Interesting, and yes, this is pretty much the RC position as I understand it. There are, of course, differing versions of what happened after the Council of Florence.
This piece insists that the Orthodox caved in to Islamic pressure. The Orthodox would tend to claim that their bishops were manoeuvred into accepting a 'Western' position which they then dropped when they got home and faced the music from their faithful congregations.
Whatever the case, I'm more than happy to accept that there were a range of views and ways of expressing these things before the Schism and that there is certainly room for discussion and debate, hopefully with a view to resolution rather than for one side or the other to blink first or engage in power-politics or theological arm wrestling.
New year’s reminder that this thread is about filioque, rather than whether God exists.
Indeed. Might I express that I'm addressing how God would coherently exist? That non filioque is more coherent, fits the claims of Jesus. but not the claims about him?
I can't believe that this "per filio" formulation which I think I came up with independently is supported by @ChastMastr 's link and the Council of Florence. Just call me St. Turquoise the Eirenic (or possibly Heresiarch Turquoise the Schismatic and Anathema)...
At our place (C of E) I note with interest that we have started using the Apostles' Creed at HC rather than the Nicene.
Which paradoxically places you farther from the Orthodox, as that creed was never blessed by an ecumenical council and has never been used in the East.
And that is why I say that the Apostles' Creed should not cause any bother for the Orthodox.
In the RC Church the Apostles' Creed is the one which baptismal candidates have to agree to before baptism.
Sorry not to make clear what the word 'it' represented. 'it' is the Apostles' Creed
@mousethief will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure the Orthodox would have any theological issue with the Apostle's Creed as it stands but as it's never been used in the Christian East and hasn't been given a rubber-stamp by an Ecumenical Council it's not been adopted.
I can only speak for myself but I've recited the Apostles' Creed when visiting Anglican churches since I became Orthodox, and the Nicene Creed too (but I omit the filioque clause). But then, I used to omit it before I became Orthodox.
You will find Hyperdox zealots who wouldn't even dream of attending 'heterodox' services and there are am increasing number of swivel-eyed anti-ecumenical You Tubers, I'm afraid. I avoid them.
So, unless I'm terribly mistaken, I don't think the Orthodox would find anything to 'offend' in the Apostles' Creed it's just not one they've used.
Just Googled. Yes, it does seem that the Orthodox don't have any theological objections to the Apostles' Creed. It's just that it isn't as comprehensive as the Nicene Creed and hasn't been sanctioned by an Ecumenical Council.
Just Googled. Yes, it does seem that the Orthodox don't have any theological objections to the Apostles' Creed. It's just that it isn't as comprehensive as the Nicene Creed and hasn't been sanctioned by an Ecumenical Council.
We don't use the Athanasian Creed either.
So the Ecumenical creeds aren't really very Ecumenical?
Just Googled. Yes, it does seem that the Orthodox don't have any theological objections to the Apostles' Creed. It's just that it isn't as comprehensive as the Nicene Creed and hasn't been sanctioned by an Ecumenical Council.
We don't use the Athanasian Creed either.
So the Ecumenical creeds aren't really very Ecumenical?
It depends on how ecumenical one is talking about. The Apostles’ Creed and the Athenasian Creed are ecumenical in the sense that they’re widely accepted by a variety of Christian traditions, as opposed to, say, the Augsburg Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
But all the churches that grant the Apostles’ Creed and the Athenasian Creed some sort of official or liturgical standing are Western churches, Roman Catholic or Protestant. Neither have ever been used by the Eastern churches. (The Apostles’ Creed has its roots in the baptismal profession of faith used by the church in Rome.)
The only creed that has standing in both East and West is the Nicene Creed; and the West’s insertion of the filioque impairs the full ecumenicity that Creed otherwise has.
This may be a hand grenade. In Matthew 16-19 Jesus seems to me to be reflecting on the things we argue about, and concludes by observing this. “But wisdom is proved right by her actions”.
What difference does this difference in belief make to our behaviour and actions? Does it make us more, or less, likely to behave as well as a Samaritan ‘heretic’? Does it help us in loving our neighbour? If so, how?
Didn't you read the small print in the posts above, that the Apostles' Creed was never ratified by an Ecumenical Council? 😉
Therefore it isn't an Ecumenical Creed even though pretty much everybody would agree with it.
Which raises the issue of how many Ecumenical Councils have there been?
The Eastern Orthodox recognise seven - or should that be Seven given our propensity for capitalisation? 😉
The RCs recognise 21.
