Weigel on Catholic/Orthodox Disunity

Over at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, EPPC senior fellow George Weigel examines the dismay of Orthodox monks on Mount Athos in northern Greece at recent overtures toward conversation by Pope Benedict  XVI to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. The issue for the monk, Weigel notes, was not any papal statement or initiative but the Ecumenical Patriarch's reception of them as though the Pope actually were "the canonical Bishop of Rome." In this, Weigel sees an illustration of Orthodox/Catholic tensions that are not as easily overcome as it might seem to some Catholics, and certainly to some of us who are on watching from the outside of both groups.

Weigel writes:

I very much doubt that there are more than a handful of Catholics around the world whose confession of Catholic faith includes, as a key component, "I am not in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople."

The truth of the matter is that, outside historically Orthodox countries and certain ethnic communities, the thought of how one stands vis-à-vis the Patriarch of Constantinople simply doesn't enter Catholic heads. Perhaps that's a problem, but it's nowhere near as great an obstacle to ecumenical progress as the conviction in some Orthodox quarters that non-communion with Rome is a defining characteristic of what it means to be "Orthodox."

1054, it now seems clear, was not a date-in-a-vacuum. Rather, the mutual excommunications of 1054 were the cash-out, so to speak, of a drifting-apart that had been going on for centuries, driven by language and politics, to be sure, but also by different theological sensibilities. Are those two sensibilities necessarily Church-dividing? The Catholic answer is, "No." But that is emphatically not the answer of Mount Athos, and of those Orthodox for whom the Athonite monks are essentially right, if a bit over-the-top.

All of which suggests that John Paul II's dream of a Church breathing once again with both of its lungs is unlikely of fulfillment anytime soon. Unless, that is, Islamist pressures compel a reexamination within Orthodoxy of what a life-line to Rome might mean.

Comments

[Bob Gardner]

"St. Photius said it was "ungodly" and "blasphemous", and the like. How much more direct can you get bob? You want to affirm the same Faith with someone who denies our very God, whose core belief is blasphemous? Perhaps we need to back up and discuss exactly what the word "communion" means..."

Ouch, the nuances of this argument are giving me severe brain trauma... I shouldn't have asked.

[Rob Grano]

Christopher, I think the question would be, did St. Photius reject the filioque because he believed it denied the monarchy of the Father? Many RC and EO theologians believe that the doctrine can be formulated in such a way so as the monarchy of the Father is not compromised, and that the concerns of both sides are addressed, i.e., the West's concern with the Son's place in "sending" the Spirit (the "economic" Trinity) and our concern with the Father being the sole font of divinity (the "theological" Trinity). A common formulation need not be a compromise on either side; something like "from the Father, through the Son" might be acceptable (although it still shouldn't be in the Creed.)

On the other hand, I think the Orthodox should exhibit a certain amount of caution towards the "hey-if-we-just-change-a-few-words-around-everything's-cool!" approach that some RCs and EOs have. The issue is more serious than that, and that approach betrays the kind of lame ecumenism that you're rightly bewailing.

[Gina Mosko]

many Orthodox cannot accept the legitimacy of anything that is not Byzantine
We're not Byzantine. Albeit my husband says that one reason he chose an OO parish instead of EO is an older and less adulterated liturgical tradition, so he agrees with you in general. I simply find Catholic masses barely recognizable as a liturgy, and are not clown masses and guitar masses and the like an outgrowth of liturgical doctoring?

Ethan, Bob etc.: How can something in the Creed be considered "theologumenon"? "Rome" may have "stated that the Father is the source of the Trinity," but week in and week out, the Roman faithful state something different.

[Christopher]

NOTE: I have stuck with just the Filioque on purpose – it’s one issue of many, and tends to not flame up the same sort of passions of other issues such as infallibility, Immaculate conception, and the like.

“Well, you've argued that Rome is heretical, but that if Rome changes, it proves that Rome is unable to sustain her faith.”

Actually no. I have said that “turning on a dime” is usually not what it seems. IF Rome is repenting from the Filioque then I admit it could be real and the beginning of a reconciliation. That said, I think it will take a couple of generations at least for the fruit of this turn to manifest. As you admit it has been a “top down” process. Let’s see if it is real (this will require patience).

“To say all the alleged heterodoxies and heteropraxes of various RCs are attributable to some underlying and fatal error is to say that no reconciliation is possible until the RCs attain perfection.”

I don’t think so. However, I think it is to say that the ‘heteropraxes’ of the RC ARE important, real differences and indicate more than the mere terminological, political, “modes of expression”, etc. I said way up this tread that I don’t have all the answers. I am critical of what Stuart is saying.

What seems to under lie much of what Stuart and others are saying here is it’s “my interpretation or the highway”. If we don’t agree with this particular way of looking at and resolving our differences, then we have an ill will and are dooming all future reconciliation efforts. We just don’t agree with much, most of what passes for ecumenism these days. We don’t agree with the One Big Misunderstanding theory and methods…

[Bob Gardner]

""Rome" may have "stated that the Father is the source of the Trinity," but week in and week out, the Roman faithful state something different."
Gina,

That isn't what is being professed week in and week out by the RC faithful. The link I provided above gave the RC teaching, but I will reproduce it here:

Catholic Teaching on the Filioque

The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit. The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit. Against Arianism, which was still virulent in the West, its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one Monarchy of the Father.

We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts.

The Catholic Church interprets the Filioque with reference to the conciliar and ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value of the confession of faith in the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit, as defined in 381 by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in its Symbol. This Symbol only became known and received by Rome on the occasion of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. In the meantime, on the basis of the earlier Latin theological tradition, Fathers of the Church of the West like St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and St. Leo the Great, had confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) eternally from the Father and the Son.2

Since the Latin Bible (the Vulgate and earlier Latin translations) had translated Jn 15:26 (para tou Patros ekporeutai) by "qui a Patre procedit," the Latins translated the "ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople by "ex Patre procedentum" (Mansi VII, 112 B). In this way, a false equivalence was involuntarily created with regard to the eternal origin of the Spirit between the Oriental theology of the ekporeusis and the Latin theology of the processio.

The Greek ekporeusis signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.3 In confessing the Holy Spirit "ex Patre procedentem," the Latins, therefore, could only suppose an implicit Filioque which would later be made explicit in their liturgical version of the Symbol.

In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or Athanasianum,' DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality. If these Councils did not perhaps insert it in the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople, it is certainly to be found there from the end of the eighth century, as evidenced in the proceedings of the Council of Aquileia-Friuli in 796 (Mansi XIII, 836, D, ff.) and that of Aix-la-Chapelle of 809 (Mansi XIV, 17). In the ninth century, however, faced with Charlemagne, Pope Leo III, in his anxiety to preserve unity with the Orient in the confession of faith, resisted this development of the Symbol which had spread spontaneously in the West, while safeguarding the truth contained in the Filioque. Rome only admitted it in 1014 into the liturgical Latin version of the Creed.

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St. Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of 'procession' (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A).4

In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusis. St. Maximus the Confessor then wrote a letter from Rome linking together the two approaches — Cappadocian and Alexandrian — to the eternal origin of the Spirit: the Father is the sole Principle without Principle (in Greek, aitia) of the Son and of the Spirit; the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession (to proienai) of this same Spirit. "For the procession they (the Romans) brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St. Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St. John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son cause (aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusis — but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marin of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).

According to St. Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common. This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the fourth Lateran Council: "The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance... It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality" (DS 804-805).

In 1274, the second Council of Lyons confessed that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle (tamquam ex uno principio)" (DS 850). In the light of the Lateran Council, which preceded the second Council of Lyons, it is clear that it is not the divine essence that can be the "one principle" for the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets this formula in no.248 as follows: "The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the 'principle without principle,' is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds" (Council of Lyons II, DS 850).

The Catholic Church understands that the Eastern tradition expresses first that it is characteristic of the Father to be the first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who takes his origin from the Father" ("ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" cf. Jn 15:26), it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). "This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed." (Catechism of the Catholic Church no.248). Being aware of this, the Catholic Church has refused the addition of kai tou Uiou to the formula ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek. The liturgical use of this original text remains always legitimate in the Catholic Church.

If it is correctly situated, the Filioque of the Latin tradition must not lead to subordination of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognises the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ekporeusis.5

[luthien]

Christopher, please heed what Mr. Altena has to say. While I don't disagree with you that there are some fairly sizeable differences between RC and EO-certainly more that Stuart says, you're doing an absolutely terrible job of representing that viewpoint. (and no, I do NOT have the time to try to argue it myself, as my final papers and projets are all due Tuesday, it's now Friday, and they're all as yet unbegun)

>>>Well, then, what is THE Orthodox view on contraception, on the literality of the six days of creation, on days of fasting and abstinence, on divorce/remarriage, on fitness to receive Communion?<<<
The literality of the 6 days-as far as I know, a 6 24-hour day creation is not an EO dogma. Divorce/remarriage-acceptable under certain conditions. Some jurisdictions grant a "church divorce" other simple permit remarriage at the Bishop's discretion. Contraception-well, the GOARCH accepts it as long as it is used only for spacing children, not to produce childlessness and the motives for its use are not selfish and it is non-abortifacient. Other jurisdictions are stricter. Fitness to receive communion varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and depending on whom you ask. Days of fasting and abstinence-consistent as far as I can think of, except for the WRV which has its own rules.

[Stuart Koehl]

Scott presents something of a mixed bag, some of which I would support, some I would oppose. Some don't do much for me one way or the other.

>>>1) Rome would have to make an Orthodox confession, the exact details could be worked out by an Orthodox Ecumenical Council<<<

I would ask Scott why he would require more of the Church of Rome than the Church of Rome requires of converts from the Orthodox Church, and why he insists that Rome make an obeisance that Orthodoxy has not raised as necessary for the Oriental Orthodox?

>>>2) The Pope could not keep the entire West as his Patriarchate. Italy and Western Europe might be a good place to start negotiations. The rest of his Patriarchate could be divided into/under Orthodox Patriarchates with Roman Catholic clergy being integrated, high and low, into that new scheme.<<<

I wholeheartedly concur with this approach, which is consistent with Catholic canon law (the Catholic Church may erect, modify or eliminate jurisdictions as requied for the good governance of the Church), and which has surprisingly broad support among both Orthodox and Catholic theologians. The return to multipolarity on the model of the Pentarchy would be good for the Church as a whole.

>>>3) Rome would not regain the primacy. The reasons normally given in the Orthodox faith for the early primacy of Rome were its adherance to the Orthodox faith, its status as the capital of an Empire (and later as a great city) and the fact that Peter was its bishop (as well as that of Antioch, by the way) and was martyred there, as well as Paul. Two of these three reasons are no longer the fact. Rome is not a city prominent as a center of world power. And after a thousand years of schismatic (and arguably heretical) teaching, it no longer has a reputation for being true to Orthodox teaching.<<<

I cannot agree with this for the simple reason that the primacy was granted to Rome by two Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople II and Chalcedon), in recognition of Rome's role as the Church with priority, which presides in love. Rome was always considered the Primus inter pares, even if the rationale for that has changed from the principle of accommodation (Church organization follows civil organization), to its double apostolic succession and richness in martyrs, to the role of the Pope as successor to Peter. Put bluntly, Rome is the historical center of unity for the Church, and no alternative nexus possesses either its historical legacy or its moral authority.

But thanks for again showing that many Orthodox make opposition to Rome the nexus of their own Orthodoxy.

