I also say, that despite the gravity of the issue, it should not separate us from communion. I also said I *hope* it does prove to be semantics *but* that we need to focus on meanings and not just words. I said "what we belive about God." Now if I say "we" and reference Catholics AND Orthodox then that implies, Administrator, that I acknowledge we worship the same God. If I believe we might believe different things about the ONE GOD that STILL does not mean I think we worship different Gods. Just as the Non-Chalcedonians say one nature and we say two, that doesn't mean we worship two Christs, right? Same thing here.

My post seeks unity through truth and acknowledging real problems instead of glossing them over.

Not really. Saint Vladimir's figured into my equatoin in a secondary way since what I said was:

The only way St. Vladimir's figured into it was that I mentioned that we read the filioque clarification in our classes. The point was that Orthodox in general after reading the clarification still do not find it acceptable. That does not in any way say we worship different Gods. Heck, the Catholic Church even says that Muslims worship the same God as us (which I agree with by the way) so just because I say that Muslims believe differently about God, does that mean that I think we worship different Gods?? No! See, you have blown my post out of proportion and inserted YOUR meaning into MY words.

Which is why I said the issue needs to be addressed further and I hope that it does end up being settled as semantics. However, when Latins say "as from One spiration" and the Orthodox condemn that, does that not imply a difference?

Uh huh. So why did you say it the way you said it? You could have said, "anastasios your understanding is faulty" and I would have said "oh really, how do you see it that way" and all would have been fine, as you know from the past I can easily disagree with people and still be friendly with them. However, you had no reason to bring St. Vladimir's in with your "question" and someone from our Church (ie the Byzantine Catholics) who has no idea what St. Vladimir's is very well could come to the conclusion that St. Vladimir's teaches Roman Catholics and Byzantine Catholics worship a different God. You should be more careful with your language.

My post, as indicated in the "Byzantine News" folder, was merely a place holder for another thread where that clarification was being discussed. I will admit fault that I should have prefeced that in this thread as well, but I did the community a service by digging out the book of Papadakis and offering my commentary on it. Anyone who wishes can read the filioque clarification for himself as it is online in many locations.

I don't feel the need to respond to your assumptions about what I think and feel and what I write. I'll just say that I fully agree with you that Rome does not carry 100% of the blame for the Great Schism. And I don't think Orthodoxy is 100% correct in the way it handled things either. I do believe that Orthodoxy is 100% correct doctrinally, which you should believe too if you are "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

Sincerely,

anastasios

Here's another point I forgot in my last post.

If I really were trying to misrepresent the filioque controversy, why would I have even posted the message about the Torre article, which is of the opposite conclusion as the Papadakis book?

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

But then, aren't you saying, even by way of implication, that Orthodoxy is 100% correct in all other ways, including the matter of the Schism?

I don't for one moment accept that 1054 is the magical moment when East was finally estranged from West and vice-versa.

And, no, to say that one is "Orthodox in communion with Rome" does not mean that one accepts that what Orthodoxy has to say on the matter is correct and that Rome is wrong.

It means, as I understand it, (and remember that I'm not a seminarian ), that the Orthodox and RC positions on the subject of the Filioque are expressing the same underlying faith about the Holy Trinity, but in different, ways.

I don't believe the "Filioque" is heretical - but unnecessary to express the faith accepted by the universal church.

If I believed the Filioque was heretical, I wouldn't be in communion with Rome, I'd probably be at St. Vlad's like you .

Anyway, it's been a long day. Humbertus and Cerularius, if they were around today and read this thread, would probably, in the end, say to each other: "Sheesh! We'd better just remain good friends and avoid these problems for our future spiritual descendants . . ."

Have a great weekend!

Alex

Dear Alex,

I don't think the schism was primarily about dogmatic issues but rather more about practices and cultural estrangement. Here's an example of where I fault the East: consider the canons of the Council in Trullo where many Latin practices were criticized, when the Church was still in communion!!

I believe Orthodoxy to be 100% correct doctrinally but I don'd believe that Roman Catholics are heretics or bad or evil. I think most of the time we do see things the same or similarly, but I think that glossing over issues doesn't help.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

Well, if you are saying that it does no one any good to try and pretend that Catholics and Orthodox are already one when they're not . . .
I agree with you.

Have a great weekend, Big Guy.

Don't you have a wife to keep company? I'm at least engaged in gainful employment. But you?

(Can you do something about Nik - he keeps coming at me with these footnotes taken out of context ).

Alex

Anastasios,

I submit for your consideration that your posts do not always communicate your thoughts as clearly as you believe them to. I purposely responded with a sarcastic question because the entire tone of your post was sarcastic. You began the thread by summarizing your problems with Rome�s clarification (without even providing a proper reference to the clarification you were disagreeing with). You only referred to the problems that Orthodoxy would have with it later. If I found your posts very confusing and thought that they were unfairly anti-Western I suspect that others did as well.

Also, I had every right to mention St. Vladimir�s because your post carried with it the implication that the position you were offering was the one taught at St. Vladimir�s (why else would you have mentioned this connection?). You need to be very careful with your language because, as a student at St. Vladimir�s, whatever you post will automatically be understood as something you have learned in class, especially when you make reference to it being a topic discussed in one of your classes.

This does not reflect a complete understanding of what it means to be �Orthodox in communion with Rome�. The belief that both Orthodoxy and Rome are 100% correct doctrinally does not carry with it that both are also 100% complete. I have stated numerous times that I believe that some of the theology in both the East and West is in need of refinement (particular regarding authority in the Church). Orthodoxy is incomplete without Rome and Rome is incomplete without Orthodoxy.

