www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Two lungs but how to breathe?

I already said I agreed with you Alex. I just wanted the argument to cease because from where I was sitting it was useless. I got fed up precisely because of that fact. As everyone keeps saying we're arguing over something we dont yet need to argue about and yet somehow the argument continues?

From where I was sat it looked like argument for the sake of it.

Having inherited the Augustinian view of Divine Providence I believe the schism is actually providential and illustrates an important point: Sometimes Cephas needs Paul to remind him what was agreed at the Council lest Barnabas and the others follow Cephas' example and cause instability and even division. Everything that we've been arguing about since the Photius incident should be an illustration upon how Matthew 16:13-20 and Matthew 18:18-20 can co-exist in a system of checks and balances.

This is exactly my point. I am not against the filioque vanishing. I just think it needs to happen at a moment in time when the Latin liturgy is less in flux. When the Pope's encylcicals are taken more note of, when the latest clarifications on the Latin rite given by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments overcome the anti-magisterial tide. Then we should change it.

What I was pleading for was time. I am not against what you're saying. I am against it being forced as an issue now when the semantics behind it are recieved by all as orthodox. When the West is won as they say and the liturgical wars are over then Rome can make the change smoothly. However, if the issue is forced now both the anti-magisterials on the 'right' and 'left' will use it as propaganda for their cause and further split the West into camps between local churches.

My concerns are not theological but pastoral and I am simply asking that the East acknowledge that in the West right now Ecumeniwm is not the only issue we have to deal with. Its important, indeed when the disucssion is pertinent to the Apostolic East it is of the utmost importance. But you cant boil an egg if the water is cold. If Rome makes the change now then it will be misinterpreted by the Latin faithful all around. Rome needs to round up the troops quell anti-magisterialism and then she will be free to make the required changes to the liturgy without on oneside being seen to be 'Protestantising' or being 'unfaithful to the decree of St Pius V' or 'embracing the real spirit of Vatican II' and 'not letting old fashioned doctrines stand in the way of Christian unity' (a liberal way of saying lets turn the Roman Church into something like the Anglican communion with parties each believing what they want).

Believe me, as you have said, the Catholic-Orthodox theologians are agreed that what you're proposing is the best way. But one cannot go to a wedding feast without oil within one's lamp. Before all is ready there's no point in trying to force things. Thats been my whole point right along.

Thus, I ask that we stop the argument settle on the fact that the creed will one day change and bide our time patiently until the conditons are in place to discuss this all properly. Hopefully at the next Ecumenical Council.

Dear Myles,

See you at the next Ecumenical Council, then!

Hopefully, I'll be able to grow a beard by then . . .

Alex

Ooooh! Are you going to enter Holy Orders? That would be cool especially if you got an important episcopal appointment. I could call you my Lord Archbishop and stuff. I love the old titles. And the beards and black hats. Eastern clergy look so cool.

Can we not say causa finita est since our Holy Father has seen it fit to use the Creed in its form from the Ecumenical Council publicly as the lex orandi?

I don' think any of us want to hesitate to fulfill the wishes of our Lord, even if that means movement which may be outside of the realm of "comfort".

I have never referred to him as "My Lord," although he has on occasion caused me to say, "My God!"

Perhaps you misunderstood me

Yes

Agreed, but comfort and neccessity are different. At the moment the Roman Church is in the middle of a civil war over the correct way to do the liturgy--which is deeply influenced by far more profound theological concerns. As I've tried to repeatedly explain more change in the liturgy now would be inoppertune because of the divisions and disputes that are rampant throghout the West. It is not a hesitation so much as not throwing seeds in the snow because impatience prevents us from waiting until next fall. Again, I re-iterate my concerns are not theological but pastoral. I dont disagree with what you're proposing I just think that at present it would cause more trouble than good. Give it a few decades, once the Church of Rome regains control of the seminaries and the parishes it can close the chapter on the problems so-called 'post-conciliar era'. Then once it has regained working control over the Western Patriarcy the Papacy can begin to implement the changes needed to lay the ground for a reunion Council of the Vatican. Knowing that the changes required when requested by Rome wont be used as an excuse for dissent on the part of its faithful.

Dear Charles and Myles,

I'm not going to enter Holy Orders, so no problem.

There have been laity who have participated in the Councils, so I'm hoping they'll save a seat for me at the lower end of the auditorium

So, "Dr Roman" is as high as it gets with me . . .

Alex

Now, now lanugage Charles, language...

Touche, Diak. But seriously, wouldn't it be helpful if that creed had an actual name (perhaps one of the two I suggested)?

When discussing the Council of Toledo, the document "The Filioque : A Church-Dividing Issue?" says "It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople"

I don't want to be argumentative, but I thought you should be aware of that.

-Peter.

"The Filioque : A Church-Dividing Issue?" recommended "that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use."

Personally, I agree with them proposing that as a goal, but it seems to me that they should have also proposed some more immediate steps that could be taken toward achieving that goal.

Alex wrote:
Can you clarify: by "RC Church" are you referring to Latin-Rite Catholic parishes located in Greece? (Of course, I would imagine there aren't too too many LR Catholic parishes in Greece.) Or do you mean the (Byzantine-Rite) Greek Church which in communion with Rome?

-Peter.

Dear Peter,

Yes, I mean the Latin Catholic Church of Greece - and I once visited such a parish when I was in "Holy Hellas."

Alex

That's cool. (Makes sense, of course, since they use the language the creed was originally written in. But I guess I'd never really thought about Latin churches in Greece before.)

Know of any other Latin churches which use the Creed of 381?

-Peter

Actually, at one time there must have been quite a few Latin Catholic Churches in Greece. The Peloponesus was under the Franks in the Middle Ages, most of the islands under the Venetians and there were also Genovese colonies. All this was before the Turks of course. It seems the Turks had a certain vengeance towards the Latins...No doubt because of the wars with the Venetians.

Well the natural outcome was that some went back to Italy or France, whatever the case, and the rest converted to Orthodoxy to save their skin.

One example is the miraculous icon of the Virgin Mary, on the island of Dinos. No doubt the greatest shrine in Greece. Next to it is a Latin monastery, making me wonder if the church was originally Latin. Now I know that my mothers parish, which is also named after our Lady, was originally a Latin monastery and then a Latin church before becoming Orthodox.

Zenovia