>>>If there were to be another Orthodox Ecumenical council, the likely candidate for Ecumenical Patriarch, if it were to be changed, would be the Patriarch of Moscow. Even my Greek priest acknowledges that he is, de facto, the most powerful of the Patriarchs. There, of course, could be some negotiation of exactly where Rome would be on the list, short of the top spot.<<<

Again, the role of Constantinople as New Rome and second only to Old Rome cannot be gainsaid. Though Moscow has the largest of the existing Orthodox Churches, its own record of preemptory and indeed, imperial action, to say nothing of its close alignment with the Russian state would disqualify it in the eyes of most Orthodox (that the current Patriarch is a former KGB colonel with commendations for his zealous service to the state doesn't help matters).

>>>If Rome is really interested in reunion with The Church and is not still on the ego trip that it has been in the past, which Stuart seems to indicate is the case, then this should be a good place to start.<<<

Well, I wonder what you mean by ego trip, since no Roman Catholic cleric would ever demand of the Orthodox what you have demanded of Rome (nor would one ever be so cavalier with the canonical tradition of the Church). For the past three decades, Rome has attempted with humility to atone for the sins of previous generations, including for its treatment of the Eastern Churches.

On the other hand, I am still waiting for some Orthodox primate to offer some explanation, let alone apology for the treatment metted out to the Eastern Catholics of Ukraine and Romania in 1947-48. I imagine that the Armenians, Copts and Syrians are also waiting in vain.

>>>I leave you to comment, reject, ridicule, or even agree.<<<

I don't see much in the way of kenosis on your part in all this.

[DGP]

>>2) The Pope could not keep the entire West as his Patriarchate.... The rest of his Patriarchate could be divided....<<

>>3) Rome would not regain the primacy.<<

>>...[T]he likely candidate for Ecumenical Patriarch, if it were to be changed, would be the Patriarch of Moscow.... There, of course, could be some negotiation of exactly where Rome would be on the list, short of the top spot.<<

This kind of thinking represents the horribly inorganic approach to reform and reconciliation I was attempting to preclude above. (In liturgy, it's precisely this approach that leads to clown Masses and the like.) It would be breathtakingly arrogant for both the EOs and the RCs to think that they could simply cast aside 1000 years of history and development, no matter how imperfect, and proceed to impose a new ecclesial communion *de novo* on a billion Christians. This is the worst of reverse Latinization.

Yes, I realize many Christians in the West would welcome it. But everyone here probably also realizes *why* they would like it: It would immediately create the largest political "low-pressure system" in Christianity's history, leading to worldwide storms of dissent and division. The iconoclasm and autolatria of the 1970s were bad enough, but this would create an abomination worthy of John's Apocalypse.

[Rob Grano]

I'm with you guys -- the point is to reunite, not to "convert" each other.

[Scott Pennington]

"its own record of preemptory and indeed, imperial action"

And this does not disqualify Rome?

"I would ask Scott why he would require more of the Church of Rome than the Church of Rome requires of converts from the Orthodox Church, and why he insists that Rome make an obeisance that Orthodoxy has not raised as necessary for the Oriental Orthodox?"

Did I anywhere use the word "obeisance"? What I mean is that for any reconciliation to take place the Orthodox would want to have the terms agreed to in an Orthodox Council. Orthodox are received into Catholicism by confession and vice versa. This is not a such a big deal. Even the Orthodox who are relatively open to the type of discussion you're talking about would not let it cause internal division within Orthodoxy. But your comment does point to a suspicion of mine. Catholic gestures toward "reconciliation" are mostly about expanding Catholic power.

"Put bluntly, Rome is the historical center of unity for the Church, and no alternative nexus possesses either its historical legacy or its moral authority."

Rome has no moral authority among the Orthodox due to almost 1000 years of schismatic/heretical teaching, the Crusades, etc. Its historical legacy was more praiseworthy in the first millenium; however, that ship has sailed.

"Well, I wonder what you mean by ego trip, since no Roman Catholic cleric would ever demand of the Orthodox what you have demanded of Rome (nor would one ever be so cavalier with the canonical tradition of the Church)."

What do I demand of Rome? Acceptance of the Orthodox faith (surely Rome would not allow a communion considered heterodox to pretend to be Catholic!). Reorganization of jurisdiction (you didn't object to my second point). And loss of primacy (Rome expects to retain its primacy even after 1000 years of schismatic/heretical teaching. It is, thereby, asking Constantinople to give up its status as the Ecumenical Patriarchate).

No, Stuart, I'm not asking anything of Rome that it would not ask of us. As to being cavalier with the canonical tradition of the Church: Rome has no place making any such observation having added, against ecumenical canon, the filioque. A new Council would have to rectify where the Ecumenical Patriarchate should be. Rome lost its place by separating itself from the Church. All bets are off now. I have no dog in the fight of where the EP should be. I do think it unwise to place it at a See that for 1000 was outside the Church. That almost seems comical. The Orthodox do not buy into the successor of Peter argument that seems to preoccupy Rome. I don't expect this to ever change.

Which brings me to what, I hope, will be my final observation. This is all about Roman Catholic power, just as it always was. The Pope wishes to gather us all under his benevolent wings.

[Gene Godbold]

I think Jesus would like us to gather together under his benevolent wings.

I'm sympathetic to (my understanding of) the "eastern" way of doing theology and I've got my beef with some Roman dogma, but I think Scott's off his rocker on the primacy thing. There *are* no other viable candidates besides Rome. My brother is OCA and even he would laugh at the idea of the Patriarch of Moscow being the primate. Fr. DGP sees exactly how this sort of thing would end up.

[Scott Pennington]

Also, regarding "kenosis" Stuart, you have created a Catholicism here that may be unique to you alone. I do not see Rome backtracking on its historical doctrines and dogmas the way you do. If it has come to a period of self-correction because it feels its prior claims were untrue then that is to be praised. I don't believe that it is giving up things on our account though. I hope its not changing its faith just to please us. Truth does matter. Kenosis, self-emptying, would lead the Bishop of Rome to accept, if he desires unity with the Orthodox, that he can't be the primus inter pares of a Church against which he now admits his See has propataged false doctrine for almost 1000 years.

[Scott Pennington]

"I think Jesus would like us to gather together under his benevolent wings."

Yes, Gene, I agree. However, there is a conceptual problem afoot here to. Rome used to teach, and I believe still does, that it is The Church to which Christians outside the Church need to be reconciled. I agree with the concept except insofar as it locates The Church in the Roman Communion. I like the pre-Vatican II type RCC better because it was more honest about its own Tradition.

When Protestants talk about restoring visible unity in the Church, they are missing the point from the perspective of the Orthodox and old-fashioned Roman Catholics. There is visible unity of the Church. There is only The Church on the one hand and outside separated "ecclesiastical entities" on the other.

It is not meant to be an insult to non-Orthodox. However, it does cause the discussion to move away from horsetrading and "the big misunderstanding" paradigm to the idea of reconciling separated Christians to The Church. If we move away from that, whether we be Catholic or Orthodox, then we are moving away from the Catholic or Orthodox Faith.

[James A. Altena]

"Which brings me to what, I hope, will be my final observation."

Would that it were, Scott, and that you had kept and would keep your previous vow under the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" thread.

[Bob Gardner]

Scott,
Good thing you won't be invited to the council, if there ever is one. If there is a reunion I think you'll be surprised at the terms - it won't be Rome capitulating on every point, and it won't be the reverse either.

[DGP]

>>I like the pre-Vatican II type RCC better because it was more honest about its own Tradition./ When Protestants talk about restoring visible unity in the Church, they are missing the point from the perspective of the Orthodox and old-fashioned Roman Catholics. There is visible unity of the Church. There is only The Church on the one hand and outside separated "ecclesiastical entities" on the other./ It is not meant to be an insult to non-Orthodox. However, it does cause the discussion to move away from horsetrading and "the big misunderstanding" paradigm to the idea of reconciling separated Christians to The Church. If we move away from that, whether we be Catholic or Orthodox, then we are moving away from the Catholic or Orthodox Faith.<<

That's an interesting way of putting things. You have a distorted view of the pre-Vatican II RCC's claim to exclusive status: After all, it was Pius XII, not John XXIII, who excommunicated the infamous Fr. Feeney. Nevertheless, I take your point: You're either orthodox (small "o") or not, and if not, then there's no point in pretending you're part of the Church.

It's an attractively logical position, but it's wrong. Humans are rarely rational, and groups of humans never entirely so.

Even within the canon of the New Testament, we discover an awakward range of doctrine and even explicit disagreement. Were we to apply your standard strictly, either Peter or Paul would have had to have forfeited his apostolic claims. But it seems they both made concessions to each other, and their concessions became a means by which the Church has come to a more elaborate understanding of the revelation of Christ. Not coincidentally, the RCC claims primacy for Rome in part because of their joint witness in that city.

One could go on, in any generation. During which of the great controversies in the Greek Church were there not substantial numbers of bishops, patriarchs, or emperors who misunderstood? I dare say there was a lot more ambiguity in history than your principles seem to allow for.

And to lose moral authority through the Crusades -- well then, when will the Byzantines repent of abandoning the once-poorer Latins to defend themselves against barbarians, without benefit of imperial troops or revenue? Rome and the West suffered through centuries of "dark ages" on account of the neglect of their wealthier brethren in the East. By your reasoning, the Greeks have long since forfeited any claim to responsible Christian fellowship; again by your reasoning, they should therefore stop claiming any right to adjudicate controversies over the faith, and simply acknowledge the higher authority of the Bishop of Rome.

[Gina Mosko]

Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion

Bob, this is precisely what, as Vladimir Lossky says, introduces an "an inadmissible error of confusion concerning the Trinity" (though if anyone follows that link they might accuse Lossky of inadmissible errors of confusion :>), changing not just the wording but the meaning of the Creed's formulation of the eternal nature of the Trinity. Attempts to relegate these differences to theological opinion are, he also states, an elevation of our current preoccupation with ecclesiological questions over the pneumatological concerns of the past and over the ripple effects such things have caused throughout the theologies of East and West. There may come a day when the Orthodox decide that that is an appropriate preference, but it should not be undertaken lightly, quickly, or with the sorts of pressure applied that one sees here- "why can't you be as nice as we're being"- which really is to say "why can't you assume our priorities?"

Off in the background I hear someone saying "but these are Jesus' priorities, he prayed we would be one"- which is to assume again that formal unity is what constitutes "being one" and which seems to me would render any schism or anathema to be what Stuart calls "a sinful commitment to the status quo." Hello Mormons...

[Rob Grano]

'There may come a day when the Orthodox decide that that is an appropriate preference, but it should not be undertaken lightly, quickly, or with the sorts of pressure applied that one sees here- "why can't you be as nice as we're being"- which really is to say "why can't you assume our priorities?"'

You have a point here, Gina, especially in your last line. This is why some Orthodox believe that the reasoning and philosophical trail leading up to the filioque needs looking at, not just the doctrine itself. If the E and W do theology differently, and this leads to dogmatic difference, it seems only right to look at the theological and philosophical pedigrees which lead to the differences, and to determine if these differerences are A) real or imagined and B) of the faith or indifferent to it. I don't think either side wants to be in the position of simply assuming the other's priorities, as you put it.

[Ethan Cordray]

Seems like we're gonna need a tie-breaker in the food fight and baseball match method of settling the dispute! Thumb-wrestling tournament, maybe? :-)

I do think Scott has a point that we non-EO, non-RC participants see the issue of separation differently than those who claim that their institution constitutes the "One True Church," and that any separation is a separation from them rather than one within Christ's larger body. I'm inclined to think that this is a good thing for Protestants.

But it seems like certain elements in Catholicism are moving toward our position, especially with the recognition that the Eastern churches are "churches" rather than "ecclesial communities." We shall see.

[Scott Pennington]

"Which brings me to what, I hope, will be my final observation."

"Would that it were, Scott, and that you had kept and would keep your previous vow under the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" thread."

Nice to see you too, James. It wasn't a vow but a goal that seems to elude me.

BGP wrote,
"You have a distorted view of the pre-Vatican II RCC's claim to exclusive status."

