Sometimes there are no fireworks. Turning points can pass in silence, almost unobserved.
It may be that way with the “Great Schism,” the most serious division in the history of the Church. The end of the schism may come more quickly and more unexpectedly than most imagine.
On Sept. 18, inside Castel Gandolfo, the Pope’s summer palace about 30 miles outside Rome, a Russian Orthodox Archbishop named Hilarion Alfeyev, 43 (a scholar, theologian, expert on the liturgy, composer and lover of music), met with Benedict XVI, 82 (also a scholar, theologian, expert on the liturgy and lover of music), for almost two hours, according to informed sources. (There are as yet no “official” sources about this meeting — the Holy See has still not released an official communiqué about the meeting.)
The silence suggests that what transpired was important — perhaps so important that the Holy See thinks it isn’t yet prudent to reveal publicly what was discussed.
A reconciliation between the patriarchs of the West and the East would, I cannot help believe, delight Our Lord.
Pleasing Our Lord is the most important thing, but it would ultimately have practical implications for Anglicans as well.
While I have no inside information, I am extremely skeptical about this report. Orthodoxy will not be reconciled with the Catholic Church until the latter omits the Filioque from the Nicene Creed and clarifies the meaning and scope of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.
The removal of the Filioque, I would think, could be accomplished overnight with a stroke of a pen. It would be a bold ecumenical gesture on the part of the Catholic Church. It should have happened years ago. Rome would, of course, explain that the removal does not in any way signify the rejection of traditional Western formulations of the Trinitarian doctrine.
Clarification of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope would seem to be a more difficult challenge, given the way this jurisdiction is articulated in the decrees of Vatican I; but dogma lives forward, as Fr Richard Neuhaus liked to say, and so we cannot preclude the possibility that a way forward can be found that is faithful to the doctrinal commitments of both communions.
The reconciliation of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is one of the most important and pressing matters confronting the Church today. With secularism and Islam threatening to destroy freedom and civilized life, the world needs a united Church. May God make it so.
Fr. Kimel, in reference to Filioque; why must Rome drop reference to the Holy Spirit Proceeding from Christ? Instead, can’t the Orthodox accept that formulation of the Creed as it is? Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to his disciples. Why shouldn’t the Creed reflect that scriptural truth?
Jimbob,
A short answer is that the unilateral insertion of the clause for local reasons is a violation of a true sense of catholicity. Part of the objection is theological and part is eclessiological but since there hasn’t been a universal church council to discuss these kinds of changes to the creeds they should remain as agreed at Nicea.
We have been going through the 39 articles in a class I attend which is given by the canon theologian of a rather conservative diocese. If you like I could try and get you notes from the class.
Personally I omit the filioque on most days and many others substitute “….and through the Son.” as was suggested by St John.
And by the way, I agree with Fr Kimel, most notably in his last paragraph. Almost evrything else falls to the level of adiaphora.
Because the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed did not contain the Filioque. It was inserted into the creed by the Western Church some centuries later. The Eastern Churches understandably object to this unilateral alteration of the ecumenical creed. The removal of the Filioque would remove a huge obstacle to the re-union of East and West.
“Filioque” was inserted into the Creed by the Council of Toledo in 589; its use gradually spread through Western Europe thereafter. Pope Leo III (795-816), although agreeing with the “double procession” of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (which had been standard Western teaching since the Third Century and had been enunciated previously by Popes such as Leo the Great [440-461]), refused to permit its insertion into the Creed, and had silver shields erected in St. Peter’s in Rome, one with the text of the Creed in Greek, the other in Latin, both wothout the offending phrase.
However, when the Creed became said or sung during the Mass in Rome on Sundays and festal days, which only happened in 1014, centuries after it had been included almost everywhere else, it did contain the filioque, apparently at the behest of the (German) Holy Roman Emperor who was about to be crowned there at that time, and was said to be “scandalized” that at Rome the Creed was never sung at Mass.
As an Orthodox Christian I strongly concur with Fr. Kimel’s comments. The Filioque is unacceptable to us for two reasons. First it was inserted into the creed in direct violation of the canons of the OEcumenical Councils (most notably the third). Secondly in its plain wording, it is heretical. In fairness, the Roman Catholic Church has in recent times adopted an understanding of the filioque which would seem to be somewhat closer to the Orthodox position. Essentially their position is “we really mean ‘through’ and not “from.” I personally have no issue with that explanation. However the plain wording in both Latin and English still comes out as “from.” Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. It needs to go.
