www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Eastern Schism

Actually Alex, I heard some new wording for that song. "Someone's dysfunctional, Lord, kum ba yah!" Perhaps I saw that in the comic strip, "Mallard Fillmore."

Alex you wrote:


I agree. But according to Todd, Rome must recant the filioque and the Pope his authority. If we are really Byzantine Catholics that is not a real option.

What then is a real option? I suggest that looking at the Clarification on the Filioque which attempts to make sense of the Eastern and Western positions. This is unacceptable to Todd because he holds his position dogmatically.

But at the heart of Todd's objection is that God is COMPLETELY unknowable. If that really is ABSOLUTELY true, then there is no discussion about these matters WHATSOEVER. Everything about the essence, energies distinction is revealed and one cannot object to it on any account WHATSOEVER.

If God's Energies are the medium between him and us, there is still a problem. THEY AREN'T HIM. And since he is COMPLETELY unknownable, then one can't know if this "medium" will lead to HIM.

We do use human words in speaking about the Word and about God. Essence is such a word. The only way for humans to understand is through words. As an example of this, I refer to this discussion and this forum. We can only use the written word to communicate. Now if you or Todd want to point to some communication that is beyond words, that's fine, point to it like MENO in the Platonic dialogue, but don't use words, and don't say Rome must be wrong--it's self defeating to any position that you appear to maintain.

But to maintain what you said above about "orthodoxy of faith" and which I quoted--that takes words--human words--the only we kind we have. If they express something true about God, e.g. He is Good, then He is known (in a glass darkly), but in some way known, however, inadequate (and I do believe that it is inadequate--I don't think one can comprehend God--except God Himself).

Keep in mind that if attempt to argue against this position (and very likely Todd will) you can't refute it by maintaining that God is COMPLETELY unkowable, because then you can't know ANYTHING about Him. Speak all you want of his Energies, but they aren't Him! And you can't prove they are His Energies because He is COMPLETELY unknowable!

So how can one begin to think about how the faith of Augustine was the same as Basil or Chrysostom? The Clarification is a good beginning. And rather than trying to argue against it, see what might be true about it--that is the Catholic way!

http://web.archive.org/web/20050210153236/praiseofglory.com/Stmaximus.htm/filioque.htm/

One must approach all revealed truth from both pastoral and doctrinal perspectives. To suggest otherwise or make sport of one over the other is....not very useful.

It is good to engage in humor, poking fun at ourselves as well as others is recommended....Poke! But to reduce the sobriety of those who speak out against the schism to ribaldry and scorn is not recommended.

To misrepresent, as in the claim that the west formally teaches that the only the Holy Spirit is Divine Love, is blatant falsification. That is not recommended or useful either.

Mary

Dear Mary,

At no time did I make "sport" of anything you said. I only make sport of ANY (whether here or elsewhere) attempt to want to rush to have unity before the matter of unity of faith is resolved.

I've been to events here in Toronto where they have that attitude which is unhelpful. The break between the Churches is very real and won't be overcome by one side imposing its view over the other - I think we're all agreed about that.

Again, no one is saying anything other than one of the West's positions on the Trinity is that He is the Love between the Father and the Son (perfectly orthodox, I would say), but the East would say that Love is the attribute of every Person of the Trinity - which is what Bishop Hilarion affirms quite clearly in the quote you gave.

Once more, I am unrepentant at poking fun at ANY ecumenism that would "rush to embrace" before Scripture, the Fathers and our Churches, affirm we may.

It is a temptation that must be resisted. Or else our Church authorities will help us in that department.

Alex

Dear Charles,

Never heard that version - but since you know so much about it, please feel free to share more information.

Alex

As I said, that version is courtesy of Mallard Fillmore. I have heard many versions of the "hippie anthem," as it has been called, but I actually rather like that version. It's interesting that the word "hippie" is now used by the young as an insult.

Often it is best to compare formal teaching with formal teaching. For those who are interested, the Catholic Church is fairly reticent in their formal teaching on the Holy Spirt, leaving pastoral teachings and pious beliefs to their proper place, which is of course, why it would be useful to examine the most common pastoral as well as the formal teachings.