No. Stuart has a distorted view of how far Rome has backed away from its previous doctrine.

My point was to deflate the nonsense about Rome's moral authority. I wasn't suggesting that this or that Orthodox Patriarchate hadn't done sinful things, just that whatever reputation for doctrinal integrity and moral leadership that Rome had among the Orthodox is long gone.

"I take your point: You're either orthodox (small "o") or not, and if not, then there's no point in pretending you're part of the Church."

I do not understand your observation here. If it means what I think in means then my response is that not being an "orthodox" Orthodox or an orthodox Catholic does not mean that you are not a member of either respective church. It does mean that your sentiments on the resolution of the Great Schism are suspect because you do not actually adhere to either faith.

"Were we to apply your standard strictly, either Peter or Paul would have had to have forfeited his apostolic claims. But it seems they both made concessions to each other, and their concessions became a means by which the Church has come to a more elaborate understanding of the revelation of Christ."

Yes, but they were both inside the Church at the time.

". . . by your reasoning, they [the Greeks]should therefore stop claiming any right to adjudicate controversies over the faith, and simply acknowledge the higher authority of the Bishop of Rome."

Obviously you've never studied logic. Councils should adjudicate controversies over the faith. Nothing in my logic fails to admit the sins of the Byzantines and other Orthodox. You are far off base in that you're confusing doctrinal integrity and morality. My observations about Rome's sins were in response to Stuarts remarks about primacy being a prerogative of Rome because "no alternative nexus possesses either its historical legacy or its moral authority".
Certainly the Orthodox have sinned, no objections to that proposition. But Rome regaining its place among the Orthodox because of its historical legacy or moral authority is not a serious argument for the reasons I listed above.

[Scott Pennington]

Bob Gardner wrote,

"Scott,
Good thing you won't be invited to the council, if there ever is one. If there is a reunion I think you'll be surprised at the terms - it won't be Rome capitulating on every point, and it won't be the reverse either."

Actually, I think there is a broader point to be made. No one here will be invited to such a Council for two reasons:
1) Unless there is a present or future bishop participating here, the resolution of these questions is far above any of our pay grades and so we're just wasting energy chattering with one another. and
2) Such a Council is not going to happen in our lifetimes. We here, despite our differences, share a common language, common educational experiences and common cultural experiences. Yet we can split the issues a hundred different ways because of the sources from which we have been informed and because of other agendas. The schism will not be healed anytime soon. If I can contribute anything it is to exhort my fellow Orthodox to ignore the "can't we all just get along" approach and stick to Orthodox understandings about what the Church is and what schism, heresy and reconciliation to the Church mean in our Tradition.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And this does not disqualify Rome?<<<

If it disqualifies one, it disqualifies all.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Did I anywhere use the word "obeisance"? <<<

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck--do the math.

[Scott Pennington]

Ethan Cordray wrote,
"I do think Scott has a point that we non-EO, non-RC participants see the issue of separation differently than those who claim that their institution constitutes the "One True Church," and that any separation is a separation from them rather than one within Christ's larger body. I'm inclined to think that this is a good thing for Protestants."

Let me see if I understand you: You think it's a good idea if the "churches" unite. You're a Protestant who believes in the invisible unity of the Church. You reject the idea that there is "One True Church"; i.e., that there is visible unity in the Church. And Protestantism has too many denominations to count.

Well, you're consistent except that I'm not sure why you wish for the "churches" to unite. If we all have invisible unity, and that unity is sufficient, then what's the big deal. I'm quite comfortable with Protestants holding the concept of invisible unity, as long as they're Protestants. If you're consistent and conclude that visible unity is unnecessary then at least we're not in the sad business of horsetrading to get visible unity. To that extent, I agree with you.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>No. Stuart has a distorted view of how far Rome has backed away from its previous doctrine.<<<

I see. Your basic premise is Rome is lying in every ecumenical document published since 1963, in the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, and in countless Encyclicals and pastoral letters emanating from the last four Popes of Rome.

This is the ecclesiastical equivalent of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and it has the same basic root: the desire to see the enemy destroyed, even if one is also destroyed in the process, rather than share in the fruits of mutual victory.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Such a Council is not going to happen in our lifetimes.<<<

If I am ever declared Basileus of the Romans in Constantinople, it's the first thing on my agenda. So vote for me!

[Scott Pennington]

Stuart wrote,
"If it disqualifies one, it disqualifies all."

I'm not proposing that the Patriarch of Moscow be the Ecumenical Patriarch. I was just saying that if it were to move, that's as likely a direction as any. Rewind: You said that Moscow was disqualified because of its imperialistic tendencies. I replied that that would disqualify Rome as well. If we can then agree that the Ecumenical Patriarchate should remain in Constantinople, then I think that we have finally found the breakthrough that your heart has desired. Gee, it feels good to be in agreement!

[Scott Pennington]

"Your basic premise is Rome is lying in every ecumenical document published since 1963, in the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, and in countless Encyclicals and pastoral letters emanating from the last four Popes of Rome."

You have claimed that the Vatican has backed away from its previous position that the dogmatic statements of post-schism RCC Councils and Popes are only binding on the Church of Rome. You have pointed to this or that statement of the RCC to prove your point. Is any of this stuff in the catechism? Why was there not a news story on this wondrous development. My Catholic friends seem unaware of this revolutionary development in Catholic teaching. It should at least be as widely publicized as the previous Pope's musings on the death penalty, don't you think. It's hard to reason with someone who wants something to be true so desperately.

[Scott Pennington]

Oops,
The first line of my above post should read: You have claimed that the Vatican has backed away from its previous position that the dogmatic statements of post-Schism RCC councils and Popes are binding on the universal Church.

[James A. Altena]

"It wasn't a vow but a goal that seems to elude me."

Obviously you're not putting much effort into it, Scott. And your original statement was not stated as a "goal" to be reached at some undefined future time, but an action to be implemented immediately.

E.g. were you to take the time to forage (which I don't expect -- it would be a monstrous project consuming days, though Stuart would dward me) at the hundreds of "Mere Comments" threads to which I've contributed over the last two years or so, you would discover several in which I said that I was making my last post on the subject and giving my interlocutor the final word -- and you would see that promise faithfully kept. It's a matter of discipline, Scott -- like pushing away from the dinner table instead of eating just oen more bite, and then just one more, etc., etc. Just say "no" ot the itch to have one more word, one more word, one more word.

You already stated your contempt for this site, and those who subscribe to its principles. You might at least have the consistency to act upon that principle accordingly in avoiding it as promised. Of course, you are always more than welcome to stay if you change that attitude.

[Scott Pennington]

"This is the ecclesiastical equivalent of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and it has the same basic root: the desire to see the enemy destroyed, even if one is also destroyed in the process, rather than share in the fruits of mutual victory."

You are truly out of your tree. Why not drop "Sovereign Pontiff of the Universal Church" from the titles of the Papacy rather than "Patriarch of the West". Yes, I know the Vatican's explanation but if it's really interested in reconciliation why drop a title that is seen as perfectly acceptable to the Orthodox, in what is claimed by the Vatican to be an ecumenical gesture, and leave one that is not?

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." - from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

I have looked in vain to find something that supports your contention. Please quote these doctrinal changes you assert along with their sources and whether they are meant to be an authoritative statement of Catholic doctrine.

[Scott Pennington]

James,
Dont' worry. The fact is that this particular thread turned out to be too juicy to pass up. I'm sure I'll regain my resolve soon.

Can you feel the love on this thread? (facetious comment)

[Christopher]

“Christopher, please heed what Mr. Altena has to say. While I don't disagree with you that there are some fairly sizeable differences between RC and EO-certainly more that Stuart says, you're doing an absolutely terrible job of representing that viewpoint. (and no, I do NOT have the time to try to argue it myself, as my final papers and projects are all due Tuesday, it's now Friday, and they're all as yet unbegun)”

I’d love to be demoted! Actually, it’s been slow here at work and no one else seemed to be taking the One Big Misunderstanding on, so I jumped in there. Look’s like Rob and Gina our stepping up to the plate though, so maybe they can find the way to say it that is finds the most minds and hearts...

[David Gray]

>Look’s like Rob and Gina our stepping up to the plate though, so maybe they can find the way to say it that is finds the most minds and hearts...

So the EO are seeker sensitive!

[Christopher]

James says

"You haven't proven, or even provided a scintilla of evidence, that anyone here is guilty of a "non-critical attitude" toward Augustine."

Have to disagree with you there. I don't have the time, and this blog does not have the hard drive space, to document all the ways Augustine has influenced the West. Tillich had it right when he said Augustine is the "foundation of everything the west has to say". Photius was responding DIRECTLY to Augustine's concept of the Holy Trinity. Aquinas later responded (in his own way) DIRECTLY to it. The Filioque is not all about Augustine, but he is a huge part of it.

As far as evidence, I quoted both Augustine and Photius DIRECTLY, not some "historian" with his own agenda and not some seminary professional with his. Perhaps you don't like my read of things. Fine, argue that I am incorrect, but don't go off the deep end accusing me of "not providing any evidence" - when I have demonstrated the exact opposite.

What evidence have you provided that I am incorrect besides a book reference? none!

As far as "sweeping generalizations", again, I am not sure how you can understate Augustine's influence in the west. Not sure how this is "negative", unless you happen to be Orthodox and disagree with Augustine. Now, if you are arguing as Stuart has, that Augustine has been thoroughly re-reinterpreted in the last few decades that's fine, except for reasons I have already stated (more than once) I have my doubts about this process...

[Christopher]

Stuart says:

"I would ask Scott why he would require more of the Church of Rome than the Church of Rome requires of converts from the Orthodox Church, and why he insists that Rome make an obeisance that Orthodoxy has not raised as necessary for the Oriental Orthodox?"

Which is a very good question. I for one have the same questions about the reconciliation between the OO and the EO as I do for the RC's. Is it really all "terminological"? I have my doubts.

That said, there are important material differences. First, the evidence of the actual depth of these theological differences is not nearly so great. The life, the spirit of the churches are much more "organically" the same.

Also, there simply is a much greater chance that what occurred in the east is a real (and thus limited) schism. Between the east and the west it is much larger, encompasses many more issues, and thus the word "schism" just doesn't quite cover it.

Still, a good question...

[Ethan Cordray]

I wish that we were united because it is better to be united than divided, and to not wound and batter the Bride of Christ with hatred and suspicion.

If "institutional unity" requires complete theological conformity, incluing on theologumenal points, then it will never occur. If it means that all Orthodox become Roman Catholics, or that all Roman Catholics become orthodox, then it will never occur. But if it means a joint solution, an alliance of bodies with mutual regard, humility, and free intercommunion, then may it come quickly that I might see it in my lifetime.

The competing Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic ecclesiological theories of -- let me coin a term -- hemonalethinism will never lead to unity.

We are branches from the trunk of Christ, and we will either grow apart or along side one another.

[Christopher]

"This kind of thinking represents the horribly inorganic approach to reform and reconciliation I was attempting to preclude above. (In liturgy, it's precisely this approach that leads to clown Masses and the like.) It would be breathtakingly arrogant for both the EOs and the RCs to think that they could simply cast aside 1000 years of history and development, no matter how imperfect, and proceed to impose a new ecclesial communion *de novo* on a billion Christians. This is the worst of reverse Latinization."

I agree. Perhaps this is one reason why we clean so hard to the One Big Misunderstanding. When we start to see how HARD reconciliation is going to be (humanly speaking), the temptation of a relatively easy way out is almost impossible to ignore...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Between the east and the west it is much larger, encompasses many more issues, and thus the word "schism" just doesn't quite cover it.<<<

Care to explain then, why there has always been limited communion between Catholic and Orthodox since 1054? Why, for instance, do people in the Middle East not seem to care, or why no one seems to be paying much attention to you in places like Ukraine and Romania?