The non-Chalcedonian 'Oriental Orthodox' - Copts, Armenians etc - recognise the first three. There are some ancient Churches that only recognise the first two.
Protestants, who vary considerably in terms of how 'creedal' they are, would by and large recognise the first four or five.
We've a long way to go if we are going to be E/ecumenical in creedal terms, folks.
Which isn't to say we can't find common ground and grace wherever it may be found.
This may be a hand grenade. In Matthew 16-19 Jesus seems to me to be reflecting on the things we argue about, and concludes by observing this. “But wisdom is proved right by her actions”.
What difference does this difference in belief make to our behaviour and actions? Does it make us more, or less, likely to behave as well as a Samaritan ‘heretic’? Does it help us in loving our neighbour? If so, how?
No, I don't think that's a hand-grenade at all.
I don't think any but the most hardened polemicists would claim that the moral behaviour of those who either eschew the filioque clause or happily include it is either enhanced or compromised by where they stand on this one.
But 'right belief' should be accompanied by 'right action.'
Orthodoxy should go hand in hand with orthopraxy.
Nobody is saying that 'Samaritans' or Copts or RCs or Orthodox or Anglicans or Presbyterians or Pentecostals, Salvationists or whoever else have a monopoly on 'right action' or otherwise. Heck, nobody is saying that Christian believers of whatever stripe have a monopoly on good or moral behaviour. Atheists and agnostics can be 'Good Samaritans' just as much as people of faith be they Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or whatever else. Very often more so.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss or debate these things.
I've got a particular position on this issue but it doesn't mean I'm saying that @Nick Tamen or @Forthview or @Alan29 or whoever else on this thread who takes a different line are somehow less likely to 'love their neighbour as themselves' than I am.
There'll be things you hold to, @Barnabas62 which you deem important. That doesn’t necessarily imply you think any less of people who think differently.
As far as the OP goes, whilst I fully accept that there are different ways of understanding the filioque clause - and I've said that throughout even though I've nailed my own colours to the mast, I'm inclined to avoid using it. That doesn't mean I think those who use it are worse Christians or worse human beings than I am.
My reason for raising it was the reminder that it’s a feature of the synoptic gospels that Jesus seems to show a greater concern for compassionate behaviour than theological correctness. Indeed, his criticism of Jewish spiritual leaders seems largely focussed on their self righteousness and indifference.
So it seems to me to be a matter of Christian priorities to be more concerned with compassion than correctness. Oh, I understand the historical reasons behind the ecumenical councils and the need to produce some belief boundaries. These have proved to be of value. Despite the fact that we argue about the extent and meaning of these boundaries.
I suppose it seems strange to hear these arguments from a nonconformist! But I feel in my bones the truth of Jesus’ observation that we are sometimes like children calling to one another. And ignoring the thought that wisdom is judged by consequential actions.
And why I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with any of that, @Barnabas62 and @Lamb Chopped.
You'll both have your own particular convictions that you hold strongly. Those who have read your posts over the years will have an idea what those are. Holding to those convictions doesn't betoken a lack of humility on your part any more than people holding different convictions necessarily implies a lack of humility on theirs.
Of course, any conviction or position can be held in an inflexible or brittle way. Nobody is denying that either.
Sorry, can't sleep. I've got a curry repeating on me. It'll settle.
Meanwhile, FWIW I once asked Fr Gregory who used to post on these boards and who can certainly be polemical at times, whether he felt that different understandings or emphases between 'Eastern' and 'Western' positions on the Trinity meant that there was some kind of deficiency in practice on the 'Western' side as it were.
He obviously upheld the Orthodox view but firmly believed that Western Christians' experience was thoroughly Trinitarian.
Ok, so there will be those who object that they don't know what we mean by 'experience' of God, but let's run with this for a while.
It seems to me that the primary points of contention between the Orthodox and the RCC (we'll come onto Protestantism in a moment), boil down to three particular issues:
1) The role and authority of the Papacy.
2) The filioque clause (which is connected to 1) to a large extent.
3) Issues over 'hesychasm' and understandings of the divine 'essence/energies' - which arose in the 14th century. The Orthodox tend to think that the RCC went too 'Scholastic' in the late medieval period and handed this gene down to the Reformers in subsequent centuries.
On both sides there are those with a more 'elastic' and accommodating approach but dialogue and attempts at complementarity or compromise are sl-o-o-ow.
As far as the differences between the Orthodox and Protestants, goes, they are largely similar. We tend to see RCs and Protestants as two sides of the same coin - but that's by the by.