The real sticking point is Vatican I. I see almost no way around that. The wording of those decrees is so crystal clear that there is really no wiggle room for “doctrinal development.” I believe that when Rome adopted those decrees she effectively kissed the Christian East goodbye.
The only possible way forward I have heard a (very) few Catholics propose is to point out that Vatican I was never completed as an OEcumenical Council (from the Roman POV) and to declare that it stands as a local council of the Western Church expressing its strongly held opinions. But I just don’t see that happening which leaves us at an impasse.
No Orthodox hierarch can accept those decrees as worded even if he were so inclined (I know of none who are). The Orthodox faithful would not tolerate it.
All of that said I think there is much room for cooperation and building good will, which has too often been lacking on both sides over the centuries. We should work with one another on the many areas where we agree such as charity, and combating the rising tide of radical secularism and radical Islam. But when the time comes to celebrate the Holy Mysteries of the altar we should part and go our separate ways, albeit in sadness.
Under the mercy,
John
Well, first, let me say that it’s a delight to have Fr. Kimel and Dr. Tighe gracing a thread at T19 again. I’ve missed you both.
Let me just add a few tidbits. We Anglicans have been allowed to omit the Filioque from the Creed, on a voluntary basis, ever since the Lambeth Conference of 1988. I sometimes do so. But I agree with Fr. Kimel, that returning to the original form of the Creed in no way means abandoning the truth that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. An early witness to that doctrine is St. Hilary of Poitier, considered a Doctor of the Church by RCs. I bring him up because he was a bridge figure in the 4th century, since like Irenaeus he’d grown up in the East but was made a bishop in the West/Gaul.
Alas, also like Fr. Kimel, I think this report is wildly optimistic. Antipathy toward Roman Catholicism runs deep in Russia, but positive contacts like this are always good.
Finally, let me add that the kind of concerns raised by the Russian Orthodox archbishop about Orthodox Christians in the western Ukraine being coerced into becoming Catholic is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. Most of the time, the coercion (if it was such) went the other way.
Perhaps Dr. Tighe could add one of his usual marvelous history lessons for us all here, since my understanding is that he attends a Ukrainian Catholic church (correct me, if I’m wrong). But let me call attention to a couple ways that the western Ukraine may indeed have a very important and strategic part to play in any future reunion between the Eastern and Western Churches. First, (again, correct me if I’m wrrong) the new Catholic university in L’viv, the Ukrainian Catholic University, is reportedly thriving and may be the single most important and lively Christian school in eastern Europe. May it thrive and go from strength to strength!
Second, I’m fond of Jaroslav Pelikan’s great biography of that amazing man of God, Cardinal Josef Slipyi, one of the most far-sighted and courageous leaders the so-called Uniate churches have ever had. [b]Confessor Between East and West[/b], it tells a most inspiring story, of a man who embodied in his own person and theology a glorious combination of the best of both East and West. For example, unlike most eastern Christians, he appreciated and understood St. Augustine!
If we Anglicans are the natural bridge church between Catholicism and Protestantism, then I think the Ukrainian Catholics, by far the largest of the Eastern Rite churches, are the great bridge church between Eastern and Western Christianity.
If the Third Rome and the First Rome are ever to be reunited, the path goes through the Ukraine.
David Handy+
(for years I drove a car with the vanity license plate “XT NIKA,” since XC NIKA was already taken in VA)
Yes, as long as one side thinks there is a Bishop Of Earth (which pretty much means there aren’t any others) it doesn’t look like things will get too far. One might also bring up issues like mandatory celibacy of clergy. The Eastern Christians have had married clergy for 2000 years with no difficulties. I think Bishop Hilarion is a great representative for the Orthodox.
Ah, a nice sectarian debate that has polarized the two sides of the Anglo-catholic movement- those who hope one day to return to Rome and those who hope instead to join the East.
For my part, I began omitting the filioque as soon as I found there was a debate (and if I remember correctly, my Baptist hymnal growing up only had the actual creed of Nicea, which ends much the same as the Apostles’ Creed, not the Constantinoplian revision with the expanded theology of the Holy Ghost).
#9- As a life-long Protestant, I think Augustine was misunderstood by just about everyone, and that the worst schismatic offense on our part was enshrining a few of his teachings as dogma (rather, teachings developed from his teachings). The Calvinistic view of predestination and election is just too humanistic to be realistic.