[Christopher]

"Care to explain then, why there has always been limited communion between Catholic and Orthodox since 1054? Why, for instance, do people in the Middle East not seem to care, or why no one seems to be paying much attention to you in places like Ukraine and Romania?"

Can't. I think (as most Orthodox and Catholics do) that it is dogmatically unacceptable. I noticed when I was at a large Antiochian parish this tendency in the clergy to accept the OO and what not. They never had a good explanation, except a "it's what we have been doing for a while". But then again, it goes back to what a "schism" is.

By the way, looks like I have been officially demoted - Scott seems to be doing a fine job of taking on the One Big Misunderstanding.

I think "horse trader" is better than "hyper-unionist" Stuart, don't you? It certainly flows off the tongue a bit better. I hope you see the humor in this, we have to be able to laugh every now and then :) :) :)

[Bobby Winters]

Is it a power thing? Do the EO Bishops just not want to give up power or what?

[Christopher]

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." - from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Is this really in the current Catechism? Please, re-re-reinterpret this for us!! PLEASE! Also, do a good job, because I am going to take this re-re-reinterpretation and frame it. It will be titled “Sophistry as Art”

[Christopher]

“Is it a power thing? Do the EO Bishops just not want to give up power or what?”

No, we do not want to give up the truth, the Church. We think it rather important to our Salvation. For reasons, substantiation, evidence, etc. try reading this thread. By the way, the EO Bishops will likely be the first at the party of false Christian unity…

[Bobby Winters]

Well, whatever. Make sure your not straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>“Is it a power thing? Do the EO Bishops just not want to give up power or what?”<<<

The synod of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is on record saying that in the event communion is restored between the Catholic and Orthodox Churchces, they will step down in favor of their Antiochian Orthodox counterparts. The bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church have made a similar statement.

[Christopher]

"Well, whatever. Make sure your not straining at gnats and swallowing camels."

uh huh, uh huh, yep yep yep, I follow you, I get you, I get you. It's all just One Big Misunderstanding after all, right?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Can't. I think (as most Orthodox and Catholics do) that it is dogmatically unacceptable. I noticed when I was at a large Antiochian parish this tendency in the clergy to accept the OO and what not. They never had a good explanation, except a "it's what we have been doing for a while". But then again, it goes back to what a "schism" is.<<<

Well, judging from the repeated injunctions against it, it would seem that most Orthodox in a position to vote with their feet and their tongues disagree. Most American Orthodox converts, especially those who come to Orthodoxy in search of doctrinal certitude amounting to immobilism, are genuinely shocked when they see this with their own eyes. Nonetheless, it is entirely true that communion between Greek Catholics and Orthodox is quite routine in places where they live side-by-side. That would include here, in the United States, as well as in the Middle East and the Carpathian Mountains.

[Christopher]

“Most American Orthodox converts, especially those who come to Orthodoxy in search of doctrinal certitude amounting to immobilism…Nonetheless, it is entirely true that communion between Greek Catholics and Orthodox is quite routine in places…That would include here, in the United States”

uh hu, uh hu, yep yep yep, I get it. For example, a personal friend of mine who is a priest in a certain Orthodox jurisdiction. He is the son of a priest, who was himself the son of a priest. His father would occasionally commune a Greek Catholic. The son however does not. They disagreed on this issue. Now, what explains this? Oh yeeaaaa! He knows a few converts. A little of the “immobilism” rubbed off on him. Shame on the converts, shame on them! AND YOU TOO MR. PENNINGTON, YOU TOO!!!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> uh hu, uh hu, yep yep yep, I get it. For example, a personal friend of mine who is a priest in a certain Orthodox jurisdiction. He is the son of a priest, who was himself the son of a priest. His father would occasionally commune a Greek Catholic. The son however does not. They disagreed on this issue. Now, what explains this? Oh yeeaaaa! He knows a few converts. A little of the “immobilism” rubbed off on him. Shame on the converts, shame on them! AND YOU TOO MR. PENNINGTON, YOU TOO!!!<<<

You would perhaps then care to enlighten us regarding the public statement of Metropolitan Nicholas of Emissa, primate of the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown (EP), who said:

"There are thousands of Greek Catholics worshipping in my parishes every week, and I for one am not going to put a guard on the Chalice to keep them away"

What about Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America (EP), who noted that there are thousands of Greek Catholics worshipping in his Churches, just as there are thousands of Orthodox worshipping in Greek Catholic parishes, who receive the sacraments there, baptize their children there, and are sometimes buried there, who make no effort to hide who they are, and have never renounced their affiliation?

Perhaps, Christopher, the facts on the ground just don't accord with your own doctrinal preconceptions? That would be a very Orthodox situation, if you really knew and understood Orthodox history and the Orthodox mindset. Did I ever tell you about the Orthodox bishops on 13th century Cyprus who carried candles Corpus Christi processions? How about the 14th century fresco icon of St. Francis of Assisi found inside an Orthodox chapel? Maybe the lines between the Churches were never as clear as you would like them to be, or the wall between communions neither as high nor as solid?

[Christopher]

"Maybe the lines between the Churches were never as clear as you would like them to be, or the wall between communions neither as high nor as solid?"

uh hu, uh hu, yep yep yep, kind of the like the guy I know in college who would attend RC mass to receive communion even though he as an avowed, systematic atheist. Why? "for spite". His words. Well, let's break down the walls my friends. I declare:

MR. PRESIDENT, TEAR DOWN THESE WALLS!

I will be forming www.teardowncommunionwalls.com tomorrow. Maybe these atheists, lax bishops, and ‘economia’ minded clergy and laity are pointing the way after all. Yep, there on to something us Dogmatic Christians just don't get, love. After all, it's just One Big Misunderstanding…:)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>uh hu, uh hu, yep yep yep, kind of the like the guy I know in college who would attend RC mass to receive communion even though he as an avowed, systematic atheist. <<<

OK, enough is enough. It's clear you're merely an uninformed idiot who is wandering through the Orthodox Church not knowing in the least what it means to be Orthodox, but painting some nice little icon of the Church of Christopher in which you can indulge all your cute ecclesiastical fanstasies. You know nothing of the life of the Church. You have no idea of how Greek Catholics and Orthodox relate to each other, or how families are split right down the middle over decisions made by people 100 or even 400 years ago. They know each other, flesh of flesh, bone of bone. They know they believe and profess the same things, pray to the same God, one in the Holy Trinity, and they do not care a whit for all of your abstract theological arguments. Blood is thicker than schism. Get over it.

Read fewer books about Orthodoxy. Live more like an Orthodox. A real one, not some fundamentalist prig pretending to be one.

End of discussion, miserable snark.

[Stuart Koehl]

I think this has gone as far as it can go, and request that the thread be closed.

[Christopher]

Stuart is a little ticked off, again alleging ignorance and ill will against those who don't buy into his program. He's got a lot invested in it so it's somewhat understandable but you would think a semi-professional ecumenist would be a little more tactful. I think he has been posting for at least a couple of years here at Mere Comments. You would think would be more understanding, have "listened" better to those who don't buy into the premises of his ideas of Church and Dogma. Of course, he's used all the standard stereo types himself: The "immobile" and over zealous convert, the "fundamentalist", the ignorant, etc. etc.
The new charge that I am unaware of the pain of disunity is of course "ignorant" on his part. We have Orthodox, Catholic, Southern Baptist, and a congregational "urban minister" in my immediate family. If something should happen to my sister and brother in law, my wife and I as their children's god parents, will raise them RC at their request - and I will do it (God willing) faithfully.

Stuart is a pragmatist, but he carries it too far. If only it were "practical" to heal the schisms, if only it were mere "abstract theological arguments" (meaning not relevant, not truly relevant to our Souls and Salvation) that divide us.

Stuart, you just can't wear people down until they give in to your way of thinking. You talk all around your central premise, way way around it with all sorts of history (always tweaked with a little, sometimes a lot of bias) and facts. Perhaps the historian in you, but what if someone does not believe that the Great Schism IS a result of historical contingency, political and social intrigue? And even if the Schism is the result of historical "cause" (instead of the history being an "effect" of something deeper) what would that prove, that we can reverse history with a few well placed re-interpretations of words and dogmas? I think it would only prove the relative nature of the Church - and something like the protestant conception of the church invisible. I don't believe it, and while it has a certain attraction at first I think most Orthodox and RC people understand intuitively that something is missing (something important) in this way of thinking about our differences...

[Michael Martin]

>>>Nonetheless, it is entirely true that communion between Greek Catholics and Orthodox is quite routine in places where they live side-by-side. That would include here, in the United States, as well as in the Middle East and the Carpathian Mountains.<<<

So very true. Every Byzantine Catholic parish I have belonged to had many Orthodox parishoners. When I asked them why they were at a EC church rather than an EO one, they said, "It's the same thing." I know this hurts Christopher's sense of propriety and he will dismiss these good Christians as heretics. Perhaps when the sheen wears off from his conversion he will change. He must be a (relative) youngster. I notice when people move into their forties and up these types of "turf" issues more or less evaporate.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>If something should happen to my sister and brother in law, my wife and I as their children's god parents, will raise them RC at their request - and I will do it (God willing) faithfully.<<

You would condemn them to submit to an heretical lie? And godparents in what? A false baptismal ceremony conducted by a false church?

I would expect something different if you really believed what you've written on this thread.

[Scott Walker]

The Thread That Will Not Die. But maybe it should. I don't know how to sort out the ecclesiology, and from what I read, nobody else does, either. Some humility all around is in order. I cannot come under the leadership of the Pope for what seem to me to be good reasons, but I think it's a good thing if Catholics are fervent and devoted Catholics, and I have no desire to argue them out of their faith, a faith which has proven quite as capable of Orthodoxy at growing saints. (Yes, as is a robust Protestant faith.) I'm Orthodox and not likely to change, but EWTN is the first preset on our satellite radio, and we join in praying the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, because those prayers are as Orthodox to us as is the Divine Liturgy. Could we maybe pray for each other more, and scream at each other less?

[Gina Mosko]

I'm sorry the thread went down this road.

Stuart, the EO and EC who intermingle do so for the best of reasons- the need to live life: to find someone to marry and a priest to marry you, to raise your kids in a healthy parish. If indeed we found ourselves without EO parish or (even more likely) OO, we would look for a ByzCath church. I know that people in my parish send their kids to RC schools.

Yet our patriarchs and bishops are not young upstart converts, and they have not yet seen fit to establish communion. My own priest, the salt of the earth, will say "we are the same" (as he did when he was catechizing me). But when it comes down to it, he makes no bones about teaching the differences and their significance, or in turning someone not fit away from the cup. It is a kind of "already, not yet" with which we all must grapple.

Ethan, Bobby, etc.: Catholics and Protestants share many of the same theological assumptions, and yet somehow remain in schism, too. Is it so easy to give up the "theological opinions" of the invisible church, sola fide, etc., for the sake of the brethren? If so, what is holding you back?

[Bobby Winters]

Close this thread.

[James A. Altena]

Finally, my long-promised answer to Christopher’s request for the Anglican position on the filioque controversy. This will be a typical “via media” reply 

To begin with some preliminary caveats –

1) The filioque issue is primarily an Orthodox concern. By that I do not mean that it is not important. I mean that, for historical reasons, it looms as a much larger concern in the Orthodox consciousness as a defining issue that it does for either RCs or Protestants, and that for some Orthodox to insist that it assume the same importance for the latter is really an insistence that they also should have the same historical experience as the Orthodox. The same would hold for e.g. a Reformed Protestant who might insist that the Orthodox have the same historical experience and corresponding consciousness that he does regarding predestination and election, or the relation of justification to sanctification. We must be wary of fallaciously (even idolatrously) imposing one’s own experience and mindset upon others in such a fashion.

