Filioque and Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox

[JustinHesychast]

I was bored and wandered around in OBOB, and somehow made my way here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp

It's interesting, seeing as it has quotes from pre-schism ECFs as well as a quote from Ware.

Thoughts?

EDIT:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

Also interesting, about one man who went from American Evangelical and pondered becoming EO, sounding much like my case.

[Jacob4707]

Jimmy Akin, eh?

*sigh*

If you want to decide Orthodox versus Catholic based on the filioque, you ought to delve into the philosophical issues, of which the filioque is just the tip of the iceberg. The majority of Christians at some points in Church history were Arians, so "greatest numbers" doesn't necessarily decide truth. Here are some places to start:

Orthodox:
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/
http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/
http://orrologion.blogspot.com/ (he borrows a lot of posts from others, versus writing a lot of original material)

Catholic:
http://catholica.pontifications.net/
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/

An Orthodox guy trying to decide between the two ("I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I am strongly considering conversion to the Catholic communion centered around the cathedra unitatis, the Chair of the Apostle Peter in the Church of Rome. I created this weblog as a chronicle of my journey, and some of the theological issues that I am currently sorting through."):
http://cathedraunitatis.wordpress.com/

No one here at TAW can give you a more comprehensive discussion of Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism than the above guys, apart from print books by major theologians from both camps. If you wade into the waters on the above blogs and drink from their writings, you will still have to make a decision based on something more than philosophical and theological arguments alone, but you will have stepped beyond simplistic arguments based merely on "to filioque" or "not to filioque."

Have fun! Other than coming up for air a few times, I suspect we won't be hearing from you for a long time. :D

[Dewi Sant]

It seems a bit silly.


The first article is promoting the unnessesary addition of 'through the Son'. Though it is theologically sound (I think), it simply cannot happen without an ecumenical Church Council.


BTW,
I was shocked to see this quote:

Origen


"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).


So that is what Origen is a heretic :eek:

[InnerPhyre]

The 2nd Ecumenical Council says you can't change the Creed without an Ecumenical Council. The Pope changed the Creed without an Ecumenical Council. Argument over.

[Jacob4707]

If the Son can be fully God, yet the Father be greater than He, then I suppose the Spirit can come through the Father and the Son and also be fully God. In other words, I suspect that one could make a case that the filioque is not a teaching that heretically distorts or unbalances the Trinity, just as one can make a case that it does.

That the Creed cannot be changed without a Council is an oft-heard argument, but as people have shown, the Fathers apparently were not decisively and uniformly against the filioque, which somewhat weakens the argument, IMO. And, in the Liturgy we change the "We believe..." of the Creed to "I believe...."

I don't know how much paper, ink and words were spent at Nicea and Constantinople on the procession of the Holy Spirit and the statement that He proceeds from the Father (only), versus the discussion of homoousios versus homoiousios. Maybe it was a big deal, maybe it was only a tangential issue. After all, Nicea's statement about the Holy Spirit was very minimal and simply said, "We believe in the Holy Spirit." The rest wasn't added until Constantinople, and as I said, I don't know how much time was spent on addressing or rejecting the issue that later came to the forefront with the filioque. Maybe no one thought of it at Constantinople, sticking simply with the statement in John 15:26 that supports the co-equality of the Son and the Spirit (in order to support a Trinitarian view) and not pondering other texts like John 14:26 that discuss the role of the Son in the sending of the Spirit.

[Kristos]

Origen got into theological trouble with the Church because of some extreme views adopted by his followers, the Origenists, whose views were attributed to Origen. In the course of this controversy, some of his other teachings came up, which were not accepted by the general church consensus. Among these were the preexistence of souls, universal salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation) and a hierarchical concept of the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity). These teachings, and some of his followers' more extreme views, were declared anathema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema) by a local council in Constantinople 545 and then, in an aside, by the Second Council of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople) in 553.
At the council of 553, the anathema against him in his person, declaring him, among others, a heretic, reads as follows:
If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.

[Jacob4707]

At the council of 553, the anathema against him in his person, declaring him, among others, a heretic, reads as follows:
If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.