#10- And the Romans have had celibate clergy for just as long. One of the many things discussed and rejected at Nicea was an article requiring clerical celibacy. Each Patriarch (from my admittedly outside understanding, I am more than open to correction from those who have first-hand knowledge) is allowed a certain leeway regarding the ordination and standard of conduct for their clergy. Rome is certainly within her rights to demand clerical celibacy, while the East is certainly within it’s rights to allow a married priesthood. Regardless, the Protestant practice of allowing clergy to marry [i] after [/i] ordination is certainly an innovation, and many might say the ancestor of the “innovations” of tEC today.
Eastern Orthodoxy certainly does require celibacy, though only of their bishops.
> Eastern Orthodoxy certainly does require celibacy, though only of their bishops.
More important, the Roman Catholic church only requires celibacy as a discipline. This is not a matter of dogma, and could be changed by the equivalent of an executive order. Indeed, Eastern Rite Catholics in communion with Rome do NOT require celibacy in their priesthood.
The cited articles states: “There are as yet no “official” sources about this meeting — the Holy See has still not released an official communiqué about the meeting. The silence suggests that what transpired was important — perhaps so important that the Holy See thinks it isn’t yet prudent to reveal publicly what was discussed.”
I wonder what they talked about. My guess is that the conversation went something like this:
Hilarion: “I love Beethoven.”
Pope: “So do I. He’s my favorite composer.”
Hilarion: “Mine, too. Karl Barth definitely got it wrong. Beethoven is better than Mozart.”
Pope: “I cannot agree more.”
Hilarion: “I’d much rather talk about music than the Filioque.”
Pope: “I cannot agree more. I feel like there is a growing understanding between us.”
Hilarion: “Patriarch Kirill loves Beethoven, too, though not as much as he loves Tschaikovsky.”
Pope: “Those darn Russians … but Beethoven is a good start. Let’s all get together soon. But not in Moscow. It’s just too cold there. How about Paris? I’ve always loved Paris.”
Hilarion: “What a wonderful suggestion. I’m sure Kirill will be delighted to join us. You bring the cognac. I’ll bring the vodka.”
Pope: “Sounds great. But please … no arguments on the Filioque, ok? I haven’t read Augustine’s [i]De Trinitate[/i] in years.”
Hilarion: “Augustine who?”
As a layman, I’ve always thought of the filioque debate as something above my paygrade in the Church. In the local TEC congregations and diocese, arguments do not center on such things, but on questions like whether Christ rose from the dead- which strikes me as a greater issue. It is tragic that the divide between traditionalists and revisionists in most dioceses of TEC, that has arisen in the last 2 or 3 generations, is greater than the division between Rome and Moscow, 1500 years in the making.
Many of us are struggling with the decision of whether to remain Anglicans. Not to put too fine a point on it, but many of us who are Anglo Catholics wonder if we will be allowed to remain even if we want to. The majority of Anglo Catholics in the US, whether in the Continuum or ACNA (or dioceses presumed to become ACNA members in fairly short order) do not enjoy a very direct relationship with Canterbury- and Lambeth Palace seems in no great hurry to repair that relationship. And indeed, the Anglo Catholics may soon find themselves completely ostracized within the Church of England as well, if there is a continued insistence on forcing the issue of women bishops. I think most of us would see a rapprochement between Rome and the East as a literal sign from God. It is our duty as Christians to work toward the unification of the Church. One would hope that the Communion’s leadership would recognize this and begin to reverse the course it has followed for the last 1/2 century of continually pushing the envelope and moving itself farther and farther from the center of the Church, which is Christ Himself.
What an interesting thread – thank you all for helping shine a light on this subject of the filioque where I stand pretty much with TJ in my ignorance. Good to hear from you Fr Kimel.
From what I remember this dialogue has been making steady progress over the years as this report 2 years ago shows:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL159223420071115
From an Anglican perspective, we had a position before the 1920’s where we seemed very close to the Moscow Patriarchate and it has been good to see that having moved apart that visits and links increased over recent years both with Moscow and Constantinople under our Archbishop. I hope more work can be done on this in the future but know the problems, not least with the little local difficulty with the noisy US church. TJ – there have been costs for us too.
On a brighter note it is wonderful that there is an anticipated visit by His Holiness to Britain next year.
You really can’t underestimate the theological/doctrinal issues of the filioque issue.
