Replies

"So now the issue of the filique is ho-hum?"

Oh no, not at all. It's hardly ho hum. What we don't care about is what other people believe within their own church or ecclesial group. It's up to them. We know what the correct, canonical wording of the Creed is. If other people pray it differently, then their bishops are not and cannot be in communion with our bishops. What we believe is well known (it has been in this case since the 380s) and available to everyone for the asking. If people don't want it, what are we supposed to do, get mad?

Now, as for the comments of the priest you quoted, as I said, his comments on the filioque are pedestrian (not "predestrian")in the sense that they are common and everyday...not incorrect. What is incorrect, HD, is that the filioque is a "stumbling block" to a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church. The filioque is simply and completely unacceptable as a change to the Creed or the theology of The Church as expressed in the Creed, absent an ecumenical council making the change. As Kosta and I have said on many occasions here, unless Rome believes the exact same things as we do, there will be no communion among our bishops and theirs. The Laous tou Theou won't allow it.

"But then again, aren't you suppose to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching? "

I am under no authority to "submit" myself to the teaching of any priest except when he, as the representative of the bishop, teaches the dogma or canonical discipline of The Church. Whether or not the filioque is a merely a "stumbling block" to reunion of the Church of Rome with the rest of The Church is not a matter of the dogma or canonical discipline of Orthodoxy. Let me give you a more concrete example. Suppose my metropolitan and my parish priest were to teach that Panagia was bodily assumed into heaven ( I happen to believe that) and then demanded upon penalty of anathema that I believe that. I could and likely would publicly refuse to comply...and I would be within my rights, indeed I would be fulfilling my duty to The Church because the bodily assumption of the Theotokos is not dogma but rather theologoumennon which I may believe or not as I choose. I cannot, however, be ordered to believe it and if a bishop or priest were to order me to believe it, the appropriate penalty for them is removal from their office.

HD, our ecclesiology, and the relationships among the hierarchy, clergy, monastics and the laity within it, is very, very different from what you are used to, among Latins or protestants, in the West.

The filioque is simply and completely unacceptable as a change to the Creed or the theology of The Church as expressed in the Creed, absent an ecumenical council making the change. As Kosta and I have said on many occasions here, unless Rome believes the exact same things as we do, there will be no communion among our bishops and theirs.

Then what this priest seems to be saying is in like mind with what you and Kosta is saying. Here is what the priest states again...

To this day, the Orthodox Church stands firm on the use of the Creed in its original form as declared at the first three Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. .... It was this inclusion into the Creed that had so much bearing upon the eventual separation of the Roman Church 1054 AD, and, sadly, it is its continual use that proves to be such a major obstacle in any talks of reunion.” -Greek Orthodox Priest view on the Nicene Creed

Now what precisely is different about what this pedestrian priest states and what you stated above? I see absolutely no difference.

I am under no authority to "submit" myself to the teaching of any priest except when he, as the representative of the bishop, teaches the dogma or canonical discipline of The Church.

If I understand your position, I'm not sure that I see any difference in a Protestant church and a Catholic/Orthodox church on the matter of authority. If I were a member of a Baptist church, when I join the church there are certain things that I submit to in joining the Baptists. Depending on which Baptist group I belong to determines what are the "core" beliefs. A Southern Baptist is significantly different than a Freewill Baptist. If I went into either of these Baptist churches telling them I don't believe in the rapture, some might raise their eyebrows but that would be the extent of it. However, I can assure you that if I asked to have a statue of Mary wheeled in so that I could venerate and say my "Hail Mary's" before it, both the Southern Baptists and the Freewill Baptists would toss me out the door.

In the first case no one cares (for the most part) because there is no written doctrine on the rapture (some do include this in their doctrinal statements). On the other hand, wheeling a statue of Mary into the church would violate certain core beliefs held by all Protestants. The only way this would be allow is if all Protestants bend their position to have statues of the Virgin Mary prominently displayed in the lobby.

With regards to the filique, based upon your comments, someone will have to bend their position on the Nicene Creed, either the Orthodox or Rome. That means that someone will have to be willing to modify a core piece of doctrine. This isn't unlike allowing homosexuals to serve as priests/pastors in churches today. The church can only bend so far before it breaks.