Ancient Faith Radio: 3/31 #168 - Eastern Catholics - Are They “Orthodox”?

[Apotheoun]

And there would not have been a difference, at that time. But I think we can all admit that the West underwent a development in thinking at the turn of the millenium, that we normally call “scholasticism.” Following Aristotle, the West could conceive of levels of “cause.” Though Florence indeed uses the term “cause” in reference to the Son, it explicitly affirmed and distinguished that only the Father is the Source of the Trinity. This distinction may have been lost on some of the Greeks at Florence, particularly Mark of Ephesus.

Bottom line - the East experienced a development of thought on the matter; the West also experienced a development of thought on the matter. Both these developments are fully Orthodox and do not contradict the ancient Faith of the Fathers.

Our job is to discover that common ground of ancient Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Eastern Orthodox at Florence proposed use of the Letter of Maximos to Marinus as the means for settling the disagreement between the two sides in connection with the Spirit’s processiont, but this offer was rejected by the Latins because they no longer believed that the Father is the sole cause of the Son by generation and of the Spirit by procession. The Latins required that the Greeks confess causality within the Trinity as proper to the Son, and under pressure from the Emperor the majority of the Greek delegates reluctantly assented (St. Mark of course refused to assent to this heresy), and that is why the Greek version of the Florentine decree, which was composed by the Latins, asserts that the Son is a cause of the Spirit’s subsistence.

Needless to say, it was the Latins demand that the Greeks ascribe causality to the Son in the procession of origin of the Holy Spirit that led to the repudiation of the union decrees by the Eastern Orthodox Church within a few years after the bishops had returned from the Florentine latrocinium.

 

[Apotheoun]

Madaglan;7749240:

As to your claim of the changing Greek interpretation of the procession, when did the East suddenly change and understand ekporousis differently? St. Maximus the Confessor, when he wrote of the Latin filioque of his time, stated that the Latins do not believe the Son to be origin of the Holy Spirit–his statement indicating that not after the schism, but long before, the East understood ekporousis to mean origination of the Holy Spirit.

Whenever it was that the Easterns changed the emphasis of ekporeusis from consubstantiality to origination, it must have been after the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

The Eastern Orthodox never changed the meaning of ekporeusis from consubstantiality to origination; instead, ekporeusis always concerned origin from a source, while proeinai concerned movement (progression) within a consubstantial union of nature, and that is precisely what St. Maximos taught in his letter to Marinus. By the way, I am not saying anything all that shocked, because even Rome accepts that that is the case in its “Clarification on the Filioque.”

The pertinent section from Maximos’ letter to Marinus (with the Greek technical terms included):

“From this they * showed that they themselves do not make the Son the cause αἰτίαν] of the Spirit for they know that the Father is the one cause αἰτίαν] of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting γέννησιν] and the other by procession ἐκπόρευσιν], but they show the progression προϊέναι] through Him * and thus the unity of the essence οὐσίας].”**

 

[Apotheoun]

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visibile and invisible…
…
…
in the Holy Ghost, the Lord the Giver of Life, CONSUBSTANTIAL AND COETERNAL WITH THE SAME FATHER AND WITH THE SON…

It can’t get any clearer than that, brother. To repeat, the Fathers of Constantinople added the phrase “proceeds from the Father” to the Nicene Creed with the ORIGINAL intention of utilizing the connotation of consubstantiality (instead of origination), since the connotation of origination would have done nothing to refute the heresy of the Pneumatomachi.

I will address your other points as time permits.

Blessings,
Marduk

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial does not mean that the Spirit takes His origin from the Son. Once again you are asserting more than the affirmation of co-essentiality can support. The Father alone is the cause of the Son by generation, and He (i.e., the Father) alone is the cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis.