For 1) substitute individual illumination or opinion over the Papacy/Magisterium or Holy Tradition. I told you we were fond of capitalisation.
Before anyone goes all 'sola scriptura' here, we tend not to see that as a logical position as it doesn't actually exist. You can't have 'sola scriptura' as scripture doesn't exist in isolation or a vacuum. But yes, we do recognise that 'sola scriptura' does not imply 'solo scriptura' and that it is a more nuanced position than it is often portrayed.
Beyond that, the sheer diversity within Protestantism makes it harder to pin down differences or similarities and overlaps beyond the common consensus 'Mere Christianity' level. If we do want to do that then it has to be on a case by case level as it were.
Other than the real anti-ecumenical hot-heads, many of us, I think, would acknowledge the creativity and energy that Protestant diversity brings, whilst noting its capacity and tendency to bring fissaporousness and division in its wake.
It's intrigued me for some time now that neither RCs nor Orthodox despise nor dismiss the Protestant emphasis on personal faith. Far from it. Other than absolute inflexible types, I've not come across RCs or Orthodox who would dismiss Protestant conversion narratives or 'testimonies' (to use evangelical parlance) out of hand.
Again, there are people with more 'elastic' and flexible approaches on both sides, as well as those whose positions are so deeply entrenched as to make meaningful dialogue difficult.
The Nicene Creed is an amplification of what is known as the Apostles' Creed.
There shouldn't be anything in it which would disturb the Orthodox.
But the Nicene Creed includes the filioque whereas the Apostles' Creed does not.
The Nicene Creed includes no such thing. An unauthorized derivative of that creed, falsely calling itself by the same name, contains the filioque. The creed approved at the Council of Nicea, the only creed deserving the name of "Nicene Creed," does not.
And why I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with any of that, @Barnabas62 and @Lamb Chopped.
You'll both have your own particular convictions that you hold strongly. Those who have read your posts over the years will have an idea what those are. Holding to those convictions doesn't betoken a lack of humility on your part any more than people holding different convictions necessarily implies a lack of humility on theirs.
Of course, any conviction or position can be held in an inflexible or brittle way. Nobody is denying that either.
And I agree with that too. My point was different. The more important issues of the law are justice, mercy and faith. As Lamb Chopped says, humility about the correctness of our own views on faith seems to me to be an essential aid to maintaining the necessary focus on justice and mercy.
Do I find this kind of discussion a waste of time? By no means. I do fear that they can becoming polarising about our differences rather than helping us to look at common ground.
There is so much polarising these days. It seems to be the Zeitgeist. I hope to find ways of moving away from its destructive tendencies.
And why I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with any of that, @Barnabas62 and @Lamb Chopped.
You'll both have your own particular convictions that you hold strongly. Those who have read your posts over the years will have an idea what those are. Holding to those convictions doesn't betoken a lack of humility on your part any more than people holding different convictions necessarily implies a lack of humility on theirs.
Of course, any conviction or position can be held in an inflexible or brittle way. Nobody is denying that either.
And I agree with that too. My point was different. The more important issues of the law are justice, mercy and faith. As Lamb Chopped says, humility about the correctness of our own views on faith seems to me to be an essential aid to maintaining the necessary focus on justice and mercy.
Do I find this kind of discussion a waste of time? By no means. I do fear that they can becoming polarising about our differences rather than helping us to look at common ground.
There is so much polarising these days. It seems to be the Zeitgeist. I hope to find ways of moving away from its destructive tendencies.
For me also finding common ground is important. I see the historical filioque controversy simply as looking at the same thing in two different ways or from two different perspectives.
It is a bit like an incident I mentioned recently. A friend and I were looking at an object which was a clock and a musical box as well as a representation of the grotto of Lourdes . For my friend it was a very dear keepsake which reminded him of his grandmother. For me it was an object which recalled visits to Lourdes .It was the same object we were looking at.
There is an other difference in the form of the Nicene Creed which ,in a way, divides East and West. I may be wrong but I understand that Eastern Christians will begin the Creed by saying 'We believe.........' whereas Western Christians begin by saying 'I believe.......'
When the Roman Mass was formally translated into various languages after Vatican 2 it was decided to start with 'We believe..........' Not too long after this it was decided to go back to 'I believe.......' Centuries long saying or singing 'Credo in unum Deum.....' won over 'Credimus in unum Deum....'
If this is correct the Eastern rites emphasise the community nature of belief whilst the Western rites emphasise the importance of our individual assent within the community but essentially they both say the same thing.