Not much wiggle room there, is there? :help:

[Rowan]

Does the second article contain the "official" arguments against EO? Very few references to how the Church was run pre-Schism and all. The points are rather weak, IMO. I would've expected alot better....*shrug*

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Origen got into theological trouble with the Church because of some extreme views adopted by his followers, the Origenists, whose views were attributed to Origen. In the course of this controversy, some of his other teachings came up, which were not accepted by the general church consensus. Among these were the preexistence of souls, universal salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation) and a hierarchical concept of the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity). These teachings, and some of his followers' more extreme views, were declared anathema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema) by a local council in Constantinople 545 and then, in an aside, by the Second Council of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople) in 553.
At the council of 553, the anathema against him in his person, declaring him, among others, a heretic, reads as follows:
If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.
Thank you for this.:) A couple people were trying to claim Origen as a Church Father a few weeks ago. I corrected them, but then they insisted I was wrong. Some of his writings were very good, but I knew at some point he started going out to "left field".

[Michael the Iconographer]

The 2nd Ecumenical Council says you can't change the Creed without an Ecumenical Council. The Pope changed the Creed without an Ecumenical Council. Argument over.
You stole my line! You must pay me royalties for that one! :D

[kamikat]

The 2nd Ecumenical Council says you can't change the Creed without an Ecumenical Council. The Pope changed the Creed without an Ecumenical Council. Argument over.

I'm quoting this, just because it needs to be said again.

In all honesty, when I was trying to decide if I was ready to leave Rome, I looked at all the websites, read the articles and books. There really isn't a whole lot of support for either side, theologically. For most cradle Catholics, it's not a big deal. The biggest problem is that by adding it without an Ecumenical Council, the pope just adds to the appearance of authority. If you believe it is acceptable, then you accept that the pope can add things to the faith without council, such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infalibilty, ect.

I think it's interesting to note that so far, only the ex-Catholics are the ones not trying to talk this issue to death.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I'm quoting this, just because it needs to be said again.

In all honesty, when I was trying to decide if I was ready to leave Rome, I looked at all the websites, read the articles and books. There really isn't a whole lot of support for either side, theologically. For most cradle Catholics, it's not a big deal. The biggest problem is that by adding it without an Ecumenical Council, the pope just adds to the appearance of authority. If you believe it is acceptable, then you accept that the pope can add things to the faith without council, such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infalibilty, ect.

I think it's interesting to note that so far, only the ex-Catholics are the ones not trying to talk this issue to death.
Make a note on this issue the Pope resisted the addition of the Filioque to the creed (which was done at a Council of Toledo in the late 5th century) until forced to do so by Charlemagne at the threat of death in the early 9th century.

[SeraphimSarov]

I'm quoting this, just because it needs to be said again.

In all honesty, when I was trying to decide if I was ready to leave Rome, I looked at all the websites, read the articles and books. There really isn't a whole lot of support for either side, theologically. For most cradle Catholics, it's not a big deal. The biggest problem is that by adding it without an Ecumenical Council, the pope just adds to the appearance of authority. If you believe it is acceptable, then you accept that the pope can add things to the faith without council, such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infalibilty, ect.

I think it's interesting to note that so far, only the ex-Catholics are the ones not trying to talk this issue to death.
Speaking as one... what InnerPhyre said pretty much resolved the issue for me. If you want the ancient faith as handed down from the Apostles, it's pretty much either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, and since Rome went around changing things... "argument over."

[Knowledge3]

How do we know if the information we receive from different sources is true?

[Jacob4707]

How do we know if the information we receive from different sources is true?

Whenever I find myself "behind the eight ball" about a particular question or issue re: whether it's true or not, I can always find the answer here:

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi

[Protoevangel]

Whenever I find myself "behind the eight ball" about a particular question or issue re: whether it's true or not, I can always find the answer here:

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi
Ah, the wisdom of the oracles!

[SeraphimSarov]

It seems to be one intelligent script.:P

[jckstraw72]

Vladimir Lossky has an excellent essay about why the Filioque is wrong in his book "In the Image and Likeness of God."

[Akathist]

I thought that CC council that added or started the addition of the filioque was trying to address the problem of people questioning Christ's divinity. They felt that it made Christ appear more "Holy" if he also begot something like the Father begot him. (paraphrasing my understanding.)

The idea of the filioque was probably based upon good intentions. And, since the three parts of the Trinity are inseperable, they probably didn't see it as causing trouble.

However,

the filioque does relegate the Holy Spirit to a "third party" and diminishes this part of the Trinity, imo.