From the CCC:

II. THE NAME, TITLES, AND SYMBOLS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The proper name of the Holy Spirit

691 "Holy Spirit" is the proper name of the one whom we adore and glorify with the Father and the Son. The Church has received this name from the Lord and professes it in the Baptism of her new children.[16]

The term "Spirit" translates the Hebrew word ruah, which, in its primary sense, means breath, air, wind. Jesus indeed uses the sensory image of the wind to suggest to Nicodemus the transcendent newness of him who is personally God's breath, the divine Spirit.[17] On the other hand, "Spirit" and "Holy" are divine attributes common to the three divine persons. By joining the two terms, Scripture, liturgy, and theological language designate the inexpressible person of the Holy Spirit, without any possible equivocation with other uses of the terms "spirit" and "holy."

Titles of the Holy Spirit

692 When he proclaims and promises the coming of the Holy Spirit, Jesus calls him the "Paraclete," literally, "he who is called to one's side," ad-vocatus.[18] "Paraclete" is commonly translated by "consoler," and Jesus is the first consoler.[19] The Lord also called the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of truth."[20]

693 Besides the proper name of "Holy Spirit," which is most frequently used in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, we also find in St. Paul the titles: the Spirit of the promise,[21] the Spirit of adoption,[22] the Spirit of Christ,[23] the Spirit of the Lord,[24] and the Spirit of God[25] - and, in St. Peter, the Spirit of glory.[26]

Dear Lm,

Well, I don't pretend to represent Todd (or yourself as I am at a loss intellectually to approximate your high academic levels - my sociology doctorate only included an aside on Alexander Schmemann ) and I wasn't talking only about Todd here.

It's not clear when we speak about Orthodox/Catholic unity and when we speak about Eastern Catholic vs Latin Catholic theological perspectives.

I believe that the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" here would support me (if they still think I'm worth bothering with - another question ) in saying that we EC's are to become as Eastern as possible and so I see what Todd has discussed as being part of that ongoing process for EC's and myself in particular.

I believe that the Spirit is distinguishable from the Father and the Son by the manner of His Procession from the Father versus that of the Son. Both Churches affirm this as well. From the scholastic point of view, to deny the Filioque would mean to deny the only real way one would have of distinguishing the Son from the Spirit - that is not an issue for the Orthodox East, nor are a number of other issues the West has dogmatised on since the schism of 1054.

As for the question of East/West unity, Todd simply echoes what many Orthodox and also some EC and even RC theologians say - that the Filioque has no place in the Creed, that it is a theologoumenon of the West and can remain so (see Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox Way).

As for the Papacy, don't know of many who wouldn't agree that it needs reform - especially with respect to jursidictional powers and the right of Eastern Primates to govern themselves.

At a young age, I was enlisted into the Ukrainian Patriarchal movement where we defended our Church's right to self-government in union with Rome under our holy Hieroconfessor, Joseph the Patriarch, who spent 18 years in Siberia for his loyalty to Rome and at a time when Ost-Politik was at its zenith.

We defended and still defend our Church's right to appoint her own bishops and do her own housekeeping in Ukraine and throughout the world through her patriarchal synod. Sorry that Rome doesn't like that, but it is, we have found, easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.

My great-uncle, as metropolitan-archbishop of the underground Church in Ukraine and a Redemptorist, spent 10 years in Siberia for his loyalty to Rome and suffered 18 house arrests by the Soviet police for continuing to run the UGCC in Lviv Ukraine.

If our hierarchs weren't afraid of the Soviet KGB while still living under the USSR, do you think they will be afraid to assert their rights with . . . the Vatican? No, not at all.

We're reforming the way the Papacy is being run in practice, as we go along - we're not even waiting for Rome to appoint a commission to investigate the matter.

And many of our bishops' synods have already issued directives to remove the Filioque from the Creed and we laity are slowly following suit.

And, guess what, we're still Eastern Catholics, our martyrs for loyalty to Rome haven't turned over in their graves and the icon of St Thomas Aquinas is still in our patriarch Joseph's Sobor of St Sophia in Rome (no detectable frown on the great Dominican's face re: the Filioque that is noticeable).

If you could show me where Todd condemned Rome as heretical, I would appreciate it. The fact that he affirms that Orthodoxy won't go for a union that includes the Filioque and the way the Papacy is currently run - hey, the UGCC, the largest EC church today, doesn't go in for that either.

Charles here suggested that I am dysfunctional. Not the first time I have been accused of that on this forum, but certainly the last time.

Cheers,

p.s. I wish Todd and the Orthodox in communion with Rome on this forum all the best in your work!

Alex

"Charles here suggested that I am dysfunctional. Not the first time I have been accused of that on this forum, but certainly the last time."

Hardly! I merely mentioned a version of the song you referenced because I thought it funny. I would never accuse you of being dysfunctional - a bit sensitive, perhaps, but never dysfunctional.