2) While the filioque controversy more or less began with the patriarchate of Photius, it did not assume major significance until about the time of the disastrous 1204 sack of Constantinople, and the councils of Lyons in 1274 and Florence in 11439. With the fall of Constantinople in 1453, it remained a defining moment and issue in Orthodox consciousness, but effectively ceased to be an issue (and thus anything definitive) for the West, because ecclesial contacts with the Orthodox were effectively severed. To my knowledge, there is no discussion of it during the Reformation. That does not necessarily signify that the Reformers agreed (or disagreed) with Rome regarding the filioque; it simply means that it was not an issue under discussion, as attention and energy were expended upon other issues that seemed to be more crucial – faith & works, justification & sanctification, the nature of the sacraments and ordained ministry, the authority of the Papacy, and of Tradition relative to Scripture, etc. Hence, RC pronouncements on the filioque predate the Reformation, and Reformation confession or other doctrinal statements (including the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion) simply do not address the issue.

3) Given traditional (perhaps notorious) Anglican “comprehension”, I do not think any pretense can be offered of an official single “Anglican” position on the filioque. It would not concern Low Churchmen at all, and Broad Churchmen would sedulously avoid it as a matter of temperament and outlook, leaving it to be a concern only of High Churchmen such as Pusey. Thus, what I will offer here is a statement of Pusey’s assessment of the filioque controversy – though I do think that this can be taken as fairly representative of Anglicanism on the issue, and also has important implications for how it may or may not be resolved.

A brief biographical note for the non-Anglicans here: Edward Bouverie Pusey (1800-1882) was one of the most learned and devout men Anglicanism has ever produced. Longtime Regius Professor of Divinity (traditionally the most prestigious theological university chair in the English-speaking world), he was a master linguist, completely fluent in German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Chaldean, among other tongues. His voluminous works include many translations of works by Eastern figures such as St. Ephraim, and his commentary on the 12 Minor Prophets remains sine qua non for their study. His personal life (especially after the tragically early death of his beloved wife) was one of great ascetical austerity. A leading figure in the Anglo-Catholic “Oxford Movement”, he became its de facto leader after Newman departed for Rome, so much so that an alternate name for the Tractarians was “Puseyites”, and he suffered persecution for upholding traditional patristic and Anglican teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. While firm in opposition to what he held to be the errors of Rome, he was deeply devoted to the visible reunion of the Church, as shown by his famous “Eirenicon” addressed to Newman. (The Wikipedia article on Pusey is quite good.)
The entire text of Pusey’s “On the Clause ‘And the Son’ in Relation to the Eastern Church and the Bonn Conference” by Edward Bouverie Pusey (London: Rivingtons: 1876). The entire text (Adobe Acrobat is needed to read it) can be downloaded at

http://www.justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/index.html

by clicking on the link to “E. B. Pusey.” Since Pusey’s copious citations to the original sources are given in Greek and Latin (it boggles the mind how he could pull so much material together so swiftly without aid of a computer or other modern research tools!), usually without translation of shorter passages or phrases, an elementary command of both those tongues is necessary to read it.

Pusey’s tome, written in an astonishingly short time, is actually an extended letter to his pupil H. P. Liddon, who attended the 1875 Bonn Reunion Conference that sought to explore grounds for eventual possible reunion between Old Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Eastern Orthodox. Pusey held a rather critical attitude toward the enterprise, not out of opposition to ecumenicism but because he thought it misconceived in its a priori exclusion of the RC Church.

The main Eastern Orthodox objections to the filioque may very briefly be summarized as follows:

a) The filioque violates a fundamental principle of the relation of persons in the Trinity in that it denies or contradicts that the Father is uniquely distinguished from the Son and the Holy Ghost as the sole source or principle (arche) and cause (aitia) of the begetting (genesis) of the Son and the procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Ghost. By saying that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it makes the latter also a source or principle and a cause, and thus confuses and confounds the person of the Father and the Son. It is thus of a piece with such heresies as e.g. Sabellianism.

b) The introduction of the filioque into the Nicene Creed (and the Athanasian Creed, which is only used in the West, however) constituted a two-fold violation. First, it violated a canon of an Ecumenical Council expressly prohibiting any alteration to the Nicene Creed. Second, it constituted a unilateral assertion by the See of Rome power alike to alter an authoritative statement of the faith, to formulate and alter received doctrine, and to impose this upon other patriarchates and dioceses as subordinates.

Pusey’s main points in response to this, supported by copious documentation from primary sources are as follows. (Of course, this summary is no substitue for reading Pusey himself.)

a) The clause “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) was widely used by both Eastern and Western Fathers for centuries before Photius’ philippic made it a point of contention. If the West is to be charged with heresy in its use, then so must the East, including many fathers canonized as orthodox saints.

b) The Greek and Latin prepositions (particularly the former) translated “and” are not univocal, but rather plastic in meaning, and also encompass translations into English as “through” and certain other usages, depending on context. Study of the context of its usage (see the next point) makes it clear that the sense of “and” was that of “through”, and its use did not and was never intended to imply that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son was either identical to or of equal rank with the procession from the Father (more on that below).

c) The insertion of the clause into the Nicene Creed apparently originated in Spain in the 6th c. in opposition to remaining strongholds of Arianism among the Gothic tribes there. It then spread to other parts of Western Europe, and was championed by the Franks as part of their struggle against the Saxons and other foes (particularly in northern Italy) where Arianism lingered. Its context and meaning are not ones of Trinitarian inter-personal relations, but rather of affirmation of the full divinity of the Son against all attempt at heretical subordination.

d) The previous point is amply proven by the fact that Western documents which employ the filioque in the Nicene Creed also almost invariably contain explicit statements affirming the monarchia, the sole arche, of the Father, as the source, principle, and cause of divinity within the Trinity.

e) The canon against altering the wording of the Nicene Creed was not understood in a strictly literal sense, but rather as meaning that there must be no alteration of the substance of the Creed. Pusey cites several examples of variants of the Creed that were in sue in different places, that elicited no condemnation for failure to adhere to the exact working formulated at the Third Council.

f) Photius’ condemnation of the filioque was thus based upon an extremely tendentious misreading of its meaning and context, as one part of his larger agenda in the East-West controversies resulting in the “Photian schism.” (It is interesting to compare Photius and the Carolingian theologians here. The latter, scholars commonly agree, were by comparison to their Eastern contemporaries both largely unlearned and unskilled in theology, and issued their foolish attack upon the East for supposedly having “deleted” the filioque from the Nicene Creed upon a very defective translation into Latin of a single document. Photius, by contrast, was one of the most erudite scholars of his age, and probably had complete texts in accurate translations at hand. He was also one of the most unscrupulous operators eve to occupy such a high ecclesial position, with his crimes including active connivance at the murder of one emperor. The question is whether his tendentious misrepresentation of the filioque was due to being so blinded by passion that he was predisposed to misread his opponents, or was instead a deliberate act of malfeasance for polemical gain.)

g) Rival imperial ambitions of the Byzantine and Carolingian thrones in Italy entrenched the two sides in opposition to one another over the filioque, although it took the sack of Constantinople in 1204 and subsequent imposition by the Latins of their liturgy (including the filioque) upon the Byzantines to catapult the issue to the fore. (Previously, the Orthodox had been far more concerned about e.g. the azymes issue, and some Eastern figures had counseled patience with the theologically less sophisticated West over the filioque, recognizing that it was a matter of ambiguity and confusion rather than willful heresy.) The councils of Lyons in 1274 and Florence in 1439, with their heavy-handed impositions of the filioque upon the Byzantines, cemented the issue for the Orthodox as *the* major point of theological division. (With less justice than in the case of Photius, Pusey also takes a decidedly negative view of St. Mark of Ephesus, whom he sees as being simply an obdurate and unreasonable intransigent rather than a stalwart champion of Orthodoxy.)

h) It is true that certain fathers distinguished between an eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and a temporal procession from (or “through”) the Son, and many Orthodox theologians have indicated that “through the Son” rather than “and the Son” is an acceptable theologeumenon to them. Per point b) above, the actual import of “and” has actually been that of “through.” However, Pusey raises a cautionary flag over an ambiguity in this temporal procession – it can indicate either that the Holy Ghost proceeded from (through) the Son *only* in time, or else that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is eternal in nature but became manifest only in time. Pusey (in what is perhaps a minority opinion) favors the latter option, suggesting that (per the eternal begetting of the Son by the Father, according to Origen) it is necessary in order to preserve the full divinity of the Holy Ghost against an Arianizing view of the third person of the eternal Trinity.

The filioque controversy bears comparison to that over the acceptance of the term “homoousion” into the Nicene Creed some 500 years before. When the Creed was translated from Greek into Latin, the term was rendered as “substantia” rather than the arguably more accurate ”essentia.” Red flags of possible heresy went up on the Eastern side. However, Eastern fathers corresponded with Western counterparts, enquiring as to the meaning and import of “substantia” as a translation, and satisfied themselves that it was fully orthodox and preserved the original sense. Alas, 500 years later, the collapse of the Western portion of the Empire; the further separation of East and West occasioned by the raise and spread of Islam; and the intense rivalries between Rome and Aix-la-Chapelle on one side, and Constantinople on the other, meant that no such avenues of cordial communication for inquiry and discussion were open. The atmosphere was poisoned, and each side was all too ready to believe the worst of the other.

It also bears comparison to the division between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches over the latter’s supposed Nestorianism. In the last 15 years a schism of almost 1,600 years’ duration has been largely healed as the two sides re-examined the issuers and original controversial materials, and realized that there was actually very little difference between the two sides over the hypostatic union of Christ’s divine and human natures. Rather, the original division arose from a combination of political, personal, and ethnic rivalries; differences between the more literal Antiochian and more allegorical Alexandrian schools of Scriptural exegesis; and the fact that various Semitic languages did not have the range of nuanced philosophical and theological terms present in Greek, resulting in considerable misunderstanding on each side of what the other was saying.

A point I would particularly emphasize is that (particularly with Rome’s change in position on the status of the councils of Lyons and Florence, assuming Stuart is right on that count) the status of the filioque has never been subject to the formal judgment of a general Ecumenical Council of the Church. As such, it thus remains a theologeumenon. Of course, there are theologeumenon that are incorrect, and some doubtless even materially heretical; but until it is the subject of such a declaration, its opponents cannot properly place it in the same category as e.g. Arianism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, or other Trinitarian and Christological heresies that have been formally condemned.

Of course, hard-liners on either the RC or EO side may claim to be able to asserts its orthodox or heretical status on the basis that their respective bodies are “the one true Church” – which is simply a question-begging appeal based on circular reasoning, since that is an a priori assertion and not an objectively and universally proven fact. And, while Touchstone does indeed encourage all here to be strong representatives of their respective traditions – EOs to be forthright EOs, RCs and Reformed and Anglicans to be similarly stalwart RCs, Reformed, and Anglican, etc. – I think Ethan Cordray’s suggestion of “gloves off” is potentially misleading. As Dr. Hutchens noted on another thread, in coming together the editors of Touchstone also operate under a truce. I think that irreducible conditions of that truce are acceptance of others as being true Christians, and hence in some sense within the Church. There is flexibility in how that is conceived since, as I have discussed before on a couple of earlier threads, the term “Church” is not univocal and had almost a dozen different senses to which appeals are regularly made. Thus RCs (following Domine Iesus) can speak of non RCs as “subsisting” within the Church; EOs can follow the principle articulated by one of their theologians that ‘we know where the true Church is; we do not where it is not”; Anglicans can think in terms of the “branch theory” (properly conceived, not the distorted versions in common circulation); Protestants can appeal to the eschatological “invisible Church” as distinct from the temporal visible Church; etc.