[Knowledge3]

http://www.theandros.com/glossary.html#14

Filioque
A Latin term meaning "and from the Son," from a phrase added by the Western Church to the Creed of the Second Oecumenical Council (Constantinople 381) some time in the early Middle Ages, in reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit. The original, Greek creed stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; the Latin version states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and from the Son," giving us the problematical doctrine of "double procession." The Eastern Church argued against the filioque clause on two grounds. First, it is not supported by scripture; John 15:26 clearly refers to “the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.” Secondly, it contradicted or undermined the Triunity of the Godhead, i.e., the doctrine that God is one divine nature expressed in three hypostases: the Father hypostatized as Uncaused Cause; the Son as only-begotten; and the Spirit as processional. To say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is to diminish the uniqueness of the Spirit’s hypostatic function within the Trinity as an expression of the divine nature of the Father. In other words, if the Son mediates the procession of the Spirit – as the filioque clause implies – then a hierarchy is introduced into the Trinity, an unacceptable doctrinal lapse into subordinationism. It must be noted that certain Eastern Fathers, notably Athanasius and John of Damascus, spoke of the Spirit in a manner suggesting procession from the Son. However, this was always in the context of the salvific economy, i.e., when speaking of Christ’s sending of the Spirit into the world for the inspiration of humanity.

[Jacob4707]

http://www.theandros.com/glossary.html#14
Filioque
A Latin term meaning "and from the Son," from a phrase added by the Western Church to the Creed of the Second Oecumenical Council (Constantinople 381) some time in the early Middle Ages, in reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit. The original, Greek creed stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; the Latin version states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and from the Son," giving us the problematical doctrine of "double procession." The Eastern Church argued against the filioque clause on two grounds. First, it is not supported by scripture; John 15:26 clearly refers to “the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.” Secondly, it contradicted or undermined the Triunity of the Godhead, i.e., the doctrine that God is one divine nature expressed in three hypostases: the Father hypostatized as Uncaused Cause; the Son as only-begotten; and the Spirit as processional. To say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is to diminish the uniqueness of the Spirit’s hypostatic function within the Trinity as an expression of the divine nature of the Father. In other words, if the Son mediates the procession of the Spirit – as the filioque clause implies – then a hierarchy is introduced into the Trinity, an unacceptable doctrinal lapse into subordinationism. It must be noted that certain Eastern Fathers, notably Athanasius and John of Damascus, spoke of the Spirit in a manner suggesting procession from the Son. However, this was always in the context of the salvific economy, i.e., when speaking of Christ’s sending of the Spirit into the world for the inspiration of humanity.

That the Father sends forth the Spirit in Jesus's name (John 14:26), and that He is elsewhere referred to as the Spirit of Jesus (see Acts 16:7 (cf. Acts 16:6) and Romans 8:9), does, though, suggest a relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit that the non-filioque Creed does not address or enunciate. Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father does not describe the Spirit's relationship to the Father and to the Son in toto.

[kamikat]

That the Father sends forth the Spirit in Jesus's name (John 14:26), and that He is elsewhere referred to as the Spirit of Jesus (see Acts 16:7 (cf. Acts 16:6) and Romans 8:9), does, though, suggest a relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit that the non-filioque Creed does not address or enunciate. Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father does not describe the Spirit's relationship to the Father and to the Son in toto.


Does it need to?

[jckstraw72]

i try to love you but you drive me back

[ArmyMatt]

Here's my problem with the filioque. If someone says that the love generated between the Father and the Son generates the Person of the Holy Spirit (as I have heard many Western buddies of mine say), then that means that the love between Two Persons generates a Third.

The Christian God has been revealed as having Persons unconfused, and essence undivided. Since the filioque does not show separateness of Person in the Godhead because more than one share it (the Father and the Son), then this attribute of God must apply to them all to show One God. If this is the case, then the love between the Father and the Spirit should generate a separate third Person, the love between the Son and the Spirit should generate a separate third as well. The love between those distinct third Persons should also generate another, etc.

This kind of ruins the concept of a God in Trinity, because now there are an infinite number of Persons loving each other and generating a new third Person distinct from any of the others. This concept has not been revealed by the Church, the Scripture, or any of the Councils.

[kamikat]

your love for me has got to be real

[jckstraw72]

you're gonna know just how i feel

[SeraphimSarov]

Is this a Black Sabbath reference on an Orthodoxy forum?! :P

[jckstraw72]

Is this a Black Sabbath reference on an Orthodoxy forum?! :P

hahaha no. Its Buddy Holly/Rolling Stones/Grateful Dead and I'm guessing Kamikat is especially quoting it as by the Dead (as am I).

