Father Athanasios,
Evlogeite. I read the link you provided, and now I am even more concerned than before, and I know you must be too.
I will select the following excerpts for our discussion purposes -
\" that our Churches commit themselves to a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit, drawing on the Holy Scriptures and on the full riches of the theological traditions of both our Churches, and to looking for constructive ways of expressing what is central to our faith on this difficult issue;\"
Time out!
Why are we discussing what has already been discussed? The decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are final, correct? At some point in time (i.e. 809 A.D.) the Roman Pope agreed with these Councils, correct? Even the historical outline on the SCOBA site affirms that the 381 A.D. Creed has been consistently re-affirmed by the Orthodox side over the past 1000 years. How many more times do we need to discuss this? What does the phrase \"a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit\" mean?
And what about this comment -
\" that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;\"
Huh? \"full and final ecumenical resolution\"? What\'s that supposed to mean?
To me, the Creed of 381 AD is VERY clear on the origin and person of the Holy Spirit, as well as it must have been clear to those who approved it in that Ecumenical Council. Church Fathers like St. Basil the Great wrote volumes on the Hypostasis theme. Did we forget St. Spyridon and the miracle of the brick? Why are we putting things that are clear on the negotiating table? Who on the Orthodox side is now trying to re-negotiate what the Church Fathers have already defined? Who is daring to doubt the final ecumenical resolution of the Creed of 381 A.D.? What\'s going on here?
This is beginning to sound like an Ottoman bazar, where you go to buy something, they take your money without giving you merchandise, then you agree to negotiate the price with collateral what you already own, and in the end of the negotiations you are left with no money and stripped of your belongings, and very fortunate if they don\'t do anything worse to you before you run away.
If a decision of an Ecumenical Council is final, then we can\'t be entering \"new and earnest discussions\" about things that have already been decided. This is dangerous policy and precedent. This type of policy has resulted in parallels such as the ludicrous Kofi Anan plan for Northern Cyprus, the Kosovo Disaster, the closing of the Halki Theological School so it can be used as a negotiating chip by the Turks for concessions such as access to the Greek Aegean Sea, and many other examples like this....yes, we\'ve already seen the results of what eventually happens when you agree to negotiate something that is non-negotiable.
My sense after reading the SCOBA website publication is that the Roman Catholic side has made a smoke-screen comment, saying \"yeah, the original Creed from the council of 381 is acceptable, but so is the other one, if we are to consider blah, blah, blah...\". Pure smoke-screen tactics, downplaying the importance of filioque in their view, by saying \"both are ok\", so that we THINK there is no issue with the filioque clause (just like our friend DREVYEV has already prematurely affirmed in his above comment). A future theoretical acceptance that BOTH the filioque and non-filioque versions are acceptable by the Orthodox side, would only leave the Primacy issue on the table as a major thorn, and that is more of a ecclesiastical than a dogmatic issue, which in turn would lead to natural and immediate pressures for a false Union. Yep, looks like we are entering a carefully orchestrated Ottoman Bazzar scenario.
I sense by the above SCOBA website selections that we may be in quite a bit of trouble, but thank God, I know that eventually another St. Markos Eugenikos will shine and pull us out of this challenge. It\'s no different today than the Florence Bazzar (Council) of 1439.
Giannis
Be the first person to like this.