I would suggest that Pusey’s analysis also opens the door to a possible resolution of the filioque controversy that involves neither any compromise of doctrinal truth nor any evasion of fundamental principles at stake. This is neither an "It's all one big misunderstanding" or Rodney King style "Can't we all just get along?" brush-off. The commission to which Stuart refers have doubtless worked this out in much greater detail than the brief summary I shall offer here, and I’ve not had time to read them, but I suspect they are completely congruent.

1) Rome in particular (as representative in this instance of the West in general) will concede that it erred in unilaterally changing the wording of the Nicene Creed without due consultation, and then attempting its forcible imposition upon the Eastern Churches. It will henceforth revert to sue of the Creed in its original form, and repent of and apologize for there previous actions. (As Stuart has noted, this is already well underway.)

2) The West will also concede that the clause “and the Son” is ambiguous and insufficiently precise as a theological expression. While not used with any heretical intent, it has given rise to theological confusion and therefore also should not be used, and the West likewise repents of its actions here.

3) For their part, EOs will grant that the West had no heretical intention, but rather an orthodox intention, in the original formulation of the filioque. They will accept the repentance and apologies of the West, and in turn repent and apologize for misinterpretation of Western intentions and correspondingly misplaced condemnation.

(I stress that this does NOT mean admitting that it was right of the West to insert the filioque into the Creed, much less that the Holy Ghost precedes from the Son in any sense like he does from the Father. Rather , it means exercising the kind of patience that St. Athanasius counseled his contemporaries regarding many of the “homo-i-ousians” and “homoeans.” He rightly judged them to be generally orthodox in intent but theologically not well-informed and confused, and held that with patei4nce and time they would adopt better formulation without having to be convicted of heresy.)

4) Both sides will formally assert that the Father is indeed the sole arche and aitia within the Trinity, and that in this respect the procession of the Holy Ghost is unique to the Father. Any understanding of the filioque clause that would deny or impair this would be explicitly rejected. The question of in what secondary and derivative sense (if any) the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son is to be the subject of future reflection toward common theological agreement.

5) Historic Western usages of the filioque (e.g. in musical mass settings from de Machaut to the present, in Western hymnody, etc.) will be permitted by way of oikonomia, with the explicit proviso that such usage is completely subject to orthodox understanding and exposition of the Creed as outlined in the previous points and cannot be used as assertion of or evidence for any other theological or doctrinal position. (EO writers whom I have seen address this point – no, I don’t have any texts immediately at hand – indicate that this would not be a problem.)

Until (and if ever) the general visible reunion of Christendom is realized, there is always something of a Catch-22 situation involved. An issue such as the filioque needs to be subject to the judgment of a general Ecumenical Council; but no such council can be held until the churches visibly re-unite, and the filioque has been one of the issues preventing that reunion.

I can only see two groups that could oppose such a solution: hard-line ultramontane RCs who insist that Rome can never err on any matter, and that they must be right and the Orthodox wrong; and their similarly hard-lien Orthodox counterparts. Note that the West here is the side making by far the greater concessions. What the hard-line EO objection to this solution amounts to is the assertion that “Since we are the Orthodox, we could not have erred, and therefore could not have misunderstood the West. Regardless of what the West says it actually meant by the filioque clause, it *must* have meant what 8we* say it meant, because that is how *we* have defined it, and we are the Orthodox. Any Western denials of this are typical Western dissimulations and lies.”

The self-referential circular reasoning of such a stance is painfully apparent. It furthermore relies upon a fallacy for which a philosophy professor chastised me 30 years ago, that I have mentioned in several previous post on various threads: “You can’t just *define* your opponent into being wrong.”

It also reminds me of an e-mail from the late Fr. Louis Tarsitano, a sometime Touchstone contributor. An AOC Western Rite member sent him a copy of the St. Tikhon liturgy. :Fr. Tarsitano noted an error in the adapting of the emendation of the canon to Elizabethan prose – use of “thy” instead of “thine” or some such thing – and sent a note back. The haughty reply from the AOC person, and I wrote: “We are the Orthodox. We do not make mistakes.” I passed it on in turn to my AOC Western Rite priest friend, who noted with humor and humility, “every group has its fools. Mistake noted and corrected.”

For the hard-line Orthodox, Stuart’s humorous slogan is not quite complete. It should be amplified to:

“Never explain. Never apologize. Never reconsider.”

The question we Western catholic Christians pose to our EO brethren such as Christopher is this. We are willing to meet you for more than halfway here on the filioque. Can you be generous an charitable and humble enough to concede nothing more than that you misunderstood our intentions – especially since we also freely confess that we bear the primary responsibility for creating that misunderstanding? Or will you persist in just defining us into being wrong, an insisting that you can never be mistaken about anything with respect to us because you are the Orthodox?

This, then, is the Anglican answer, such as I can give. But perhaps a better (certianly much briefer) one is that given by my pastor, Fr. David Ousley, when I asked him about the filioque some years ago. He said:

“I am quite willing to drop the filioque in order to return to the original wording of the Creed and to remove any occasion of misunderstanding, in order to work toward the visible reunion of the Church. But for the sake of souls on both sides, I cannot in good conscience do it so long as the other side insists that my doing so would constitute admission by me of a heresy that I have never held and thereby feed a sin of triumphalism on their part.”

[James A. Altena]

"Tillich had it right when he said Augustine is the "foundation of everything the West has to say."

Tillich is flat-out wrong (and a heretic as well). Augustine is the most important father in Western theology, but Tillich's statement is simply a gross exaggeration.

As to the rest, Christopher, I have now posted my reply with the evidence you requested. Since the primary source material -- Augustine, Photius, and dozens of other figures -- is provided in abundance in Pusey's book, to which I have provided the on-line link, I will not clog this site by duplicating it here. (For that matter, you also haven't posted here any quotations from primary sources.) We'll look forward to your response once you've actually read Pusey.

A pity you feel the need to sneer at a man such as Pusey as merely "some scholar" (and what are you by comparison, pray tell?), who was not only one of the most brilliant Christian scholars ever to live but also a deeply devout man of great personal holiness and impeccable orthodoxy. It would never enter my head to make a similarly slighting remark about e.g. Schmemann or Florovsky, even if I had occasion to disagree with them. (And, from what I've read of them, I don't.)

Gina, I would suggest that you treat Lossky with more caution. He is a very difficult and controversial Orthodox theologian. When I saw Fr. Reardon in Chicago last summer, Lossky's work came up as a topic of conversation, and Fr. R. remarked to me, "I had to read it three times before I could figure out the points where he was wrong." My own copy is studded throughout with question marks and annotations in side columns.

[Scott Pennington]

James,

I have to give credit where credit is due. I liked what you wrote about the filoque above. Not every word of course, I would characterize certain points differently. But the whole thing seems pretty accurate and eminently sensible. Of course, from what I've read, that is pretty much where the Orthodox are on this question anyway. The "One True Church" stuff is more a question of fundamental identity than baseless assertion. But on the whole, I'm impressed, James.

[Gina Mosko]

Gina, I would suggest that you treat Lossky with more caution.

Noted.

I do think the comparisons of the East/West schism with that of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox (for the OO's supposed monophysitism, not Nestorianism) hold, but only so far. The latter schism has been around far longer, but without nearly the subsequent divergence of doctrine and practice. Still, you and Stuart have given much food for thought. Thank you.

[James A. Altena]

Extremely gracious posts by both Scott and Gina. My major post is very much the sort of thing I prefer for this site, as opposed to the more intemperate back-and-forth that sometimes occurs, and to which I plead guilty of being a participant.

I will also correct -- indeed, retract until better evidence is forthconming -- one thing I wrote in my major post. It appears that, in charging Photius with complicity in the murder of an emperor, Pusey may have placed too much trust in the major source on Photius from the latter's era, a biography of Photius by Nicetas the Paphlagonian, who was Photius' inveterate enemy. I unfortunately came across this information after, rather than before, completing my post. However unwittingly, I would not unjustly defame Photius with a false charge, and this should now I think at least be considered unproven.

I offer a few newly found links that may be of interest. First, an article on Photius with the major scholarly sources cited (similar to but better than the Wikipedia article, which apparently copied from it):

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Photius

Next, from an ultramontane RC site, a useful 9th c. timeline (take the tendentious running commentary against EOs in it with a pillar of salt)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/6461/9cent.html

Finally, chapter 8 from Monsignor Philip Hughes' "The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils" on line:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun9.html

Of course, Hughes is an ardent RC partisan in interpretation, but the factual information is useful, and the prose felicitous.

WARNING: The link to the Hughes chapter is through the web site of some wacko schismatic RC group that also includes utterly vile anti-Semitic materials, postings of "U.S. war crimes", and similarly deranged crud. I discovered this by back-tracking through the URL for the Hughes chapter.

[Gina Mosko]

There is also the question of the Assyrian Church of the East, the avenue by which my Lutheran turned Pentecostal husband discovered the eastern church (aye, between us we certainly represent a fine picture of the schizophrenia of modern Christianity). There, too, charges of Nestorianism seem to have been greatly exaggerated. The interesting thing is that, though the CoE has a very ancient eastern provenance, in practice my husband found them quite "Protestant." He puts it down to the influence from Anglicanism in India.

Schisms, taking on a life of their own, can lead us to the most interesting bedfellows.

[James A. Altena]

"The 'One True Church' stuff is more a question of fundamental identity than baseless assertion."

I did not and would not say it to be a matter of "baseless assertion". Rather, that the reasons offered for it rely heavily on question-begging premises and circular reasoning rather than objective standards of logic and evidence, which is something different. But that is a discussion for another time. :-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It appears that, in charging Photius with complicity in the murder of an emperor, Pusey may have placed too much trust in the major source on Photius from the latter's era, a biography of Photius by Nicetas the Paphlagonian, who was Photius' inveterate enemy.<<<

Pusey indeed did err, and this episode is universally discounted by modern historians.

The single best work on the Photian Schism remains Francis Dvornik's "The Photian Schism", which is out of print but available in the better university libraries. Dvornik almost single-handedly reversed the prevailing Catholic understanding of Photios and the issues behind the schism, mainly by mining the archives for original papers and first-hand accounts. Also good is J.M. Hussey's "The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire". For an Orthodox perspective, see John Meyendorff and Ristides Papadakis, "The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy", which is admirably even-handed.

[Christopher]

James, thanks for the lengthy summary of Pusey's view. Earlier somewhere you said that I judged Pusey out of hand, but since I am unfamiliar with him I could not have done that.

Here is my honest opinion. By the time I get to "g)" I see that Pusey is employing a similar methodology as Stuart; A "historical" hermeneutic where men don't usually mean what they say, but are rather to understood in the "context" of history, political intrigue, nativist concerns, etc. By the time we get to "h)", we are full on into the One Big Misunderstanding. If only the lines of communication were open, then all this would have been resolved. As you say:

"Rather, the original division arose from a combination of political, personal, and ethnic rivalries; differences between the more literal Antiochian and more allegorical Alexandrian schools of Scriptural exegesis; and the fact that various Semitic languages did not have the range of nuanced philosophical and theological terms present in Greek, resulting in considerable misunderstanding on each side of what the other was saying." (in explaining possible healing of the EO/OO schism)

Look at where this leaves us. We get in to where the EO are "apologizing" because the "intentions" of the West were good (recommendation #3 above). So the EO apologizes for a condemnation of something that IS heretical but because the "intention" was not heretical then an apology is needed. Yet, the West agrees that the Filioque is problematic, so it needs to be repented of, and yet still an apology is needed from the EO because they got to the heresy under the best of intentions.

How about the West then apologizes to the East in turn, for even though the Filioque is problematic and is repented of, and the East apologizes because the condemnation did not take into account the "intention" of the West, the West knows that the East could not have known (according to the analysis of the One Big Misunderstanding) said intention and thus they force the East into condemning something that was not 'intended' to be what it said it was and so the West understands the reaction of the East and thus apologizes for instigating a correct condemnation. Where does it end?