[SeraphimSarov]

Darn. :sorry:

[jckstraw72]

Darn. :sorry:

can you help me? thought you were my friend. oh yeah.

[SeraphimSarov]

I need someone to show me the things in life that I can't find

[jckstraw72]

I need someone to show me the things in life that I can't find

you mean things like the filioque in the original Creed?

[SeraphimSarov]

It's the darndest thing... I've looked all over the place for it.

[RobNJ]

My love is bigger than a Cadillac

[EmperorConstantine]

My problems with the filioque are thus:
1) It was added without approval from a Council.
2) It just does not fit in when you recite the Creed.
3) It lowers the Holy Spirit to just some dove in a stain glass window.
4) It almost makes Christianity a polytheistic religion.

[kamikat]

My love is bigger than a Cadillac

(go back a page)

[RobNJ]

(go back a page)

Check yer rep!

[jckstraw72]

its still cold in PA and all i ahve is t-shirts .... im going where the climate suits my clothes.

[Jacob4707]

Does it need to?

No, it doesn't need to. But if the Creed is supposed to assert about the Spirit what is necessary to describe the Spirit, then it's obvious that what it asserts about the Spirit is incomplete when compared to, e.g., what it asserts about the Son. What the Creed asserts about the Father is also less comprehensive than what it asserts about the Son. If the Creed is to assert about the Spirit the relationship of the Spirit to the Father and to the Son, then it's also incomplete, for all it says about the Spirit is His relationship to the Father, and that He is worshiped and glorified together with Them.

[Lotar]

A good reference to read is On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photios.

One of the main arguments against the heresy of dual procession is this:
Every attribute used to describe a person of the Trinity is either an attribute particular to God or an attribute particular to the the person, that defines the person as distinct from the other two. So, every attribute is either common to all three persons (an attribute of God) or is distict to the one person (an attribute of the person). Thus, the Father is the source of the Trinity, ie, He begetts the Son and the Spirit proceeds from Him, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. To make the addition of the Son being a source as well as the Father, but the Holy Spirit not being a source, undermines the entire concept of the Trinity.

St. Photius also makes the argument about how if the Son is also a source of the Spirit, it makes the generation from the Father imperfect without the help of the Son.

[Michael the Iconographer]

My love is bigger than a Cadillac
Is it bigger than a Subaru?

[Michael the Iconographer]

its still cold in PA and all i ahve is t-shirts .... im going where the climate suits my clothes.
It will be in the 60s tomorrow in PA, depending on what part of the state you are in.

[Photios]

Is this a Black Sabbath reference on an Orthodoxy forum?! :P

Darn. :sorry:

Well, then, here ya go:

So you children of the world, listen to what I say.
If you want a better place to live, then spread the word today.
Tell the world that Love is still alive, you must be brave,
Or you children of today are children of the grave!

[buzuxi02]

That article is basically papal propaganda.

Typical roman nonsense. In fact they have quotes from ECF'S on virtually everything that the Orthodox oppose, which they consider to be dogma. Rome searches thru the writings of the Fathers day and night to compile these lists.
This is a sign of false propaganda. Rome attempting to "persuade" the Orthodox that we believe the same exact things as they do but..... The muslims changed us. lolol this is nonsense.

According to the roman spin the latin word "proceed" has 2 different definitions fused into one. The first means "eternal procession" and the second means "through", and somehow this makes sense as used in the context of the Fillioque.

Perhaps the best evidence that this is an embarassment to roman theology is the fact that all roman churches in Greece were ordered to no longer use the fillioque about 7 years ago.
The vatican says this is an "experiment".

[JustinHesychast]

Thanks for the replies! My main concern is the latter article and not so much the filioque, however. I mean, the RCC is indeed united and a visible and widely known Church. Over half of Christendom. Orthodox squabble over minor things (culture, prayer wording, even how to pronounce Alleluia!) and seem very divided.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Thanks for the replies! My main concern is the latter article and not so much the filioque, however. I mean, the RCC is indeed united and a visible and widely known Church. Over half of Christendom. Orthodox squabble over minor things (culture, prayer wording, even how to pronounce Alleluia!) and seem very divided.
In what way are we divided? And Rome is united? I would dare suggest that Rome is so divided between the many different groups who take varying positions on things and either want the Pope to go more liberal or more conservative on any number of issues.