 

[Apotheoun]

And there would not have been a difference, at that time. But I think we can all admit that the West underwent a development in thinking at the turn of the millenium, that we normally call “scholasticism.” Following Aristotle, the West could conceive of levels of “cause.” Though Florence indeed uses the term “cause” in reference to the Son, it explicitly affirmed and distinguished that only the Father is the Source of the Trinity. This distinction may have been lost on some of the Greeks at Florence, particularly Mark of Ephesus.

Bottom line - the East experienced a development of thought on the matter; the West also experienced a development of thought on the matter. Both these developments are fully Orthodox and do not contradict the ancient Faith of the Fathers.

Our job is to discover that common ground of ancient Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

The cause of ecumenism would be greatly advanced if only the West would return to the teaching of St. Maximos on the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession from the Father alone as sole cause within the Godhead.

Sadly I doubt that you and I will agree on these issues, but such is life I suppose.

 

[Apotheoun]

My statement is proven not only by the fact that St. Maximos did not insist that the Latins stop reciting filioque, but also by the quotes I gave from the Ecumenical Councils. Pay particular attention to the quote from the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which occurred after the localized debate in which St. Maximos was involved.

You asserted that St. Maximos did not require the Latins of the 7th century, who ascribed no causal role to the Son in the Spirit’s procession, to stop reciting the filioque in the creed, but in his letter to Marinus St. Maximos is not talking about the recitation of the creed during the liturgy at all; instead, he is talking about a letter sent by the Pope to the Church of Constantinople. It is best not to ascribe a specific position to St. Maximos without sufficient evidence. Be that as it may, I agree that St. Maximos defended the Latin teaching of the 7th century, a teaching that refused - as I mentioned earlier - to give causal power to the Son in the procession of the Spirit, but the 15th century teaching of the Latins was something very different from what St. Maximos was familiar with. That said, St. Maximos’ defense of the earlier (i.e., the 7th century) Latin teaching does not apply to the later (i.e., the 15th century) teaching of the West, because by the time of Florence the Western Church was teaching that the Son is a cause of the Spirit’s procession, which is not what St. Maximos defended as acceptable in the 7th century.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Todd,

Your understanding of the meaning of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed is contrary to the Byzantine doctrinal tradition.

So you’re saying that the Byzantine doctrinal tradition is contrary to what the the Fourth and the Seventh Ecumenical Councils explicitly taught is the meaning of ekporeusai? I doubt it, but you should be more careful about your statements. The understanding I am proposing is not “contrary to” the Byzantine doctrinal tradition – only different.

The creed primarily concerns the persons of the Trinity, which is clear from the tri-fold structure of the creed itself,. Now in the case of the Son and the Spirit it also concerns their origin from the Father as the sole cause, principle, and source of divinity. Secondarily, and dependently upon the affirmed origin of the Son and Spirit from the Father alone, the creed also asserts explicitly in the case of the Son, and implicitly in the case of the Holy Spirit, that those two persons are consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, who is the sole font of divinity.

I understand your position, but that is not the primary meaning of ekporeusai that the Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Council affirmed, as demonstrated by the quotes I gave.

Communion between the Roman Church and the Orthodox East will never be restored as long as Western Catholics, and some misguided Eastern Catholics, continue to promote the filioque within the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.

Nobody here is promoting filioque in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. I’m only trying to promote understanding based on the Faith explicitly expressed by the Ecumencal Councils - to which you strangely seem to disagree.

The Eastern Orthodox at Florence proposed use of the Letter of Maximos to Marinus as the means for settling the disagreement between the two sides in connection with the Spirit’s processiont, but this offer was rejected by the Latins because they no longer believed that the Father is the sole cause of the Son by generation and of the Spirit by procession.

That’s hardly believable, especially since the Florentine Decree affirmed that only the Father is the SOURCE of the Son and Holy Spirit. The Latin Fathers equated St. Maximos’ ton aitan (“THE Cause”) with prokatarktikei aitia (which the Florentine Decree translates as “SOURCE”). More likely, it was only a matter of an attempt to forestall any potential misunderstanding when the Latins used “cause” to refer to the Son’s role in the ousia of the Spirit (note: NOT the hypostasis).