As far as the Apostles' Creed is concerned I wasn't too surprised when @Alan29 said that members of his parish did not know it. It used to be very commonly used in RC circles and would often be used in vernacular forms when the priest would say the Nicene Creed in Latin. Of course that was 60 years ago and many of the RC popular vernacular devotions have dropped out of use and congregations are almost always using the Nicene Creed as the statement of belief. Nevertheless virtually every Mass book will have the Apostles' Creed printed beside the Nicene Creed and it is directed to be used at baptisms and at Easter liturgies.
The only thing mentioned in the Apostles' Creed which does not appear in more ample form in the Nicene Creed is the statement ' (I believe in) the Communion of the Saints'
I think that the Orthodox understanding of these words is much the same as the Catholic.
As far as the Apostles' Creed is concerned I wasn't too surprised when @Alan29 said that members of his parish did not know it.
I'd say that all of our TEC parish know that it exists (we use it in interrogative form at baptisms), but roughly nobody knows it by heart. Except for a small group of the parish children, who learn it as part of the earn-a-Bible program, and then promptly forget it.
And why I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with any of that, @Barnabas62 and @Lamb Chopped.
You'll both have your own particular convictions that you hold strongly. Those who have read your posts over the years will have an idea what those are. Holding to those convictions doesn't betoken a lack of humility on your part any more than people holding different convictions necessarily implies a lack of humility on theirs.
Of course, any conviction or position can be held in an inflexible or brittle way. Nobody is denying that either.
And I agree with that too. My point was different. The more important issues of the law are justice, mercy and faith. As Lamb Chopped says, humility about the correctness of our own views on faith seems to me to be an essential aid to maintaining the necessary focus on justice and mercy.
Do I find this kind of discussion a waste of time? By no means. I do fear that they can becoming polarising about our differences rather than helping us to look at common ground.
There is so much polarising these days. It seems to be the Zeitgeist. I hope to find ways of moving away from its destructive tendencies.
I love this post.
Sure, and I'm not disagreeing with it either.
I agree that we need to find ways of moving away from polarisation but that doesn't mean we all have to agree on absolutely everything.
When I was involved in local politics, I used to say that the trick was to find ways of working with people you disagreed with. Otherwise nothing got done.
@ChastMastr, I'm in touch with Fr Gregory and see him fairly regularly. Now that's an interesting point insofar as we are very different in terms of personalities and approach to things but we've learned to get along very well.
There is an other difference in the form of the Nicene Creed which ,in a way, divides East and West. I may be wrong but I understand that Eastern Christians will begin the Creed by saying 'We believe.........' whereas Western Christians begin by saying 'I believe.......'
Some Western Christians begin with “I believe . . . ,” but not all. In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), it’s “We believe . . . .” It’s also “We believe . . .” in the (American) Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
As far as the Apostles' Creed is concerned I wasn't too surprised when @Alan29 said that members of his parish did not know it.
I'd say that all of our TEC parish know that it exists (we use it in interrogative form at baptisms), but roughly nobody knows it by heart. Except for a small group of the parish children, who learn it as part of the earn-a-Bible program, and then promptly forget it.
I hate hate hate the interrogative form used at baptisms that has become current over the last 25 years. It replaces the previously used expression of personal faith: "Do you believe and trust in God the Father?" - "I believe and trust in him!" with the Creed emphasising doctrinal orthodoxy: "Do you believe and trust in God the Father?" - "Well, I believe in him"....
As far as the Apostles' Creed is concerned I wasn't too surprised when @Alan29 said that members of his parish did not know it.
I'd say that all of our TEC parish know that it exists (we use it in interrogative form at baptisms), but roughly nobody knows it by heart. Except for a small group of the parish children, who learn it as part of the earn-a-Bible program, and then promptly forget it.
While Presbyterians, at least in my experience, are much more likely to know the Apostles’ Creed by heart than they are the Nicene Creed.
As far as the Apostles' Creed is concerned I wasn't too surprised when @Alan29 said that members of his parish did not know it.
I'd say that all of our TEC parish know that it exists (we use it in interrogative form at baptisms), but roughly nobody knows it by heart. Except for a small group of the parish children, who learn it as part of the earn-a-Bible program, and then promptly forget it.
While Presbyterians, at least in my experience, are much more likely to know the Apostles’ Creed by heart than they are the Nicene Creed.
That was my experience growing up in PCUSA. I still have to read the Nicene from the bulletin when we recite at our piskie church. I think we might've brought it up during confirmation, but that was it growing up. I mostly know it from discussing it a lot in seminary.