[kamikat]

duplicate post

[kamikat]

I mean, the RCC is indeed united and a visible and widely known Church. Over half of Christendom. Orthodox squabble over minor things (culture, prayer wording, even how to pronounce Alleluia!) and seem very divided.

Yes, we squabble over minor things, but ONLY minor things. When comparing RCC and EOC, you see two kinds of unity. The RCC has the outward appearance of unity, but inside, there are people fighting for female and gay ordination, most married couples (at least in the US) claim to disregard the church's teaching on birthcontrol, you have people who never go to confession and are still able to recieve communion whenever they want. The EOC has an outward appearance of squabbling or of having many different governing bodies, however, there is no squabbling over faith issues. It's an inward unity, while the outside is chaotic. My priest likes to tell a story about a convert attending his first parish council meeting. After a couple hours of heated debate on the parish budget, the meeting ended. The new convert remarked about how pleastant it was to fight over money instead of fighting over Jesus' divinity, as had been the norm in his old church.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Yes, we squabble over minor things, but ONLY minor things. When comparing RCC and EOC, you see two kinds of unity. The RCC has the outward appearance of unity, but inside, there are people fighting for female and gay ordination, most married couples (at least in the US) claim to disregard the church's teaching on birthcontrol, you have people who never go to confession and are still able to recieve communion whenever they want. The EOC has an outward appearance of squabbling or of having many different governing bodies, however, there is no squabbling over faith issues. It's an inward unity, while the outside is chaotic. My priest likes to tell a story about a convert attending his first parish council meeting. After a couple hours of heated debate on the parish budget, the meeting ended. The new convert remarked about how pleastant it was to fight over money instead of fighting over Jesus' divinity, as had been the norm in his old church.
Very well said.

[EmperorConstantine]

Perhaps the best evidence that this is an embarassment to roman theology is the fact that all roman churches in Greece were ordered to no longer use the fillioque about 7 years ago.
The vatican says this is an "experiment".
Of course its an experiment! You think they'd ever admit the real reason?

As to kamikat's post: yeesh. This begs the question: what is real unity? Is it the sort where on paper all is well but reality is chaotic or is it on paper all is chaotic but reality all is well?

[kamikat]

As to kamikat's post: yeesh. This begs the question: what is real unity? Is it the sort where on paper all is well but reality is chaotic or is it on paper all is chaotic but reality all is well?

The reality is that we in the EOC have unity in the matters of God. In the matters of man, there is conflict. The finicancial problems are of man. The conflicts over Greek or Slavonic (or whatever) vs English are of man. Jurisidiction is of man. There is no conflict on Jesus' divinity or the Real Presence (for lack of a better term) in the Eucharist. There will always be conflict within the Church, as long as there are sinful men in it. But the matters of God, we all agree on.

[InnerPhyre]

Read the New Testament. The Church has always squabbled from the day it began.

[Rowan]

Piggybacking....

The reality is that we in the EOC have unity in the matters of God. In the matters of man, there is conflict. The finicancial problems are of man. The conflicts over Greek or Slavonic (or whatever) vs English are of man. Jurisidiction is of man. There is no conflict on Jesus' divinity or the Real Presence (for lack of a better term) in the Eucharist. There will always be conflict within the Church, as long as there are sinful men in it. But the matters of God, we all agree on.

I agree.

The Holy Spirit never will stop guiding the Church. That's what I try to remember whenever Church conflict comes to mind.

[OrthoCanuck]

I mean, the RCC is indeed united and a visible and widely known Church. Over half of Christendom.


One word: Reformation.

(I don't recall the Orthodox Church splitting into multiple churches.)


Peace.

[OrthoCanuck]

The EOC has an outward appearance of squabbling or of having many different governing bodies, however, there is no squabbling over faith issues. It's an inward unity, while the outside is chaotic. My priest likes to tell a story about a convert attending his first parish council meeting. After a couple hours of heated debate on the parish budget, the meeting ended. The new convert remarked about how pleastant it was to fight over money instead of fighting over Jesus' divinity, as had been the norm in his old church.


My priest says pretty much the same thing. He finds it refreshing that there are no faith arguments at various meetings, only arguments over 'worldly' issues.


Peace.