The Latins required that the Greeks confess causality within the Trinity as proper to the Son, and under pressure from the Emperor the majority of the Greek delegates reluctantly assented (St. Mark of course refused to assent to this heresy), and that is why the Greek version of the Florentine decree, which was composed by the Latins, asserts that the Son is a cause of the Spirit’s subsistence.

Your arguments have already been answered previously. The Latins did not use the term “cause” in reference to the Son as applying to the Hypostasis of the spirit, but rather with regards to His ousia. I’m surprised that you, as an Eastern, can’t distinguish between the two concepts of hypostasis and ousia. **This is evident from the fact that the Florentine Decree states very specifically that only the Father is the SOURCE of the Son and the Spirit. Btw, this is a fact that I have never heard or read of any Eastern address. Maybe you can provide a sufficient response that has been lacking in the EO rhetoric on the matter.

Needless to say, it was the Latins demand that the Greeks ascribe causality to the Son in the procession of origin of the Holy Spirit that led to the repudiation of the union decrees by the Eastern Orthodox Church within a few years after the bishops had returned from the Florentine latrocinium.

I can agree with that. As noted earlier, the distinction between “source” and “cause” does not seem to have registered to those who opposed the reunion.

The Eastern Orthodox never changed the meaning of ekporeusis

from consubstantiality to origination;
I never said they changed the meaning. I stated they changed the emphasis between two meanings that were inherent in the term ekporeusis.

instead, ekporeusis always concerned origin from a source,

“Always,” but not “only.” Ekporeusis also had the connotation of consubstantiality, which is the use that the Ecumenical Councils affirmed.

while proeinai

concerned movement (progression) within a consubstantial union of nature, and that is precisely what St. Maximos taught in his letter to Marinus.
Agreed, but he does not say anywhere that ekporeusis only refers to origination. In fact, by affirming in the first place that the Latins say “ekporeusis also from the Son” and then mentioning approvingly that the Latins use the phrase in the sense of proienai to affirm the consubstantiality of Essence, St. Maximos is admitting that the two terms are not mutually exclusive. The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils obviously did not believe that to be the case either.

CONTINUED**

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

By the way, I am not saying anything all that shocked, because even Rome accepts that that is the case in its “Clarification on the Filioque.”

So what’s the problem? It appears that you are having a hard time distinguishing ousia from hypostasis. You will probably assert that you don’t have any difficulty doing that. I would take your word for it, but that does not mean that, for some reason, you can’t - or are not willing to - apply that distinction on the matter of “cause.”

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial does not mean that the Spirit takes His origin from the Son.

The term “origin” is not equivalent to the term “cause,” so you are confusing the issue here.

Once again you are asserting more than the affirmation of co-essentiality can support. The Father alone is the cause of the Son by generation, and He (i.e., the Father) alone is the cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis.

More likely, you are simply having a hard time distinguishing ousia and hypostasis in the context of “cause.”

The cause of ecumenism would be greatly advanced if only the West would return to the teaching of St. Maximos on the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession from the Father alone as sole cause within the Godhead.

The cause of ecumenism would be advanced once EO, and EC’s such as yourself, recognize that the West does affirm St. Maximos’ teaching (as stated earlier, Florence simply equated St. Maximos’ ton aitan (“THE Cause”) with prokatarktikei aitia (translated as “SOURCE”), and utilizes the term “cause” only in reference to the ousia of the Holy Spirit, not His Hypostasis.

Sadly I doubt that you and I will agree on these issues, but such is life I suppose.

What we disagree on is your attempt to misrepresent the Latin Catholic teaching on the matter. To repeat - the Latins teach, and have always taught, that the Son is “cause” only insofar as the ousia of the Holy Spirit is concerned, and does not apply it to His hypostasis. The Latins do not teach that the Son is the origin (or Source) of the Holy Spirit (as you claimed earlier). “Origin” and “cause” are not equivalent terms in the Latin theological context.