1. It is not scriptural ” ‘When the Advocate* comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. ” John 15:26 (NRSV)
2. It diminishes the role of the Spirit by changing the Spirit’s relationship to the Son, thus elevating the Son and creating an imbalance
3. It damages our relationship with God by creating a false belief about him.
The removal of the filioque does not change RC theology, but the inclusion greatly changes Orthodox theology.
I wish it was so easy, Brian, but of course it ain’t.
1) Do you think that the Western Fathers who formulated the Filioque had not read their New Testaments?
2) Have you read St Augustine’s [i]De Trinitate[/i]? Few Fathers of the Church spoke as warmly and powerfully of the personhood and work of the Spirit.
3) Really? In what ways would your spiritual life be diminished if you found yourself reciting the Filioque in the creed?
Sergius Bulgakov, I suggest, offers a more accurate appraisal of the Filioque controversy:
[blockquote] Is it [the Filioquist controversy] not a false problem which leads inevitably to a sterile war of words? Would it not have been natural to expect that the existence of such a serious heresy, of such a fundamental dogmatic divergence, would penetrate into the whole life and doctrine of the two churches? For many years, as far as I have been able, I have been looking for the traces of this influence, and I have tried to understand the issues at stake, what was the living significance of this divergence, where and how it was revealed in practice. I confess that I have not succeeded in finding it; rather I should go further and simply deny its existence. This divergence exists at no point in patristic teaching on the activities of the Holy Spirit in the world, on his “mission,†his gifts, on the mysteries, on grace … We end up with a strange dogma, deprived of dogmatic power.[/blockquote]
I’m sure the Filioque is all terribly compelling for systematic theologians, but why should it be judged to enjoy church-dividing significance? Who the heck really understands the issues? Not the average priest or bishop, and certainly not the average layman, that’s for sure. Bulgakov is right–a sterile war of words.
1. No. But all the Fathers, whether East or West, agreed that the Trinitarian relationship was distinct. They also agreed that the Son was “begotten” and the Holy Spirit “proceeds.” The filioque was not taught always because it was never taught prior to the fifth century and is not taught everywhere because it belongs mostly to the Latin Fathers.
2. I have not.
3. My spiritual life would not be diminished because I adhere to a Western theology. From a Western theology, the distinction is meaningless. From an Eastern theology, the distinction is virtually heretical. The rationale is that our beliefs about God are a part of our worship of God. To knowingly hold a false belief about God is to worship a false god and not the True God. The Double Procession creates a ditheism and takes away the unique arche role of The Father.
I agree that it is meaningless to the average layman. What I don’t see is why, if it is so meaningless to you, you insist that it remain?
Brian,
Or, you could write, “‘When the Advocate* comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. †John 15:26 (NRSV)
It’s an issue too complex for prooftexting, imo.
Thanks for your musical assessment Fr Kimel at #14; loved it! I for one would wish they’d also consider using the works of Arvo Pärt (an Estonian married to a Jewess …) for the reunification ceremonies! Be that as it may …
One place to start assessing aspects of the discussion already raised re the [i]filioque[/i] might be to consider the Russian church historian Bolotov once more, who distinguished three levels of authority as follows:
1. Dogmas, to which all believers are obliged to adhere.
2. Theologoumena, being beliefs and their expressions which are probable, and so authoritative, but not absolutely in the form of 1.
3. Theological opinions, which may be useful/helpful but lack due authority – until/unless …
In which light, while it may be technically correct from an Eastern stance to call the [i]filioque[/i] “heretical†– so #8 – as it breaches level 1, there is actually adequate Scriptural support for exploring the role of the Son in the economy of the Holy Spirit (with apologies to #17). Jn 15:26 might be one side of the coin; yet Jn 16:7 has as well, “… but if I go, I will send him to you.†And Hilary cites Jn 16:15 as well with equal emphasis, concluding, “I ask whether to receive from the Son and to proceed from the Father are not the same thing.†Thanks David Handy for bringing him into the discussion. This latter view is taken up again by Acts 2:33.