[EmperorConstantine]

The reality is that we in the EOC have unity in the matters of God. In the matters of man, there is conflict. The finicancial problems are of man. The conflicts over Greek or Slavonic (or whatever) vs English are of man. Jurisidiction is of man. There is no conflict on Jesus' divinity or the Real Presence (for lack of a better term) in the Eucharist. There will always be conflict within the Church, as long as there are sinful men in it. But the matters of God, we all agree on.
Which is exactly why I'm proud to be Orthodox!

Honestly, I'd rather see two churches not be in communion over how Jesus should be spelled and keep the same theology than see two churches not in communion over very important theology.

[Theophorus]

I'm sure it is only semantics....

http://www.stpatricksseminary.org/Assets/img/history/history-liturgy-dance1967.jpg

1967 liturgy dancer

http://www.recongress.org/2006/pix/YDlit/med_DSC_0404.jpg

Whatever

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images/096_DancingJesuit04.jpg
Jesuit Father Saju George


If the Church says it matters, it matters. Btw, why doesn't any enquirer ever ask why the RC does not commune infants? Is it just semantics?

[EmperorConstantine]

If the Church says it matters, it matters. Btw, why doesn't any enquirer ever ask why the RC does not commune infants? Is it just semantics?
Could be of Protestant influence?

I remember I was six when I found out that I couldn't received Communion until second grade. I was so angry I didn't want to go to church for a month.


Hmm... that may have been a sign of later things to come...:cool:

[Michael the Iconographer]

I'm sure it is only semantics....

http://www.stpatricksseminary.org/Assets/img/history/history-liturgy-dance1967.jpg

1967 liturgy dancer

http://www.recongress.org/2006/pix/YDlit/med_DSC_0404.jpg

Whatever

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images/096_DancingJesuit04.jpg
Jesuit Father Saju George


If the Church says it matters, it matters. Btw, why doesn't any enquirer ever ask why the RC does not commune infants? Is it just semantics?
Thank God I never had to attend one of those silly types of Novus Ordo Masses that were so popular back in the 70s.

[isshinwhat]

Thank God they are going away, and I pray to God that this bout with Modernism is soon over.

[EmperorConstantine]

Thank God they are going away, and I pray to God that this bout with Modernism is soon over.
Being in the US, I wouldn't get your hopes up.

You know that new cathedral in California that opened some years back?

Well, one person in our parish visited it and was shocked (she had a Roman Catholic upbringing I believe) at how naked it is. No statues, not paintings nothing that would say to an illiterate person that this was a Roman Catholic cathedral. I know one of the things that drove me away from Catholicism was the modernism. The church I used to go to was an old somewhat Gothic style church. However, the church I had started to go to was a new one and looked like any other Protestant church!

[Protoevangel]

Thank God they are going away, and I pray to God that this bout with Modernism is soon over.
At least until you get a new, more liberal Pope, right? ;)

[NyssaTheHobbit]

I've been in a Gothic style church. Though I wasn't interested in converting, I LOVED attending. I've also been in Catholic churches which seemed like a letdown after that, because they were bare.

[isshinwhat]

There are still good, orthodox Latin Rite liturgies. Like this Novus Ordo Missae from Detroit...

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1659/2191/400/448044/MM06%20056_a.jpg

Or this Tridentine from France...

http://www.fssp.org/album/VPE2005/web%20mattainc-41.jpg

This Solemn Pontifical Masss in St. Louis...

http://www.institute-christ-king.org/StLouis/images/Picture041.jpg

And many, many small, humble parishes like mine... We just never get the press... ;-)

God Bless,

Neal

[isshinwhat]

At least until you get a new, more liberal Pope, right? ;)

God Forbid!!! But if it happens, at least he won't be able to proclaim error in faith or morals... ;)

In the meantime, St. Pius X, pray for us. St. Michael, protect us.

[Xpycoctomos]

There are still good, orthodox Latin Rite liturgies. Like this Novus Ordo Missae from Detroit...

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1659/2191/400/448044/MM06%20056_a.jpg

Or this Tridentine from France...

http://www.fssp.org/album/VPE2005/web%20mattainc-41.jpg

This Solemn Pontifical Masss in St. Louis...

http://www.institute-christ-king.org/StLouis/images/Picture041.jpg

And many, many small, humble parishes like mine... We just never get the press... ;-)

God Bless,

Neal
Thanks you for this Neal.