@Nick Tamen Thanks for info about 'We believe.......' in the Presbyterian Church USA. What would you begin with in the Apostles' Creed 'I believe....' or 'We believe.........' ?
@Nick Tamen Thanks for info about 'We believe.......' in the Presbyterian Church USA. What would you begin with in the Apostles' Creed 'I believe....' or 'We believe.........' ?
“I believe . . . .” As the Apostles’ Creed is in origin and in current practice, related to baptism, it has, so far as I know, never been “We believe . . . .”
And why I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with any of that, @Barnabas62 and @Lamb Chopped.
You'll both have your own particular convictions that you hold strongly. Those who have read your posts over the years will have an idea what those are. Holding to those convictions doesn't betoken a lack of humility on your part any more than people holding different convictions necessarily implies a lack of humility on theirs.
Of course, any conviction or position can be held in an inflexible or brittle way. Nobody is denying that either.
And I agree with that too. My point was different. The more important issues of the law are justice, mercy and faith. As Lamb Chopped says, humility about the correctness of our own views on faith seems to me to be an essential aid to maintaining the necessary focus on justice and mercy.
Do I find this kind of discussion a waste of time? By no means. I do fear that they can becoming polarising about our differences rather than helping us to look at common ground.
There is so much polarising these days. It seems to be the Zeitgeist. I hope to find ways of moving away from its destructive tendencies.
Trying to be moderate, or even build bridges, or find compromises, or even (as @Martin54 has occasionally mentioned (hi Martin!)) using Rogerian methods to do so, may currently be the most radical thing of all… ❤️
Given that both the personal and corporate elements of faith are important is it liturgical proper or possible to alternate "I believe " and "we believe" week by week?
I hate hate hate the interrogative form used at baptisms that has become current over the last 25 years. It replaces the previously used expression of personal faith: "Do you believe and trust in God the Father?" - "I believe and trust in him!" with the Creed emphasising doctrinal orthodoxy: "Do you believe and trust in God the Father?" - "Well, I believe in him"....
Well, OK, but in the Baptism, this profession of faith immediately follows the candidate promising to turn to Jesus Christ, accept Him as their savior, and put their whole trust in His grace and love.
The odd thing about compromise is that Jesus didn’t compromise about self-righteousness and indifference. I’m OK with that.
Agreed, but I’m talking about the many cases in which it’s not about total good vs. evil. This was in response to @Barnabas62 talking about recent polarization in general.
The odd thing about compromise is that Jesus didn’t compromise about self-righteousness and indifference. I’m OK with that.
Agreed, but I’m talking about the many cases in which it’s not about total good vs. evil. This was in response to @Barnabas62 talking about recent polarization in general.
I know, being me! I just didn’t want to create a post which was 95% quotes of other posts. Given future developments, creeds and controversies about them, there’s a certain irony that the Synoptics show Jesus being much more concerned to criticise unfeeling and unsympathetic behaviour than inaccurate beliefs.
I digress again, but I was impressed from the funeral that Jimmy Carter’s touchstone scripture was about acting justly, loving mercy and walking humbly (acknowledgments to Lamb Chopped yet again). I have no idea what Jimmy Carter knew about the finer points of Trinitarian theology but he sure knew a lot about walking the walk.
It's been a while, and other Orthodoxen may correct me, but I believe when the baptism ceremony gets to the creed, the congregation faces east and all say the creed together.
@Barnabas62, by a country mile. The only orthodoxy is love.
What’s interesting to me about that is this. I heard on this forum (possibly from Father Gregory) this interesting take on love. Apparently, a kind of Orthodox thought experiment.
“If all of scripture was irrecoverably lost apart from the single phrase “God is love” then the essence of Christian belief could be recovered on the strength of that single phrase”. Or words to that effect. I think we were discussing sola scriptura at the time. Very amicably. We agreed on a lot. I think he thought my self-labelling as evangelical was misleading. He was probably right!
(And Martin, this isn’t a temptation to you to incorporate other issues well rehearsed elsewhere and get yourself into more hot water. I really don’t want that!)
Comments
https://www.catholic.com/tract/filioque#:~:text=The Western Church commonly uses,Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Aye. Jesus' words are analogous to eternity? If he were (arcanely, fundamentalistically, incoherently) God the Son, he c/w/ould have staked a claim?
Is the “fundamentalistically, incoherently” really necessary in this topic, @Martin54?
Apart from that, staked a claim to what?
Aye. This is Purgatory.
To proceed. pass on, the HS on down from the Father.