You asserted that St. Maximos did not require the Latins of the 7th century, who ascribed no causal role to the Son in the Spirit’s procession, to stop reciting the filioque in the creed, but in his letter to Marinus St. Maximos is not talking about the recitation of the creed during the liturgy at all; instead, he is talking about a letter sent by the Pope to the Church of Constantinople.

I assumed that the letter utilized that phrase in the context of the Creed. Do we have the text of Pope St. Martin’s letter available? I haven’t been able to find it.

It is best not to ascribe a specific position to St. Maximos without sufficient evidence.

Agreed.

Be that as it may, I agree that St. Maximos defended the Latin teaching of the 7th century, a teaching that refused - as I mentioned earlier - to give causal power to the Son in the procession of the Spirit,

The teaching refused causal power in the context of hypostasis. That’s all you can conclude.

That said, St. Maximos’ defense of the earlier (i.e., the 7th century) Latin teaching does not apply to the later (i.e., the 15th century) teaching of the West, because by the time of Florence the Western Church was teaching that the Son is a cause of the Spirit’s procession, which is not what St. Maximos defended as acceptable in the 7th century.

It will be evident that St. Maximos was defending the same teaching, once you can admit that “origin” and “cause” are not equivalent terms, and that the Latins have only used the term “cause” in reference to the Son on the matter of the ousia, not the hypostasis, of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

THE ONLY THING THAT COULD COMBAT THE PNEUMATOMACHI WAS AN AFFIRMATION OF THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WITH THE FATHER, JUST AS THE MAIN THRUST OF THE DEBATE AGAINST THE ARIANS WAS TO AFFIRM THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER. The only possible conclusion is that the phrase “proceeds from the Father” was added to the Nicene Creed by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council to PRIMARILY affirm the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father, NOT the subsistence, which the Pneumatomachi already readily affirmed. I am not ashamed to say that the Latin Church had the meaning of the Creed right all along.

Not so! The 2nd Ecumenical completed the Creed of Nicaea by adding what the teaching of the Church is on the Holy Spirit which the Creed of Nicaea had nothing to say.

Now it is ALSO true that this Council had the concerns about the Pneumatomachi that you refer to, but it was not proper to add specific local concerns into a Creed that was for all Christians throughout all time! Instead these local concerns were handled by the Council in the canons, such as canon 5, which rejects the Pneumatomachi teachings by saying…

“As concerning the Tome of the Westerners, we have accepted also those in Antioch who confess a single divinity of Father and of Son and of Holy Spirit.”

If Rome really felt the need to add to the Creed, wouldn’t the wording of this canon #5 work alot better then to add the filioque, which has fostered more misunderstanding then understanding, and more division then unity?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

Thank you for chiming in on this topic!

Not so! The 2nd Ecumenical completed the Creed of Nicaea by adding what the teaching of the Church is on the Holy Spirit which the Creed of Nicaea had nothing to say.

Now it is ALSO true that this Council had the concerns about the Pneumatomachi that you refer to, but it was not proper to add specific local concerns into a Creed that was for all Christians throughout all time! Instead these local concerns were handled by the Council in the canons, such as canon 5, which rejects the Pneumatomachi teachings by saying…

“As concerning the Tome of the Westerners, we have accepted also those in Antioch who confess a single divinity of Father and of Son and of Holy Spirit.”

Doctrinal Canons (as distinct from disciplinary Canons) are always based on the dogmatic teachings of a Council. This Canon is simply affirming that the Tome of the Westerns which was accepted by Antioch formed part of the basis of the teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council (remember that St. Meletius - the Patriarch of Antioch - was the president of the Second Ecum). So this Canon reflects what the Fathers of the Second Ecum intended in the Creed. This is validated by the statements of the subsequent Ecumenical Councils that I already quoted in this thread - that the intent of the Fathers of the Second Ecum was to provide a teaching on the SUBSTANCE of the Holy Spirit, not particularly His origin, which, to repeat, would have done nothing to combat the heresy of the Pneumatomachi.