While I agree that the Catholic Church in Europe and especially N America has gone out into left-field and needs a good cleaning up, the crazy pictures posted earlier really, to me, is not a reason to avoid the Catholic Church. Certainly they aren't good or honorable reasons for anyone to approach the Catholic Church, but I shouldn't think that someone attending one of the Parishes Neal posted above would leave the Catholic Church because of Bishop Mahoney's (and his peeps') antics.

We need to remain humble in this and thank God that he has not allowed anythning like this to take place on any kind of public larger scale in our CHurch (I am sure, however, that crazy things have happened) and that he has enlightened our bishops to promptly deal with these issues as they have arised. I pray that this continues and that we (myself included!) humble ourselves before the sad state of much of the Catholic Church in America so that God won't have have to humble us Himself!

I do not mean this as a censuring of anyone. I myself have often made fun of things like this. But, in looking around on the net, I think we are going to soon be up against our own battles in the Orthodox Church in the US (At least) and we need to be ever-vigilant and prayerful that God lead the right people in the Church with divine discernment and the rest of us with obedience to His Will through the Church.

And so that is my reason for not agreeing with the Filioque... er... hmmm... wrong thread..I think... lol ;)

John

[Michael the Iconographer]

The Gothic Cathedral in Munich is a marvel to behold, but in the end I will take an Orthodox Church with it's beautifully done iconography over a Gothic cathedral any day.

[Xpycoctomos]

I went to Montreal and the Cathedral there was amazing. I really thought I was in Europe. i think it was montreal... it looked blue in side... kind of electric blue. If not then it was Quebec City.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I was also in the very, very famous Cathedral of Speyer, with it's world famous rosette windows. It was a marvel to behold, but again, I am still much more in awe of an Orthodox Church dressed from head to toe in iconography.

[EmperorConstantine]

I would like to see the Hagia Sophia in all its museum glory and dignity.

[Akathist]

I would like to see the Hagia Sophia in all its museum glory and dignity.

It breaks my heart to think what has become of Hagia Sophia. From what I have read on line there is not much "glory and dignity" to be seen there. But, there are some efforts to improve things.

I too would like to see it someday. I thought about how if I go back to visit Serbia for some reason perhaps I could find a way to go down to Turkey and to Constantinople. (If I go to Serbia, I visit the south eastern part of it.)

[RobNJ]

I would like to see the Hagia Sophia in all its museum glory and dignity.

I'd like to see Orthodox DL held there!

[EmperorConstantine]

I'd like to see Orthodox DL held there!
I would pay the Turkish government sooooooooooooooooooooooo much to allow one there.

Better a museum then a mosque. At least the museum part can allow the Orthodox icon-ness to be seen without fear of covering with Koran verses.

[Theophorus]

There are still good, orthodox Latin Rite liturgies. Like this Novus Ordo Missae from Detroit...

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1659/2191/400/448044/MM06%20056_a.jpg

Or this Tridentine from France...

http://www.fssp.org/album/VPE2005/web%20mattainc-41.jpg

This Solemn Pontifical Masss in St. Louis...

http://www.institute-christ-king.org/StLouis/images/Picture041.jpg

And many, many small, humble parishes like mine... We just never get the press... ;-)

God Bless,

Neal

Neal,
I saw recently that the Pope is going to allow any priest that has the desire to use the Tridentine mass without having to get permission from the local bishop. Good move on his part. I'm just curious how the american seminaries stand on this issue.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Neal,
I saw recently that the Pope is going to allow any priest that has the desire to use the Tridentine mass without having to get permission from the local bishop. Good move on his part. I'm just curious how the american seminaries stand on this issue.
The Tridentine Mas in the vernacular or Latin?

[Theophorus]

Thanks you for this Neal.

While I agree that the Catholic Church in Europe and especially N America has gone out into left-field and needs a good cleaning up, the crazy pictures posted earlier really, to me, is not a reason to avoid the Catholic Church. Certainly they aren't good or honorable reasons for anyone to approach the Catholic Church, but I shouldn't think that someone attending one of the Parishes Neal posted above would leave the Catholic Church because of Bishop Mahoney's (and his peeps') antics.

We need to remain humble in this and thank God that he has not allowed anythning like this to take place on any kind of public larger scale in our CHurch (I am sure, however, that crazy things have happened) and that he has enlightened our bishops to promptly deal with these issues as they have arised. I pray that this continues and that we (myself included!) humble ourselves before the sad state of much of the Catholic Church in America so that God won't have have to humble us Himself!

