www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Recent interview with Fr. Taft

Not really. It is true that he made a remark that the Latisns should remove the filioque from the creed, then a union could take place, but the context of this was that the Greeks were at the time discussing what possible examples would be acceptable for union (Maximus' letter, Patriarch Tarasios' confession of procession through the Son, etc.) He quite vigorously opposed the doctrine itself.

^Latins

Good point. If a Catholic becomes convinced that the pope and the Latin Church are heretical, then staying Catholic really doesn't make sense.

I think this is one of the few points where I have to completely disagree with you (not to be confused with the many points where I partially disagree ;)) : calling a teaching false isn't the same as calling it heretical.

I don't think it's as black-and-white as you're suggesting. Consider a couple of (admittedly inconclusive) points:
- Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy all disagree about how many of them have valid orders (2, 3, or 1 respectively). Does that mean that each of them "puts themselves above" the other two?
- In some ways OicwR disagree with both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but in other ways they agree with each.
- (Undecided on adding more points.)

Dear Cavaradossi,

He quite vigorously opposed it according to the Greek understanding of ekporeusai. This is evident when he accused the Latins of asserting that the Son is the "cause and source" of the Holy Spirit -- which is not true. While the Latins did indeed refer to the Son as "cause," they distinctly and explicitly did not refer to him as "source." This indicates that he misunderstood the Latin doctrine of filioque, and having misunderstood it, it cannot be stated that St. Mark of Ephesus actually opposed it.

But that is all I will say on the matter unless you want to start another thread on the Latin understanding of filioque.

Blessings

fogey,

Your conclusions might follow if you were right about where to mark assent and dissent. But I don't think you are; I've tried to explain why I don't think you are. You haven't really said much in reply except to assert that I am wrong.

I am not really sure where you are getting your view--at this point I am guessing that you don't argue it because you simply assume it's the truth that Catholics believe and so doesn't need argued.

But, the Catholic Church doesn't say--that I am aware of--that legitimate papal definitions require the assent of the faithful in their verbal formulation, or rather, that the required assent must extend to the verbal formulation. Nor am I aware of a truly binding list of which papal definitions qualify. To be sure, there is a pretty widely accepted list, with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption at the top of that list. All that said, there may be legitimate reasons either to doubt that a given definition 1) is really on the list or 2) that its formulation helpfully formulates anything much at all. In the case of the two Marian dogmas, my own doubts lie more with the latter than with the former.

The opposition to the Eastern Orthodox Churches is both significant and relevant on Catholic terms because--as we seemed to agree earlier--on Catholic terms, papally defined doctrine does not (and presumably cannot) disagree with the ordinary teaching of the Church. Your retreat to the 'true Church' stopping at the boundaries of the Roman communion won't work in this instance, since Rome regards the Eastern and Oriental Churches as real 'churches' where the Catholic Church is really present and built up, and whose faith is accepted--believers from these churches are even welcome to participate in the communion of the Catholic Church (though we also encourage them to follow their own authorities.) Moreover, I genuinely believe that the venerable observance of the Mother of God's Dormition in Eastern Christianity warranted (or was thought to warrant) the recognition that this doctrine really did pertain to the faith of the Church. For that very reason, it is not irrelevant that the Eastern Churches have mostly not recognized their faith in the definition of this doctrine.

Accordingly, it is not really clear to me that there is necessarily a necessary or intrinsic difference between what you describe as clearly opposite positions, namely 'expressing Catholic doctrine in Orthodox terms' and 'passively rejecting' or 'non-affirming' them.

I am waiting on your 'no sale,' though I would appreciate a reply that actually engaged my argument.

Guess I'm not smart enough to be a dissenter. I can live with that.

Dissent from the substance of a defined doctrine. No sale. Good Catholics don't engage in that sophistry.

You're trying to make me into a strawman version of Catholicism's true-church claim. A great thing about being Catholic is they don't tell you to regard the Orthodox as frauds. So, the Orthodox have real bishops, true definitions of doctrine (as opposed to post-schism opinion, which can regard Catholicism as a fraud), and a true Mass. Never-Catholic Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt regarding schism, so never-Catholic Orthodox bishops have apostolic authority over their own people as somehow part of the church. Local apostolic churches, even those in schism, are sisters, but the church as a whole, the Catholic Church, can have no sisters, contra the OicwRs' relativism.

I think they reject it out of spite.

The dissent game again. No, thanks.

Guess I'm too dumb. The magisterium's good enough for me.

Dear Sergei,

You didn't capitalize "Magisterium . . ."

lol

Oh? When was that?

The EP has never recognized the UOC-KP.

Regarding the Orthodox mess in Ukraine, I just want to state that with God ALL things are possible but on His timetable.

As a living example of this ,after 41 years in the priesthood, two once young seminary classmates, now older Orthodox priests, graduates of Christ the Savior Seminary, served the Divine Liturgy together for the first time at the funeral of Archpriest David Hritsko's (of the ROCOR) uncle at St. Michael's ACROD in Binghamton. (The other priest was of course the pastor, Father Jim Dutko.) Considering the bitter polemics and vitriol from all sides in years past, this was an emotionally important to both priests. Like most faithful and clergy, none of the nasty rhetoric ever came from either priest.

I don't think of it as an "Orthodox mess" - but as an ongoing struggle of Ukrainian Orthodox for their rights as a Particular Orthodox Church over and against the hegemony of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The "non-canonical Orthodox" are reuniting, parish by parish. Eastern Catholics are closer to their Orthodox brothers and sisters than ever before.

Yes, St Mark of Ephesus did oppose the doctrine of the Filioque itself, but felt that if the Latins removed it from the Creed, union could take place and, over time, the Latins would see the error of their ways with respect to the Filioque under the influence of Grace that was absent from them due to the break in communion with the (Orthodox) Church.

That was his true position. But he understood the Filioque as meaning two Sources within the Holy Trinity for the Holy Spirit - which is actually rejected as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church. So St Mark and Rome agreed on this aspect of the Filioque debate without acknowledging that they did.

Alex

From an Orthodox ecclesiology point of view, the canonical situation in Ukraine is indeed a "mess" which needs resolution consistent with Church law - as does the American "mess." An autocephaly accepted by the canonical churches is necessary in Ukraine and my point,based on my anecdote, is that through God ALL things are possible.