Interesting, and yes, this is pretty much the RC position as I understand it. There are, of course, differing versions of what happened after the Council of Florence.
This piece insists that the Orthodox caved in to Islamic pressure. The Orthodox would tend to claim that their bishops were manoeuvred into accepting a 'Western' position which they then dropped when they got home and faced the music from their faithful congregations.
Whatever the case, I'm more than happy to accept that there were a range of views and ways of expressing these things before the Schism and that there is certainly room for discussion and debate, hopefully with a view to resolution rather than for one side or the other to blink first or engage in power-politics or theological arm wrestling.
One can only hope.
Lord have mercy!
Indeed. Might I express that I'm addressing how God would coherently exist? That non filioque is more coherent, fits the claims of Jesus. but not the claims about him?
Which paradoxically places you farther from the Orthodox, as that creed was never blessed by an ecumenical council and has never been used in the East.
Our priest used it one Sunday, but nobody knew it so it never happened again.
There shouldn't be anything in it which would disturb the Orthodox.
But the Nicene Creed includes the filioque whereas the Apostles' Creed does not.
In the RC Church the Apostles' Creed is the one which baptismal candidates have to agree to before baptism.
Sorry not to make clear what the word 'it' represented. 'it' is the Apostles' Creed
I can only speak for myself but I've recited the Apostles' Creed when visiting Anglican churches since I became Orthodox, and the Nicene Creed too (but I omit the filioque clause). But then, I used to omit it before I became Orthodox.
You will find Hyperdox zealots who wouldn't even dream of attending 'heterodox' services and there are am increasing number of swivel-eyed anti-ecumenical You Tubers, I'm afraid. I avoid them.
So, unless I'm terribly mistaken, I don't think the Orthodox would find anything to 'offend' in the Apostles' Creed it's just not one they've used.
We don't use the Athanasian Creed either.
So the Ecumenical creeds aren't really very Ecumenical?
But all the churches that grant the Apostles’ Creed and the Athenasian Creed some sort of official or liturgical standing are Western churches, Roman Catholic or Protestant. Neither have ever been used by the Eastern churches. (The Apostles’ Creed has its roots in the baptismal profession of faith used by the church in Rome.)
The only creed that has standing in both East and West is the Nicene Creed; and the West’s insertion of the filioque impairs the full ecumenicity that Creed otherwise has.
What difference does this difference in belief make to our behaviour and actions? Does it make us more, or less, likely to behave as well as a Samaritan ‘heretic’? Does it help us in loving our neighbour? If so, how?
The Nicene Creed was.
(Sorry, I began cross-posting with @Nick Tamen.)
Didn't you read the small print in the posts above, that the Apostles' Creed was never ratified by an Ecumenical Council? 😉
Therefore it isn't an Ecumenical Creed even though pretty much everybody would agree with it.
Which raises the issue of how many Ecumenical Councils have there been?
The Eastern Orthodox recognise seven - or should that be Seven given our propensity for capitalisation? 😉
The RCs recognise 21.
The non-Chalcedonian 'Oriental Orthodox' - Copts, Armenians etc - recognise the first three. There are some ancient Churches that only recognise the first two.
Protestants, who vary considerably in terms of how 'creedal' they are, would by and large recognise the first four or five.
We've a long way to go if we are going to be E/ecumenical in creedal terms, folks.
Which isn't to say we can't find common ground and grace wherever it may be found.
No, I don't think that's a hand-grenade at all.
I don't think any but the most hardened polemicists would claim that the moral behaviour of those who either eschew the filioque clause or happily include it is either enhanced or compromised by where they stand on this one.
But 'right belief' should be accompanied by 'right action.'
Orthodoxy should go hand in hand with orthopraxy.
Nobody is saying that 'Samaritans' or Copts or RCs or Orthodox or Anglicans or Presbyterians or Pentecostals, Salvationists or whoever else have a monopoly on 'right action' or otherwise. Heck, nobody is saying that Christian believers of whatever stripe have a monopoly on good or moral behaviour. Atheists and agnostics can be 'Good Samaritans' just as much as people of faith be they Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or whatever else. Very often more so.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss or debate these things.
I've got a particular position on this issue but it doesn't mean I'm saying that @Nick Tamen or @Forthview or @Alan29 or whoever else on this thread who takes a different line are somehow less likely to 'love their neighbour as themselves' than I am.
There'll be things you hold to, @Barnabas62 which you deem important. That doesn’t necessarily imply you think any less of people who think differently.