I do not mean this as a censuring of anyone. I myself have often made fun of things like this. But, in looking around on the net, I think we are going to soon be up against our own battles in the Orthodox Church in the US (At least) and we need to be ever-vigilant and prayerful that God lead the right people in the Church with divine discernment and the rest of us with obedience to His Will through the Church.

And so that is my reason for not agreeing with the Filioque... er... hmmm... wrong thread..I think... lol ;)

John

John,

Ultimately I only wish to show the different perspectives in how things such as the liturgy (that would include the Creed) and services are viewed. Our "services" are an integral part of our theology. Also, one could say that theology comes from praxis in a sense. This has many implications, one of which is the preservation and continued practice of things "validated" by the Holy Spirit and God's saints.

I believe this is fundamentally different than the "western" and intrinsically american perception that worship is primarily for personal and corporate edification.

When this divorce of theolgy from "worship" is supplanted with the supposed superior goal of edification of the individual, these types of abuses tend to flourish. One has to admit, that very few denominations escaped unscathed from the V2 era, but Orthodoxy certainly did with relatively few injuries.

One irony is, if you ever read some conservative Agnlican blogs or whatnot addressing their angst, many look to Rome as a safe haven because of the centralized authority, but as the pictures show, they are missing the point and some of the purposes of true liturgical worship.

When it comes to the prayers of saints through the ages, there are no semantics, only humility and submission.

[Theophorus]

The Tridentine Mas in the vernacular or Latin?

Latin. The headline for the article read, "Benedict takes a step backward",or something like that.

[Michael the Iconographer]

John,

Ultimately I only wish to show the different perspectives in how things such as the liturgy (that would include the Creed) and services are viewed. Our "services" are an integral part of our theology. Also, one could say that theology comes from praxis in a sense. This has many implications, one of which is the preservation and continued practice of things "validated" by the Holy Spirit and God's saints.

I believe this is fundamentally different than the "western" and intrinsically american perception that worship is primarily for personal and corporate edification.

When this divorce of theolgy from "worship" is supplanted with the supposed superior goal of edification of the individual, these types of abuses tend to flourish. One has to admit, that very few denominations escaped unscathed from the V2 era, but Orthodoxy certainly did with relatively few injuries.

One irony is, if you ever read some conservative Agnlican blogs or whatnot addressing their angst, many look to Rome as a safe haven because of the centralized authority, but as the pictures show, they are missing the point and some of the purposes of true liturgical worship.

When it comes to the prayers of saints through the ages, there are no semantics, only humility and submission.
Very, very well said!

[EmperorConstantine]

Latin. The headline for the article read, "Benedict takes a step backward",or something like that.
I knew I had a good feeling about him back in '05.

Seems like he really does want some work on unity and is trying to go the conservative route in order to do so. I'd have to give him credit.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Latin. The headline for the article read, "Benedict takes a step backward",or something like that.
ICEL would butcher the Tridentine Liturgies interpretation into English if they had the chance!

[Xpycoctomos]

John,

Ultimately I only wish to show the different perspectives in how things such as the liturgy (that would include the Creed) and services are viewed. Our "services" are an integral part of our theology. Also, one could say that theology comes from praxis in a sense. This has many implications, one of which is the preservation and continued practice of things "validated" by the Holy Spirit and God's saints.

I believe this is fundamentally different than the "western" and intrinsically american perception that worship is primarily for personal and corporate edification.

When this divorce of theolgy from "worship" is supplanted with the supposed superior goal of edification of the individual, these types of abuses tend to flourish. One has to admit, that very few denominations escaped unscathed from the V2 era, but Orthodoxy certainly did with relatively few injuries.

One irony is, if you ever read some conservative Agnlican blogs or whatnot addressing their angst, many look to Rome as a safe haven because of the centralized authority, but as the pictures show, they are missing the point and some of the purposes of true liturgical worship.

When it comes to the prayers of saints through the ages, there are no semantics, only humility and submission.
that's very astute and food for thought. But i do't beleive most jumped on the Catholic bashing band wagon in this thread for principled reasons such as these. Past threads both here and in OBOB threads we have invaded in the past make our intentions rightly and understandably suspect unless explaine and disclaimed.

John