I am not naive. I understand that any reconciliation will include some of the above listed machinations and political “humility” (along with real humility). That said, I find this statement of yours the most interesting of all:

"I can only see two groups that could oppose such a solution: hard-line ultramontane RCs who insist that Rome can never err on any matter, and that they must be right and the Orthodox wrong; and their similarly hard-lien Orthodox counterparts."

Which shows that you have not been listening. Instead, you have been stereo typing - Stuart too. You have ONE solution and method that you employee TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERYTHING ELSE. If anyone on this thread is a "fundamentalist" it is yourself and Stuart, because you have One Big Idea, and you see the whole East/West dynamic through that one Idea. You (and Stuart) are quite harsh on anyone who questions that idea, alleging "ignorance", "fundamentalist", etc. on anyone who disagrees with you. ONLY hard liners could possibly disagree with you, because for your two, the reasonableness of your One Idea is so compelling only hard line scolds would ever dare to disagree with you.

You say:

"The question we Western catholic Christians pose to our EO brethren such as Christopher is this. We are willing to meet you for more than halfway here on the filioque. Can you be generous an charitable and humble enough to concede nothing more than that you misunderstood our intentions – especially since we also freely confess that we bear the primary responsibility for creating that misunderstanding? Or will you persist in just defining us into being wrong, an insisting that you can never be mistaken about anything with respect to us because you are the Orthodox?"

The question the EO, the RC, and everyone else should be asking are these: Is the division of the EO and RC really, truly the result of One Big Misunderstanding? Do we have the courage and common sense to pursue this question, or are we going to be bullied into answering "yes" by the likes of Stuart and James, who argue that if we disagree with them then we must be stooping to the "the EO are never mistaken about anything" logic trap? If it is not, then what are other explanations? How do we resolve dogmatic differences without redefining them as mere historical contingency?

p.s. Tillich was a heretic (and then some), but he was right about Augustine and his influence…

[Christopher]

"We'll look forward to your response once you've actually read Pusey."

He won't be the first person I get around to reading - why should I? If he says what you say he says, he's firmly in the One Big Misunderstanding camp. I am interested in a critique of this idea, I am looking for other opinions explanations for the Schism and the related issues....

[Christopher]

Scott says,

"I have to give credit where credit is due. I liked what you wrote about the filioque above. Not every word of course, I would characterize certain points differently. But the whole thing seems pretty accurate and eminently sensible. Of course, from what I've read, that is pretty much where the Orthodox are on this question anyway. The "One True Church" stuff is more a question of fundamental identity than baseless assertion. But on the whole, I'm impressed, James."

Scott, what do you see in it that is new to this thread? Unless I am missing something, it asserts the Idea (yet again) and then goes on to do what James’s philosophy professor warned him against:

"I can only see two groups that could oppose such a solution: hard-line ultramontane RCs who insist that Rome can never err on any matter, and that they must be right and the Orthodox wrong; and their similarly hard-lien Orthodox counterparts."

If only "hard-liners" will ever question this Idea, then how can it ever be rightly questioned?

[Christopher]

James quotes a pastor of his as saying:

“I am quite willing to drop the filioque in order to return to the original wording of the Creed and to remove any occasion of misunderstanding, in order to work toward the visible reunion of the Church. But for the sake of souls on both sides, I cannot in good conscience do it so long as the other side insists that my doing so would constitute admission by me of a heresy that I have never held and thereby feed a sin of triumphalism on their part.”

So there you have it. He will never admit to heresy even if it is one. He will not do so because it is always going to be a "misunderstanding" - nothing else can be involved, despite the admission that something was in fact added to the creed! Despite Augustine's neoplatonic reasoning, the "intention" was good. Despite the whole history of the western church, the "intention" was good. A heresy need not be a heresy if the "intention" was good! His good intentions even reach out to the soul's of the EO because to call a heresy a heresy would "feed a sin of triumphalism". Despite all this, it is the EO who are alleged to be stubborn about all this

You will pardon me if I step back and question the logic of the Idea...;)

[James A. Altena]

"Unless I am missing something. . . ."

Not just something -- apparently everything, alas. Beginning with whether the West ever even actually committed the heresy with which it has been charged. Ever hear of "question begging" and "circular reasoning", Christopher? Sigh....

So now, due to his gracious reply, even Scott apparently is held by Christopher to be a blind dupe to my exposition of "the Idea" (whatever *that* is supposed to mean).

Christopher not only clearly doesn't understand my professor's observation -- my post does not commit it, but his latest reply goes right back to doing so about the West -- he also doesn't understand the distinction between heresy and theological error, much less when either one has or has not been committed.

He also obviously hasn't bothered even to look at Pusey before replying -- the quintessential "My mind is made up; don't bother me with the facts" approach. And, of course, he also retreats back to his cliched take on Augustine.

In sum, a perfect example of the late Fr. Tarsitano's interlocutor: "We are the Orthodox. We do not make mistakes." Triumphalism in a nutshell.

And to write: "It is the EO who are alleged to be stubborn about all this", after I spent considerable time detailing the sins to which the West confesses and for which it asks forgiveness, takes a peculiarly strong stubbornness indeed -- not to mention a singular unwillingness to forgive.

Also, yes, Fr. Ousley is deeply concerned for the souls of *all* men. But Christopher is not content to defame E. B. Pusey; he now has to go after my pastor as well. How sad.

By the way, plural proper nouns do *not* take apostrophes -- only possessive forms of proper nouns do. Try "souls" instead of "soul's".

This is my last post on this thread. The final word is yours, Christopher. I suspect it will be no different from what has preceded it.

[Christopher]

"Christopher not only clearly doesn't understand my professor's observation -- my post does not commit it"

It does. It defines anyone who disagrees with your take on the issue as "hardliner", meaning you define myself (and anyone else who does not buy into the Idea - the One Big Misunderstanding) right out of the conversation. What good are we? As you say:

"I can only see two groups that could oppose such a solution: hard-line ultramontane RCs who insist that Rome can never err on any matter, and that they must be right and the Orthodox wrong; and their similarly hard-lien Orthodox counterparts."

Indeed, anyone who disagrees with your take now "defames" Pusey and your pastor.

In a sense, I am sorry that you do not seem willing to see any other perspective but your own on this issue (i.e. what divides east and west). But like I told Stuart, trying to wear down and beat down (all the assertions of ill will on myself and those who do not agree with the Idea) into your way of thinking is not going to work. It certainly is not going to be what reconciles East and West...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"We are the Orthodox. We do not make mistakes." Triumphalism in a nutshell.<<<

We have never erred because we are Orthodox; we are Orthodox because we have never erred.

[Ethan Cordray]

A brief and reluctant return to the thread, to answer Gina Mosko's question:

>>Ethan, Bobby, etc.: Catholics and Protestants share many of the same theological assumptions, and yet somehow remain in schism, too. Is it so easy to give up the "theological opinions" of the invisible church, sola fide, etc., for the sake of the brethren? If so, what is holding you back?<<

I personally would absolutely be prepared to "give them up" as causes for schism. I feel no pang of conscience at receiving the Eucharist from the Roman Catholic Church, though I refrain out of deferrance to their doctrinal position on the matter.

Of course, there are theological positions against Catholic doctrine which I hold in good concience, which prevents me from simply joining that church. As best as I can, I try to discount the historical socio-political causes of our schism and to practice charity in the remainin gmatters of theological dispute (which are a lot fewer than many Protestants generally believe).

[Scott Pennington]

"Scott, what do you see in it that is new to this thread? Unless I am missing something, it asserts the Idea (yet again) and then goes on to do what James’s philosophy professor warned him against. . ."

Christopher,
I do not agree with every word that James wrote but I have to give him credit for vindicating the Orthodox view, in general, on the filioque. Personally, I think there were some in the Catholic Church that actually did hold the filioque in a heretical mindset and others who didn't; however, I can be gracious and not hold the RCC's feet to the fire on this issue since the proposed resolution leaves the Orthodox Faith in tact (if I read James correctly).

In fact, I do not hold to the "One Big Misunderstanding" theory of the Schism. If the RCC is ever reconciled to the OC, I would prefer that it just be a flat out admission that the OC is right on matters in dispute without all the horsetrading involved. I find the filioque to be one of the easiest issues because the RCC seems to be more or less conceding the point anyway.

It is difficult, close to impossible really, for me to envision an actual institutional reconciliation between the OC and the RCC anyway. Much of what I've said above about there being only One True Church has been misunderstood I think. I do in fact believe that the Orthodox Church is the One True Church, but my point on that is deeper than this assertion. I believe that there can only be, regardless of its locus, one visibly unified Church. It goes to the very definition of what "The Church" is. That is part of what disturbs me about the tone of the discussions above. If Rome really wants to concede the points on which the Orthodox and the RCC differ, then that is fine. If however, we're getting into a situation where differences are finessed under the catch all phrase "mistakes were made" then I must dissent. Not out of pride or out of some conviction that the Orthodox never make mistakes, etc. My dissension would originate out of a conviction that since Pentecost, somewhere there has always been a body which has held the Faith free of doctrinal error. If not, we're all blind men searching in a dark room for a black cat who's not there. That is the underlying implication of the One Big Misunderstanding Theory and why it is unacceptable to me. I can certainly admit that the RCC has preserved some high degree of quasi-Orthodoxy in many areas. I can admit that there have been misunderstandings and bad faith on both sides. I can envision a western Orthodox Church which uses western liturgy in accord with the Orthodox Faith. What I can't abide is scholars or ecumenical activists trying to get everybody together around a table to figure out what the faith is going to be. If Rome doesn't hold the same faith it did 100 years ago in that it's willing now to concede matters which it held confidently previously, then that's an internal Roman matter. Perhaps they have found good reason to question the Roman Catholic faith in such a manner. The point is that we Orthodox have no good reason to similarly question the Orthodox Faith. If anything, we should be reasserting our Faith against the heresy of progressive modernism and reaffirming the older, stricter interpretations. This is no time to adopt an American Evangelical mindset in our view of our own religion. Alas, there is this soft, fuzzy mindset infecting the RCC and, to a lesser extent, the OC. That mindset should be defeated first because it threatens the very essence of the Faith of the Church of the first millenium in its own view of its identity.

Essentially, because of what the term "Church" means, in order for there to be a legitimate reconciliation it will have to be a capitulation by one side which, implicitly or explicitly, admits that it is only now being reconciled to the Church.

[Gene Godbold]

This last post of Scott's makes sense to me--I think I see where he's coming from...:

My dissension would originate out of a conviction that since Pentecost, somewhere there has always been a body which has held the Faith free of doctrinal error. If not, we're all blind men searching in a dark room for a black cat who's not there.

...but I'm not sure I agree with it.

[David Gray]

>As best as I can, I try to discount the historical socio-political causes of our schism and to practice charity in the remainin gmatters of theological dispute (which are a lot fewer than many Protestants generally believe).

Which would certainly include the nature of the Lord's Supper.

[Christopher]

Thanks for the clarification Scott.

My central goal in this who thread was to disagree with this "fuzzy mindset", the Idea, which has several elements of modernism tucked neatly into it. I also think the shrillness to which James and Stuart have treated those who don't think like them, is part and parcel of this mindset. Woe unto you if you respectfully decline an invitation with a modernist who is self confessing his humility and charitableness - you will be regulated a "fundamentalist"...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I also think the shrillness to which James and Stuart have treated those who don't think like them, is part and parcel of this mindset.<<<

C'est drole, n'est-ce pas?

[Gene Godbold]

Christopher,
I don't understand. What is the modernist inviting "you" to do? Witness his confession? What is he confessing? Why will he try to regulate you if you decline?