As I stated earlier, your posts appear as if you now have an uncritical acceptance of anything Eastern and a critical unacceptance of anything Western. Your posts carry a call for the West to reformulate its theology to be acceptable to the East without an equal call to the East to at least attempt to understand the West�s theology from the context of the West. The responsibility to work to restore full communion falls equally upon both the East and the West.

Admin

Dear Brothers,

This has been a very interesting conversation to say the least. I will not even attempt to add anything touching the issue of theology (I think you all got that covered much better than I could even attempt to do).

I just want to say, first, to Alex that your post to Petrus shook me to my foundations. It was truly profound and enlightening. I hope you don't mind that I have copied it in order to save it for further contemplation. Thanks for your work.

The Administrator said to Anastasios:
If I found your posts very confusing and thought that they were unfairly anti-Western I suspect that others did as well.

reply:
As much as I hate to agree with the guys in authority (for fear of looking like a Brown-Noser) I have agree with the Administrator here.

Dear Anastasios,
You have a brilliant mind but beware of how you express your thoughts. When I first read what you wrote I had the identical reaction that the Administrator had.

So, the only reason I write you is to encourage you to beware of sounding like you are condemning others as idolators, when this is not at all what you mean. O.k. brother? I know I myself have done similar things and is something we must all beware of.

Thanks to everyone for the lively discussion, I learned from you all.

In Christ's Light,

Ghazar

Dear Administrator,

If you sincerely mistook my words then I accept that I don't always speak clearly. On the other hand, you tend to make assumptions about others' beliefs without always asking clarification. It seems we "fed off one another" instead of being polite. So I'm sorry for my part.

I do not believe, however, that my first post was sarcastic and I reiterate that while I accept fault for not saying "this is my place holder for a thread about the Clarification being discussed in such and such a thread" I did say that I hope it can be cleared up. Since you have commented twice about the source of the Clarification, here it is (thanks again to Gerard!):

http://praiseofglory.com/Stmaximus.htm/filioque.htm/

Remember, my issue with the clarification is not so much what it says, but the fact that it ignores the Council of 879 and the Tome of Gregory of Cyprus produced at the Council of Blachernae (1285). I don't see how it's fair to write a document and not take such important things into consideration, that is my original point.

Since I am always searching to learn more, here is an article I found, an Orthodox responding to the Clarification with suggestions for improvement/dialogue:

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm

Have a blessed Sabbath and Sunday,

In Christ,

anastasios

The following was posted by Alex (aka Orthodox Catholic).

posted 12-06-2002 09:27 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Petrus,

Actually, the notion that the Spirit is the "Love between the Father and the Son" is a very Latin formulation rejected by the East - and with good reason.

Love is a characteristic that is specific to all Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

Even an Eastern Catholic theologian I knew (he has reposed in the Lord) agreed with the Orthodox East's understanding that to see the Spirit as the Love between the Father and the Son is to denigrate His Personal Role - and I don't pretend to understand all the niceties of that argument.

Orthodoxy has denigrated the Filioque ONLY in terms of the inner relations of the Trinity - it is entirely acceptable as an expression of the theology of the Economic Trinity ie. the temporal sending of the Spirit into the world. This is Bl. Seraphim Rose's "Orthodox Filioque."
__________________________________________________

Alex, I agree with you from what you said, but disagree with you about what you think I said.

When the Spirit, in this context, is described as Love, it is done not to describe its relationship to the Father or the Son, (in fact it would be fruitless to attempt to identify characteristics to one of the Trinity that is not also a characteristic of the Others), but rather to the Mother.

To reiterate because this is important, the Spirit as Love as I used to explain the filioque from the Western point of view, derives not from the Father, but from the Mother.

The Mother, the Theotokos, is kind of like a prism that makes the Trinity visible to us. For example, we understand the second member of the Trinity as the Son, not because of His relationship with the Father, but rather because of His relationship with His Mother. (After all, "eternally begotten" can also be a "Daughter".) The Mother who conceived by the Holy Spirit, then, conceived by the Spirit who was sent by the Father. If we understand conjugal union properly, then what else can we conclude other than she conceived by the Love of God.

So, it is through the Mother that we understand the Son as Son, the Spirit as Love, and the Father as Author/Originator.

You may ask how the Father is made visible through the Mother. It is precisely by the Unity of the Spirit and the Son that was contained within her that imaged the Father. His plan is sent into the world. The Generation and the Spiration lead back to the Father and this is made manifest in the Mother. The Mother makes the Trinity visible!

Therefore, I maintain that the East, if it "rejects" the filioque, rejects it on a faulty understanding of its theology. Since the East wildly proclaims the wonders of the Theotokos, I still maintain that they (we) do not.

John

Deleted

For those of you who may still not like my "Spirit as Love" metaphor, I offer this alternative construct.

The Father is the Originator of the Word (the Son). The "Sound" of the Word is the Spirit.

The point is that the "Sound" is related to the originator and the Word simultaneously, (to the Father AND the Son)
.
This is what is meant by Spiration. It requires a dual relation between the Father and the Son that occurs simultaneously with the eternal Generation.

Generation and Spiration are merely specific types of Procession. The former is begetting, the latter is relating.

John

i have a 5th grade explanation!

If you came from NYC to Philly and then to D.C., you came from both NYC and Philly but originally from NYC.

ChristTeen287