Just so, while Augustine says the Holy Spirit proceeds “principally†from the Father, his desire to push back from the economic missions of Son and Spirit to eternal processions within God forces him to his great break-through, of distinguishing the Persons not according to function only but in terms of [b]relationship[/b]: “The Father so begot the Son then that their common gift would proceed from him [the Word] too, and the Holy Spirit would be the Spirit of them both.†Which set of ideas establishes the great Latin-Alexandrian theologoumenon that may sit perfectly happily alongside the Cappadocian-Byzantine perspective. For such an inventive emphasis upon relationship enables the likes of Walter Kasper’s great comment: “Neither the substance of the ancients nor the person of the moderns is ultimate, but rather relation is the primordial category of reality.†And such an idea has immense repercussions right across the board, socially, politically, economically. For we are not ‘balancing angels on pin-heads’ here; rather the Early Church via their struggles to bring the Trinity to human speech made the transition “from the one-sidedly essentialist thinking of Greek philosophy into a personalist thinking … laying the foundation of a new type of thought†(Kasper again), one which the contemporary world takes so much for granted. Sadly, our collective bickering over level 2 theologoumena has permitted human being and identity in the 21st C to become seriously estranged from its Christian tap-root.
In other words, as we try to assess what might and might not have to happen as the Good Lord brings together once more the “two lungs†(JP2) of his One Body, the way we handle ourselves and our historic misunderstandings is paramount. For my money, Lukas Vischer’s WCC collection, [i]Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque Controversy[/i], published in 1981, remains seminal – even helpful for all “pay gradesâ€!
With regard to the filioque, I remember having read that the Orthodox would have much less difficulty with a formulation that runs “proceeding from the Father through the Son.” I believe it was in one of two books I read a few years ago by His Excellency, the Most Reverend Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, and [b]if memory serves correctly[/b] that was even suggested quite some time ago as an alternative solution. Unfortunately, I no longer have the two books available to check the reference.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Thank you, Art, for your thoughtful comment. This is precisely the kind of theological reflection that must take place on this very difficult issue. Western theologians are rightly reluctant to simply dismiss the Filioque, not just because it has been dogmatically defined but because it seeks to express something important about the life of the Holy Trinity as revealed in the narrative of the incarnate Son. There is an important intuition and insight here, and unless one wants to simply dismiss the entire Western tradition as heretical since the 4th century–and that is something that even the Orthodox have been willing to say (at least not until fairly recently)–then it is incumbent upon us to listen very hard and try to understand the deep concerns of all parties. Certainly St Maximus the Confessor, who understood the Western trinitarian development, did not consider Westerners heretical. To what extent has the Eastern/Western disagreement depended on conflicting theological models, different languages and cultures, and a profound failure to understand what the other is saying? Ultimately, I do believe that the blame here has to placed on Rome’s doorstep for insisting upon the retention of the Filioque within the Nicene Creed. If Rome had not made this insistence, perhaps, just perhaps, folks would have been willing to cut each other a little more theological slack. But lines were prematurely drawn and the anathemas were hurled and the barricades were built.
The following are helpful documents:
[url=http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml]Orthodox/Catholic Statement on the Filioque[/url]
[url=http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/vatican_clarification.html]Vatican Clarification of the Filioque[/url]
[url=http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/zizioulis_onesource.html]Zizioulas response to Vatican statement[/url]
Thank you for the links, Fr Kimel. Good bed-time reading, I see!
I did love the comment though from the first link: “We do hope, however, that they [their discussions] will contribute to the growth of mutual understanding and respect, and that in God’s time our Churches will no longer find a cause for separation in the way we think and speak about the origin of that Spirit, whose fruit is love and peace (see Gal 5.22).†Amen to that …
I also thank you for the links, Fr. Kimel (#23), and for your comical imaginary dialog in #14. The Ukrainian Catholic seminary in Rome (another brain child of the late, great Cardinal Slipyi I mentioned earlier) features big icons of some of the early Fathers, and what do you know?, included is none other than St. Augustine!
Alas, the ignorance goes both ways. It’s one of the tragedies of church history that Augustine didn’t know Greek. Hence his fateful misinterpretation of Romans 5:12, etc.
David Handy+
Perhaps this is also a good time to commend the article by Orthodox theologian David B. Hart: “[url=http://books.google.com/books?id=R78YXOLQR-UC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq;=”the+myth+of+schism”&source=bl&ots=wWX118zdvt&sig=n-7O_O2SUyk1n33w–cjuG6Bn5M&hl=en&ei=xBC9SvSpFZLkswPF1bRS&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=”the myth of schism”&f=false]The Myth of Schism[/url]” in*Ecumenism Today*.