[Bill R]

I would like to thank James for his masterful exposition. Even though I'm a Protestant, I do find such discussions endlessly fascinating. (That's more of a failing than a virtue, I suspect.) Though James has indicated that he's finished posting to this thread, I would have loved to hear him elaborate on how the misunderstandings between East and West in the homoiousian and the filioque controversies find echoes in the time of the Reformation within the West alone. That way, perhaps we Protestants could do more than just hold the coats of our Eastern and Western cousins in this dispute.

[Bob Gardner]

Yeah, what Stuart said -- um Stuart... what did you say?
Christopher,
As a small contributor to this thread I don't see how you can claim victim-hood in the treatment you received by James or Stuart. You never bothered to answer any of the substantive arguments they posted, which were, for the most part, donecharitably. Any lack of charity that maybe present could be chalked up to frustration from banging their heads against the proverbial wall. In case you're wondering repeating "One Big Mistake," ad nauseam does not a counter-argument make!

[GL]

Ethan,

Could you adore the host? I have a great affinity for conservative Catholics on many matters, but on others, I simply cannot accept their position and the practices that flow therefrom. None bothers me more than Eucharistic adoration, which flows from the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. I have discussed it on this blog in the past and will not reengage it. I only raise it with you in light of you most recent post to this thread.

Even if the differences are, as you assert few (and I am by no means agreeing with you on that point), the most important differences comprise an immense gulf which I cannot see how one can bridge. I find it ironic that you specifically mentioned Communion, because that is most certainly one of the differences which seems to me to make the gulf unbridgeable.

[Christopher]

Bob,

I guess it needs to be repeated (not sure how many times this makes) that everything Stuart and James offered was small variations to the same argument, that historical contingency, politics, etc. is the cause of differences between East and West. Being consistent, their solutions follow from the same - various proposals, agreements about this or that wording, "humble" apologies, "horse trading" as Scott rightly points out. What Augustine really said and thought, what Photius really said and thought, or Aquinas, or St. Gregory - none of that wanted to be talked about, unless they were being explained away (i.e. "Greeks itching for a fight" - a political/sociological explanation, or St. Photius complacent in murder, which was later retracted but shows you the bias in the historical method). Interestingly, despite the seeming importance of history to the followers of the One Big Idea, when it comes down to it history is not really important because it's what is being said NOW that matters. How many times and in how many different ways can you disagree with the same stubborn Idea?

[Christopher]

Gene,

"regulate" was a mistype ;) What the "Idea" is confessing is that all of our dogmatic differences are not real - they are mistakes, artifacts of historical contingency. What the "Idea" is inviting us to do is to make false excuses and participate in a false reconciliation. Humbleness in the cause of vice is not a virtue...

[Bob Gardner]

Christopher,

Since neither the RC or the EO hold individual fathers to be infalliable may I ask what difference does it make even if the fathers correctly understood & condemned each other? Really in the grand scheme of things all that line of reasoning does is perhaps justify the split between East and West at that time, but if both Churches are saying the same thing today (or they are close enough that there is no longer a charge of heresy) why continue to bicker? Really, what does it accomplish?

In Christ,
Bob

[Christopher]

Bob,

You can't be serious...but, just in case you are: Really, in the grand scheme of things, why bicker with the various protestants, if all the Churches are saying the same thing today? Or the semi-Christian mainliners, or the Unitarians, or the Jews, Buddhists, aliens from mars. Really, what does it accomplish?...:)

[Rob Grano]

"None bothers me more than Eucharistic adoration, which flows from the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist."

GL, the RCs here may correct me, but I don't think Eucharistic adoration "flows from the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist." EOs and ECs have for all intents and purposes the same doctrine (less the term "transubstantiation") yet don't have this practice. I also understand that EA is a somewhat late-developing tradition which doesn't owe its existence specifically to the RC doctrine of the Eucharist.

"Really, in the grand scheme of things, why bicker with the various protestants, if all the Churches are saying the same thing today?"

Christopher, that's not what Bob said. He specifically referred to the RC and the EO Churches and their charges of heresy against one another. As an EO myself, I do believe that we have a right and a duty to be cautious here. One doesn't want another Florence. On the other hand, the only way the air will be cleared of misunderstandings is if the RCs and EO actually TALK to each other about the issues. I believe that the legacy of Augustinianism in the West is one of those issues; but they must be discussed in a charitable, forthright manner, neither casually dismissive nor with a chip on one's shoulder.

For anyone interested in this 'Augustinianism' issue, you can read the paper "The Concept of the Divine Energies" here:

http://www.uky.edu/~dbradsh/

or take a look at Dr. Bradshaw's book.

[Christopher]

Rob,

You are probably right. I saw in Bob's question more than that - I read into it an implicit acceptance of the "Idea". Not sure how you read:

"what difference does it make even if the fathers correctly understood & condemned each other?"

The answer is of course, it makes all the difference!!

What his post hinges on is:

"but if both Churches are saying the same thing today"

Which is what the this thread has been about. It is not at all clear that the churches are saying the same thing, for all the reasons cited in this thread. Of course, it is almost a truism to say follow the assumption that the churches are saying the same thing with "why continue to bicker?". Not that Dogmatic differences can be reduced to mere "bickering" - they are a bit more important than that. So, I think Bob has assumed something that is very debatable: Mainly, that the churches ARE "saying the same thing".

Like I said several times upstream, I think it would be very wise for the Orthodox to let the recent 'revolution' in RC theology to simmer for a few generations to see if it is really lasting, if it is real...

p.s. Thanks for the interesting links!!

[Gene Godbold]

Christopher,
In contrast to the "one big mistake" theory that you say Stuart is advociating (and which actually seems to me to be a bunch of little mistakes) you and Scott P offer a theory which asserts that the western church, in one area (at least) of it's theology is "rotten to the core". This may (or may not) have something to do with Augustine, but I don't see that you've done anything but assert it--you haven't demonstrated that it's intrinsic to western theology.

[Rob Grano]

That is my point too, Gene. There's little doubt that the Augustinian heritage is an issue, but is it an ISSUE? I don't think there's been enough discussion of it to assert its importance or lack thereof one way or another. That there is a difference between E and W in this regard is certain; whether this difference is a "de fide" one, or even a very important one, is the question that needs looking at.

[Christopher]

"This may (or may not) have something to do with Augustine, but I don't see that you've done anything but assert it--you haven't demonstrated that it's intrinsic to western theology."

Actually, I did in a small (but very important way)concerning the Filioque when I quoted St. Augustine (primary source) demonstrating his neo-platonic theology the Holy Trinity, and St. Photius' direct rejection of said thinking. The only person more "intrinsic" to Western theology is St. Paul. As you say, there are other issues

I take that there are dogmatic/theological differences between the EO and RC to be self evident. One has to assume something like Stuart's theory to discount what the Churches themselves have taught and believed for the last 1000 years or so...

[Scott Pennington]

Rob and Gene,

Think of it this way: That which is "catholic", in the sense of the universality required to make a doctrine necessary to the faith, is a kind of greatest common denominator standard. Now, if Rome now is pulling back, in some sense, from claims for Papal infallibility and the type of jurisdiction that characterizes the Roman Church, then that is wonderful. But, as you may know, Orthodox doctrinal claims are more reserved than those of the RCC. It is not just that we haven't had any ecumenical councils since 787. It's that our standard of what constitutes catholicity is less broad than that of Rome. Rome is willing to go much further in drawing implications and conclusions based on what seems to the Orthodox to be insufficient support throughout the Church. The differences in understanding things like original sin, or the juridical understanding of salvation, etc. are just one component of the difference between the RCC and OC. The other is that Rome has made what seems to the OC rather extravagant claims about papal perogatives and about doctrine (the assumption, purgatory, indulgences, the immaculate conception) some of which are not only not part of the Orthodox Faith but actually contradict it. Hence the divergence of opinion in Orthodoxy about whether Rome is actually schismatic or heretical. It is not enough to say that Roman doctrinal pronouncements are only valid for the RCC. Truth is Truth. There is not one truth for the RCC and one for the OC. If Rome did not have the authority to proclaim these doctrines for the universal Church then they cannot be required of anyone anywhere. Regardless, Orthodoxy cannot make believe that Rome never held to these doctrines just because some Roman Catholics have now begun to question them. Essentially, we are either dealing with a church that holds not only a different "expression" of soteriology but also either a) doctrines asserted as dogma that contradict the Orthodox Faith or b) a candle in the wind - an indecision and vagueness in the substance of its faith which is unsettling and makes dialogue more, not less, difficult.

[Gina Mosko]

On the other hand, the only way the air will be cleared of misunderstandings is if the RCs and EO actually TALK to each other about the issues.

The reason why, despite the perils, the inadequacies of the format, and despite exasperating those who don't see why the issues have to be issues, I see such discussions as necessary. The questions are not going to just go away. So long as at the end of the day, we all cling more fervently to the Cross and consider others better than ourselves. Easier said than done, naturally.

[Bob Gardner]

Which is what the this thread has been about. It is not at all clear that the churches are saying the same thing, for all the reasons cited in this thread. Of course, it is almost a truism to say follow the assumption that the churches are saying the same thing with "why continue to bicker?". Not that Dogmatic differences can be reduced to mere "bickering" - they are a bit more important than that. So, I think Bob has assumed something that is very debatable: Mainly, that the churches ARE "saying the same thing".

Christopher,
Do you really want them to be saying the same thing? I'm thinking not, but I hope that I am wrong. You haven't offered a critique of my previous post on the Catholic position of the filique, and how it herectical. Please read & comment if you will on what remains to be discussed, why you think the position is herectical, and how much further it would have to go before you would accept it as small "o" orthodox. It is interesting that no Orthodox Council that I know if has ever formerly condemned it, but if there has been one please enlighten me. In leiu of a council condemming it, by what authority do you now do so?

[Ethan Cordray]

GL,

No, I agree with you on the matter of adoration of the host. I would not participate in the practice myself. I believe that the Sacrament is in the eating, per Christ's explicit command. Yet I'm not certain that I see that practice as a necessary consequence of the basic Catholic view of the Eucharist, rather than a somewhat eccentric accretion.

And notice that I said "a lot fewer than Protestants generally believe," not necessarily few in an absolute sense. To be clear: I cannot, in my current state of conscience, entertain the option of conversion into the Roman Catholic Church.

I think that's it for me on this thread. I've fallen behind in reading it, and I don't fancy trying to catch back up.

[Christopher]

"Do you really want them to be saying the same thing? I'm thinking not, but I hope that I am wrong."

Hum. Interesting. I can say I "want" our differences to be minor, unsubstantial, and misunderstandings. I also "want" many things that may not have much to do with the facts on the ground. I want world peace, cure for horrible diseases, and the like. I pray for it, because these things are self evident goods. Would the Christian unity be a good? Yes! Would Christian unity that is not in fact unity in truth be a good? No. What is the truth when it comes to the differences between the EO and the RC? As I have said, I don't think they are minor, unsubstantial, or complicated "misunderstandings".

"You haven't offered a critique of my previous post on the Catholic position of the filique"

Sorry, must have missed it in the business of this thread.

"why you think the position is herectical...."

By "the position" I think you mean the Filioque?? If so, I stand with St. Photius. In what I quoted from him above he uses terms such as "ungodly", "blasphemous", etc. These are actually stronger terms than heresy. Since the West mostly follows St. Augustine’s erroneous concept, and the East mostly follow's St. Photius, I cite the Filioque as a significant "difference", meaning it can not be reduced to a mere historical contingency.

"by what authority do you now do so"

The position (history, Tradition) of the Eastern Church, that is the Orthodox Church, of the last 1000 years or so...

[Christopher]

"The reason why, despite the perils, the inadequacies of the format, and despite exasperating those who don't see why the issues have to be issues, I see such discussions as necessary."

Nice way to put it.