I’m watching the PCUSA General Assembly this evening, and my jaw dropped when I heard a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, bringing ecumenical greetings, taking the Assembly to task for its actions regarding homosexuality, which he said looked to him to be at attempt at creating a new religion, “a modern form of paganism.” (He also indicated his disappointment that the assembly worship that used the Nicene Creed included the filioque.) I tuned in too late to hear who the gentlemen was (though he did refer to being from Belarus), but I can’t say enough about his forthrightness in bearding the lion in its own den.
UPDATE: Perry Robinson at Energetic Procession provides the missing information:
The Priest in question seems to be the Very Reverend Siarhei Hardun from the Orthodox Church of Belarus.
UPDATE: My mistake. It was Jeff Smith who actually provided the information; Perry provided the quote. 
July 8, 2010 at 8:15 pm
I laughed out loud at the “and the Son” objection.
July 8, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Seriosuly. Like “filioque” is the top of the problem.
July 8, 2010 at 8:35 pm
To the Orthodox, it’s a significant problem. It was hardly the one that he focused on.
July 8, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Agreed – it was just a drive by … but it still cracked me up.
July 8, 2010 at 8:59 pm
The Priest who offered the Ecumenical Greeting was The Very Reverend Siarhei Hardun from the Orthodox Church of Belarus
July 8, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Thanks Jeff – I also missed his introduction.
July 8, 2010 at 10:55 pm
highlight of the evening!
July 9, 2010 at 8:53 am
Thanks for the information, Jeff.
July 9, 2010 at 10:07 am
Axios!
A false view of the Trinity is a serious problem, which the Filioque entails, at least as far as the Orthodox are concerned.
July 9, 2010 at 10:20 am
[...] Over at the PCUSA General Assembly recently, an ample demonstration of genuine Orthodox ecumenism was given. I’m watching the [...]
July 9, 2010 at 10:58 am
Perry –
In this case, I would agree with you. While I have no personal stake in the Filioque controversy — I am not sure that scripture really supports either argument; I think perhaps it is a mystery — the Orthodox were willing to split with Rome over it. Though there is a lot more to the Great Schism than the Filioque, if you’re Orthodox, issues like the Filioque naturally lead to other issues of heterodoxy such as the PC(USA) attempts from time to time to embrace.
July 9, 2010 at 11:24 am
Jason,
Well Scripture supports the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is nothing in Scripture that says the eternal person of the Spirit is generated from the Father and the Son. And that is what the Filioque says.
As to the facts, We did not split with Rome over it. The council of 879 settled it and Rome accepted it for 120 years, until the Franks co-opted the papal throne and renounced the council of 879. Hence Rome broke with the East by renouncing the council of union in 879.
July 9, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Perry –
I will leave the details to you. My point was that this IS an issue to the Orthodox, and not a minor one (as you have shown). Not mentioning it when the ecumenical guest was asked to participate in the Nicene Creed would have made little sense…rather like most Protestants would have problems saying a rosary, even in an ecumenical setting.
July 9, 2010 at 2:10 pm
I’m not saying Filioque is not important or serious. I’m not criticizing the speaker for mentioning it.
It just struck me as odd – in the sense that that debate is so far removed from what is even on PC(USA) radar.
It was kind of jarring.
July 9, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Actually Jeff Smith did the leg work. See cmment #5 in this thread.
July 9, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Thanks, Perry, for the correction.
July 9, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Is there a way to see the video?
July 9, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I haven’t seen it posted anywhere. If I do, I’ll definitely provide a link.
July 10, 2010 at 3:21 pm
http://mediasuite.316networks.com/player.php?v=m20ywkm1
July 12, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Hi,
Here’s a short explanation of the filioque from the Orthodox perspective.
It’s from an online dogmatic theology by the John Zizioulas Metropolitan of Pergamum
http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/G3.htm
July 12, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Axios indeed!
The monarchy of the Father is not something the average lay person might be worrying about – if it weren’t for the morass of heresy that is modern Christianity. In any case, the whole talk was jarring – and welcome.
July 13, 2010 at 10:55 am
Man, the video was AWESOME.
July 15, 2010 at 9:54 pm
I am coming very late to this conversation so perhaps no one will see it-but my husband and I sat across the table from “The Very Reverend Siarhei Hardun” the next morning at breakfast. He explained to us that gays and lesbians are welcome at their churches but not at the communion table. Also funny on the other side of us was a Catholic Priest, I don’t remember his title, but we suggested he give the same kind of greeting to the GA as his Russian Orthodox brother. He didn’t but he did not approve of the actions of the GA.
July 15, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Viola Larson,
The Orthodox practice closed communion in general. Neither Protestants, nor Catholics are permitted to partake. And only Orthodox Christians who have prepared themselves may present themselves to partake.
August 30, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Historically, the original Nicene Creed never ever had the “filoque” revision. The words of the Nicene Creed were put to print by the WHOLE (Easter/Western)Church.
Sadly, the church of Spain INVENTED additonal words that were not accepted by the whole church and not even accepted by the ruleing bishop of Rome.
Any one who has studied the roots of Early Christianity knows well that His Apostolic Church was EXCLUSIVE not INCLUSIVE to the Eucharist.
Even those in study (catechumens) to Christian beliefs had to physically depart from the Liturgy when communion was offered.
Very easy, it’s either a person respects the historical Christian roots of the faith OR denies, deletes, distorts it via revisionism.