Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

    Significant developments on the path to Christian unity, as Pope Francis meets the Coptic Pope Tawadros II, and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, during his official visit to Cairo. In particular, the Catholic and Coptic Churches have agreed to recognise their respective baptism rites, come to textual agreement on the Lord's Prayer, and move towards the synchronisation of Easter. Of course, the great ecumenical counterfactual arose in the Council of Florence, but despite formulaic compromise on the Filioque, the hoi polloi of Constantinople rejected the proposed Orthodox-Catholic union, and the potential implications for Eastern Europe were lost. Could there yet be a rapprochement between Eastern Christendom?

    #2
    If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

    I think the answer is seven. Is it seven?

    Comment


      #3
      If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

      Trying desperately to ignore the ludicrous way this question has been phrased...

      Why would, say, the orthodox Church want to be closer to the roman Catholic Church? I don't see what's in it for them. Or for that matter the other way round. What does anyone gain from a recognition of each other's communion or what have you? Genuine question. I honestly don't get it

      Comment


        #4
        If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

        It's either hoi polloi or the polloi. Otherwise you are saying the the many.

        Comment


          #5
          If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

          ad hoc wrote:
          Why would, say, the orthodox Church want to be closer to the roman Catholic Church? I don't see what's in it for them. Or for that matter the other way round. What does anyone gain from a recognition of each other's communion or what have you? Genuine question. I honestly don't get it
          A united front against a common enemy?

          The Great Schism was more than just the filioque. The East felt they were the true heirs to Rome and didn't like anyone else telling them what to do. Despite the growth of Islam and the loss of Palestine, there was no real danger that Byzantium could fall. It was still the major power in the region.

          Comment


            #6
            If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

            Who's the common enemy? Satan?

            Comment


              #7
              If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

              I imagine DR isn't being entirely serious. I hope not anyway, though discussions about textual agreement on the Lord's Prayer, and the synchronisation of Easter are along overdue.

              I once saw a Scottish band called Oi Polloi and the lead singer called John Major a 'cunt' and declared that if the Prime Minister were to show up at one of their gigs, he would 'get his heed kicked in'.

              Certainly food for thought.

              Comment


                #8
                If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

                Diable Rouge wrote: Significant developments on the path to Christian unity, as Pope Francis meets the Coptic Pope Tawadros II, and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, during his official visit to Cairo. In particular, the Catholic and Coptic Churches have agreed to recognise their respective baptism rites, come to textual agreement on the Lord's Prayer, and move towards the synchronisation of Easter. Of course, the great ecumenical counterfactual arose in the Council of Florence, but despite formulaic compromise on the Filioque, the hoi polloi of Constantinople rejected the proposed Orthodox-Catholic union, and the potential implications for Eastern Europe were lost. Could there yet be a rapprochement between Eastern Christendom?
                That would be an ecumenical matter

                Comment


                  #9
                  If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

                  Diable Rouge wrote: Significant developments on the path to Christian unity, as Pope Francis meets the Coptic Pope Tawadros II, and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, during his official visit to Cairo. In particular, the Catholic and Coptic Churches have agreed to recognise their respective baptism rites, come to textual agreement on the Lord's Prayer, and move towards the synchronisation of Easter. Of course, the great ecumenical counterfactual arose in the Council of Florence, but despite formulaic compromise on the Filioque, the hoi polloi of Constantinople rejected the proposed Orthodox-Catholic union, and the potential implications for Eastern Europe were lost. Could there yet be a rapprochement between Eastern Christendom?
                  Well the Council of Florence as far as I remember was pretty humiliating in its terms for the Orthodox Church in return for Latin support against the Turks. Can hardly blame folk for not wanting to touch it (and prob the West would have abandoned the Byzantines anyways come the Turk's big push).

                  Comment


                    #10
                    If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

                    ad hoc wrote: Who's the common enemy? Satan?
                    More likely atheist progressive secularism which is far more effective at stopping people from attending church than Satan has ever been.

                    And also, given where the Coptic Church and a good tranche of the Orthodox church operate, fundamentalist Islam. Although whether the Roman Church has much political influence over Western foreign policy is hard to say.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

                      Aren't children of the book simply children of the book? Seems to me if you differentiate yourself from some other group of people who broadly believe exactly the same thing you do, then you must want to be differentiated.

                      Wasn't half the reason for the schism between orthodox christianity and Rome the fact that orthodoxers used bread in the communion, and Rome didn't like that because you could drop crumbs of Jesus on the floor?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        If it wasn't for the Filioque ...

                        There were lots of reasons for the schism(s), but yes, that was one of them.

                        Roman Catholics (and, I'd say, North American Christians in general) have never been that big on the "children of the book" concept, notwithstanding its validity. A lot of that is due to the very sense of wanting to differentiate oneself that you cite.

                        That said, I don't see any reason not to welcome this kind of ecumenical outreach, and there are practical issues (including shared custody of certain sites) that would benefit from more frequent contact.

                        I honestly don't think that Francesco believes he has any chance of converting the Eastern Churches to his point of view (though he might have better luck than he is having with the wingnuts in his own church).

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X