Let me also correct a sentence in my comment above: The sentence “There is an important intuition and insight here, and unless one wants to simply dismiss the entire Western tradition as heretical since the 4th century—and that is something that even the Orthodox have been willing to say (at least not until fairly recently)—then it is incumbent upon us to listen very hard and try to understand the deep concerns of all parties” should read “There is an important intuition and insight here, and unless one wants to simply dismiss the entire Western tradition as heretical since the 4th century—and that is something that even the Orthodox have been unwilling to say (at least not until fairly recently)—then it is incumbent upon us to listen very hard and try to understand the deep concerns of all parties.”
David Handy in #25:
[blockquote]Alas, the ignorance goes both ways. It’s one of the tragedies of church history that Augustine didn’t know Greek.[/blockquote]
Indeed; one of the really curious confessions in [i]De Trinitate[/i] is to be found at Five,10:
[blockquote]The Greeks also have another word, [i]hypostasis[/i], but they make a distinction that is rather obscure to me between [i]ousia[/i] and [i]hypostasis[/i], so that most of our people [that is, Catholics] who treat of these matters in Greek are accustomed to say [i]mia ousia[/i], [i]treis hypostaseis[/i], which is literally one being, three substances.[/blockquote]
In other words, if the great Augustine was not able to perceive at one level the linguistic break-through forged by the Cappadocians and thereafter gifted to the universal Church as a means of speaking authentically of Triunity, then no wonder some of us have wandered in the dark …!
But what is most exciting about the last few decades is the revival in Trinitarian thought, initiated by Karl Barth. So perhaps we are now “without excuseâ€!
Yes; it’s curious indeed, Fr Kimel, how strident some of the Eastern comments these past few decades have been. I refer to your aside “- and that is something that even the Orthodox have been unwilling to say (at least not until fairly recently) -†above in your correction #26. E.g. the comments you linked earlier from John Zizioulas seem to once more establish an absolute gulf between the economy of salvation and the immanent Godhead – based I assume on the Palamite distinction between the divine essence and the so-called energies. And while some of us might grant that distinction some validity at Level 2 (that is, according to Bolotov’s schema), to crank it up to total level 1 is surely on a par with the RC insertion of the [i]filioque[/i] into the Creed! Or so it seems to me – and I have the likes of the late Tom Torrance to fall back on! I wonder how Zizioulas and Torrance would go about any hypothetical discussion?
I recall corresponding with Torrance precisely on the question of the Palamite distinction between God’s being and energies. He was of the opinion that St Gregory Palamas’s construal of the matter did not have solid grounding in the Eastern Fathers–certainly not in the Alexandrians. Be that as it may, I believe one can legitimately ask the Palamites: “By what conciliar authority have you raised the Palamite distinction to the level of dogma?”
The Palamite distinction does not appear to be constitutive in the thinking of Metropolitan John Zizioulas. Of particular interest here is Aristotle Papanikolaou’s *Being with God*.
But all of this is way above my pay grade. Heck if I know how any individual believer can determine who is right and wrong about this stuff.
[blockquote]I [Fr Kimel] believe one can legitimately ask the Palamites: “By what conciliar authority have you raised the Palamite distinction to the level of dogma?”[/blockquote]
Exactly my question too: right on!
“Pay gradeâ€? I guess if Ex 33:22-23 relegates dear old Moses … For all that, he too stood with Elijah on Mt Tabor/Hermon at our Lord’s transfiguration, to be enveloped by the Shekinah … Just so, the Christians’ due place at 2 Cor 3:18. Yet again, none of this tells either/any of us ‘how’ all this may be … For frankly Gal 4:9b rules; OK! (omitting 9 c & d altogether!) So; I guess none is above the widow’s mite in grade …
Pax et gaudium, as St Aug would say.
Thanks Fr, Kimel, that is exactly what I mean when I dropped the “above my paygrade” line higher up in the thread. Almost all of us, whether Anglican, Orthodox or Catholic in our ecclesiology, acknowledge the authority of the early councils of the Church. Perhaps the time is coming for a new Ecumenical Council on the filioque and some of the other issues that divided the Church over the centuries. Can we be wise enough to allow the theologians and bishops of the various churches to do their work, and then submit ourselves to the will of that future Council? Or will we rather, as has been our bent in Anglican denominations for the last 50 years, draw lines in the sand based upon our own personal, at best poorly informed, opinions of such weighty matters?
TJ:
“Or will we rather, as has been our bent in Anglican denominations for the last 50 years, draw lines in the sand based upon our own personal, at best poorly informed, opinions of such weighty matters? ”
What are you trying to do – put T19 commenters like me out of business? Where’s the fun in that?