As far as the OP goes, whilst I fully accept that there are different ways of understanding the filioque clause - and I've said that throughout even though I've nailed my own colours to the mast, I'm inclined to avoid using it. That doesn't mean I think those who use it are worse Christians or worse human beings than I am.
So it seems to me to be a matter of Christian priorities to be more concerned with compassion than correctness. Oh, I understand the historical reasons behind the ecumenical councils and the need to produce some belief boundaries. These have proved to be of value. Despite the fact that we argue about the extent and meaning of these boundaries.
I suppose it seems strange to hear these arguments from a nonconformist! But I feel in my bones the truth of Jesus’ observation that we are sometimes like children calling to one another. And ignoring the thought that wisdom is judged by consequential actions.
You'll both have your own particular convictions that you hold strongly. Those who have read your posts over the years will have an idea what those are. Holding to those convictions doesn't betoken a lack of humility on your part any more than people holding different convictions necessarily implies a lack of humility on theirs.
Of course, any conviction or position can be held in an inflexible or brittle way. Nobody is denying that either.
Meanwhile, FWIW I once asked Fr Gregory who used to post on these boards and who can certainly be polemical at times, whether he felt that different understandings or emphases between 'Eastern' and 'Western' positions on the Trinity meant that there was some kind of deficiency in practice on the 'Western' side as it were.
He obviously upheld the Orthodox view but firmly believed that Western Christians' experience was thoroughly Trinitarian.
Ok, so there will be those who object that they don't know what we mean by 'experience' of God, but let's run with this for a while.
It seems to me that the primary points of contention between the Orthodox and the RCC (we'll come onto Protestantism in a moment), boil down to three particular issues:
1) The role and authority of the Papacy.
2) The filioque clause (which is connected to 1) to a large extent.
3) Issues over 'hesychasm' and understandings of the divine 'essence/energies' - which arose in the 14th century. The Orthodox tend to think that the RCC went too 'Scholastic' in the late medieval period and handed this gene down to the Reformers in subsequent centuries.
On both sides there are those with a more 'elastic' and accommodating approach but dialogue and attempts at complementarity or compromise are sl-o-o-ow.
As far as the differences between the Orthodox and Protestants, goes, they are largely similar. We tend to see RCs and Protestants as two sides of the same coin - but that's by the by.
For 1) substitute individual illumination or opinion over the Papacy/Magisterium or Holy Tradition. I told you we were fond of capitalisation.
Before anyone goes all 'sola scriptura' here, we tend not to see that as a logical position as it doesn't actually exist. You can't have 'sola scriptura' as scripture doesn't exist in isolation or a vacuum. But yes, we do recognise that 'sola scriptura' does not imply 'solo scriptura' and that it is a more nuanced position than it is often portrayed.
Beyond that, the sheer diversity within Protestantism makes it harder to pin down differences or similarities and overlaps beyond the common consensus 'Mere Christianity' level. If we do want to do that then it has to be on a case by case level as it were.
Other than the real anti-ecumenical hot-heads, many of us, I think, would acknowledge the creativity and energy that Protestant diversity brings, whilst noting its capacity and tendency to bring fissaporousness and division in its wake.
It's intrigued me for some time now that neither RCs nor Orthodox despise nor dismiss the Protestant emphasis on personal faith. Far from it. Other than absolute inflexible types, I've not come across RCs or Orthodox who would dismiss Protestant conversion narratives or 'testimonies' (to use evangelical parlance) out of hand.
Again, there are people with more 'elastic' and flexible approaches on both sides, as well as those whose positions are so deeply entrenched as to make meaningful dialogue difficult.
I'm rambling but there we go.
The Nicene Creed includes no such thing. An unauthorized derivative of that creed, falsely calling itself by the same name, contains the filioque. The creed approved at the Council of Nicea, the only creed deserving the name of "Nicene Creed," does not.
Just to be clear. Are you talking about the original Nicene Creed (325AD)?
And I agree with that too. My point was different. The more important issues of the law are justice, mercy and faith. As Lamb Chopped says, humility about the correctness of our own views on faith seems to me to be an essential aid to maintaining the necessary focus on justice and mercy.
Do I find this kind of discussion a waste of time? By no means. I do fear that they can becoming polarising about our differences rather than helping us to look at common ground.
There is so much polarising these days. It seems to be the Zeitgeist. I hope to find ways of moving away from its destructive tendencies.
I love this post.
It is a bit like an incident I mentioned recently. A friend and I were looking at an object which was a clock and a musical box as well as a representation of the grotto of Lourdes . For my friend it was a very dear keepsake which reminded him of his grandmother. For me it was an object which recalled visits to Lourdes .It was the same object we were looking at.