If Rome really felt the need to add to the Creed, wouldn’t the wording of this canon #5 work alot better then to add the filioque, which has fostered more misunderstanding then understanding, and more division then unity?

First, you are assuming that Canon #5 is presenting an additional teaching than what was intended by and presented in the Creed. This would not align with the statements of subsequent Ecumenical Councils that the very purpose of the Second Ecum was to teach about the SUBSTANCE of the Holy Spirit, not particularly His hypostatic origin.

You have to remember that 1) It was not Rome who added to the Creed. Rather, most of the Latin Churches had already added it. 2) The textual addition was always only local, not universal. So Rome was not trying to change the Creed of the entire Church, but simply adapting the Creed to the needs of a local Church.

Thank you, once again, for responding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

Thank you for posting this interview! What I found interesting was his opinion that one could have a serious disagreement with Catholic dogma, e.g. papal infallibility, and yet in good conscience remain in communion with Rome. He seemed to view communion as mutual commemoration in the diptychs without necessarily having dogmatic agreement. By “dogmatic agreement” I mean teachings which have been officially promulgated by the Church in a manner such as an ecumenical council. Do you think this is possible? I realize that it’s possible to have an understanding of a teaching such as papal infallibility that is relatively more orthodox than the ultra-montanist position, but I’m concerned more about the principle than the specific dogma.

 

[JohnVIII]

Thank you for posting this interview! What I found interesting was his opinion that one could have a serious disagreement with Catholic dogma, e.g. papal infallibility, and yet in good conscience remain in communion with Rome. He seemed to view communion as mutual commemoration in the diptychs without necessarily having dogmatic agreement. By “dogmatic agreement” I mean teachings which have been officially promulgated by the Church in a manner such as an ecumenical council. Do you think this is possible? I realize that it’s possible to have an understanding of a teaching such as papal infallibility that is relatively more orthodox than the ultra-montanist position, but I’m concerned more about the principle than the specific dogma.

I’m glad you brought this out! I really like this Melkite Father James Babcock.

You ask a question that I am working thru right now in my own life. I was in communion with Rome for a short time but felt that it would be better to return to Orthodoxy mainly because I felt that it was not ethical since I do not agree with some Roman dogma. I think that there are situations that could make this conflict ethical. One way is if the Melkite were in communion with the Antiochian Church, then any Orthodox Church that was in communion with Antioch would also be in communion with Rome indirectly thru the Melkite Church. No problem here with being in communion with Rome and yet not accepting Roman dogma - at least I would have no problem with this. As for just simply joining an Eastern Catholic Church, maybe, I don’t know. For me, the jury is still out on that. Unfortunatly for me, every Eastern Catholic Church I have gone to visit in the area where I live has chosen to be very much self-Latinized. I have no wish to go to any Latin style church. I do have a desire to be in communion with Rome, but I don’t accept communion with Rome as a dogma of any sort; so for me, I have no compelling reason to give up my Eastern ways just to be in communion with Rome.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Given that there’s a nuanced view of the fillioque in the Wester Catholic Church, i.e. “and the Son” actual means “throughthe Son”, why doesn’t the West change the Creed to say what it means or take it out all together and end this confusion?
I find the whole metaphor that the Spirit is the love between teh Father & the Son to be completely confusing… especially in the context of thsoe words meaning (at least in America).

 

[dcointin]

I’m glad you brought this out! I really like this Melkite Father James Babcock.