There is an other difference in the form of the Nicene Creed which ,in a way, divides East and West. I may be wrong but I understand that Eastern Christians will begin the Creed by saying 'We believe.........' whereas Western Christians begin by saying 'I believe.......'
When the Roman Mass was formally translated into various languages after Vatican 2 it was decided to start with 'We believe..........' Not too long after this it was decided to go back to 'I believe.......' Centuries long saying or singing 'Credo in unum Deum.....' won over 'Credimus in unum Deum....'
If this is correct the Eastern rites emphasise the community nature of belief whilst the Western rites emphasise the importance of our individual assent within the community but essentially they both say the same thing.
As far as the Apostles' Creed is concerned I wasn't too surprised when @Alan29 said that members of his parish did not know it. It used to be very commonly used in RC circles and would often be used in vernacular forms when the priest would say the Nicene Creed in Latin. Of course that was 60 years ago and many of the RC popular vernacular devotions have dropped out of use and congregations are almost always using the Nicene Creed as the statement of belief. Nevertheless virtually every Mass book will have the Apostles' Creed printed beside the Nicene Creed and it is directed to be used at baptisms and at Easter liturgies.
The only thing mentioned in the Apostles' Creed which does not appear in more ample form in the Nicene Creed is the statement ' (I believe in) the Communion of the Saints'
I think that the Orthodox understanding of these words is much the same as the Catholic.
I'd say that all of our TEC parish know that it exists (we use it in interrogative form at baptisms), but roughly nobody knows it by heart. Except for a small group of the parish children, who learn it as part of the earn-a-Bible program, and then promptly forget it.
Sure, and I'm not disagreeing with it either.
I agree that we need to find ways of moving away from polarisation but that doesn't mean we all have to agree on absolutely everything.
When I was involved in local politics, I used to say that the trick was to find ways of working with people you disagreed with. Otherwise nothing got done.
@ChastMastr, I'm in touch with Fr Gregory and see him fairly regularly. Now that's an interesting point insofar as we are very different in terms of personalities and approach to things but we've learned to get along very well.
I hate hate hate the interrogative form used at baptisms that has become current over the last 25 years. It replaces the previously used expression of personal faith: "Do you believe and trust in God the Father?" - "I believe and trust in him!" with the Creed emphasising doctrinal orthodoxy: "Do you believe and trust in God the Father?" - "Well, I believe in him"....
That was my experience growing up in PCUSA. I still have to read the Nicene from the bulletin when we recite at our piskie church. I think we might've brought it up during confirmation, but that was it growing up. I mostly know it from discussing it a lot in seminary.
Trying to be moderate, or even build bridges, or find compromises, or even (as @Martin54 has occasionally mentioned (hi Martin!)) using Rogerian methods to do so, may currently be the most radical thing of all… ❤️
Do you believe in God?
I believe in God the Father, Maker of Heaven and Earth…
Etc.?
Well, OK, but in the Baptism, this profession of faith immediately follows the candidate promising to turn to Jesus Christ, accept Him as their savior, and put their whole trust in His grace and love.
The odd thing about compromise is that Jesus didn’t compromise about self-righteousness and indifference. I’m OK with that.
Agreed, but I’m talking about the many cases in which it’s not about total good vs. evil. This was in response to @Barnabas62 talking about recent polarization in general.
I know, being me! I just didn’t want to create a post which was 95% quotes of other posts. Given future developments, creeds and controversies about them, there’s a certain irony that the Synoptics show Jesus being much more concerned to criticise unfeeling and unsympathetic behaviour than inaccurate beliefs.
I digress again, but I was impressed from the funeral that Jimmy Carter’s touchstone scripture was about acting justly, loving mercy and walking humbly (acknowledgments to Lamb Chopped yet again). I have no idea what Jimmy Carter knew about the finer points of Trinitarian theology but he sure knew a lot about walking the walk.
I'm talking about the unadulterated Nicene/Constantinopolitan creed that was agreed upon by both the Catholic and the Orthodox.
“If all of scripture was irrecoverably lost apart from the single phrase “God is love” then the essence of Christian belief could be recovered on the strength of that single phrase”. Or words to that effect. I think we were discussing sola scriptura at the time. Very amicably. We agreed on a lot. I think he thought my self-labelling as evangelical was misleading. He was probably right!
(And Martin, this isn’t a temptation to you to incorporate other issues well rehearsed elsewhere and get yourself into more hot water. I really don’t want that!)