You ask a question that I am working thru right now in my own life. I was in communion with Rome for a short time but felt that it would be better to return to Orthodoxy mainly because I felt that it was not ethical since I do not agree with some Roman dogma. I think that there are situations that could make this conflict ethical. One way is if the Melkite were in communion with the Antiochian Church, then any Orthodox Church that was in communion with Antioch would also be in communion with Rome indirectly thru the Melkite Church. No problem here with being in communion with Rome and yet not accepting Roman dogma - at least I would have no problem with this. As for just simply joining an Eastern Catholic Church, maybe, I don’t know. For me, the jury is still out on that. Unfortunatly for me, every Eastern Catholic Church I have gone to visit in the area where I live has chosen to be very much self-Latinized. I have no wish to go to any Latin style church. I do have a desire to be in communion with Rome, but I don’t accept communion with Rome as a dogma of any sort; so for me, I have no compelling reason to give up my Eastern ways just to be in communion with Rome.

I think we’re in a remarkably similar situation. I was raised Lutheran (LC-MS) and attended college in the pre-seminary program, majoring in theology. I became increasingly interested in church history, and took a class on Orthodoxy offered by a new professor who was a patristics expert. I began to seriously examine the early fathers and compare them to Lutheran teachings, and became aware of the significant divergence between them on many issues. I began to attend an Orthodox parish shortly before graduation, and was deeply drawn to the reverence and antiquity of the liturgy. About six months after I graduated I made the decision to become Orthodox and abandon my plans to attend seminary, and have been Orthodox for about six years now.

I’m now engaged to a Catholic girl (Latin) and we attend each other’s services on alternating weeks, which prompted to me to study Catholicism more than I had before, and led me to this web site. In retrospect I admit that when I rejected Catholicism for Orthodoxy I was still influenced by bias from my Lutheran training, and held many misconceptions about it that I’m only now beginning to clear up. I’ve come to realize now that many of the dogmas that I believed separated us are actually misunderstandings or differences in emphasis and expression. There are also many statements from the fathers, including eastern ones, that speak favorably of a Roman primacy. This primacy was not just honorary but included a responsibility to hear appeals, address doctrinal conflicts, and serve as a point of unity for the Church. I would still say however that this is not ultra-montanism that sees the Pope as possessing absolute supremecy in the Church, something which many Catholics such as brother Mardukm frequently point out.

I have come to see communion with the Roman See as something desirable, but there are some issues that stop me from considering that further. One, my girlfriend has no interest in becoming a member of an EF or Eastern Catholic parish, so my options are limited to an OF one. I struggle with the OF liturgy and how it’s celebrated, especially compared to what I’m accustomed to in Orthodoxy (I’ll stop there to avoid offending anyone). Two, there are many Catholics who do hold an ultra-montanist view of the Papacy, and it’s not clear to me what the official position of the Church is. This is a view I couldn’t in good conscience hold, and I believe that it’s important to be in theological agreement with the Church you’re a member of. Three, the Orthodox spiritual life is very deep and fulfilling, and I see a strong emphasis on that in most parishes that I haven’t seen in many Catholic ones. Those Catholics with a stronger spirituality seem more focused on their feelings and social issues than on theosis. I admit that I could be wrong on these observations, and my experience with Catholicism is as an outsider which can be very distorted.

Are these concerns you share, and if so how are you handling them?

 

[JohnVIII]

I think we’re in a remarkably similar situation. … Are these concerns you share, and if so how are you handling them?

Eastern Catholic’s are more palatable an option for Orthodox because (if you can find one that hasn‘t Latinized) you will have a parish of like-minded people. The Melkite are really a part of the Antiochian Church that have remained (at all cost) in communion with Rome. It’s too bad that the double-communion that was once considered between the Melkite & Antioch and the Melkite & Rome never happened, I think it’s would have been the closest we had ever came to re-union in the last 900 years.

You know, what one of the early Fathers of the Church said was not that we should be in communion with Rome (although that would be implied), but that we should be in agreement with Rome. Orthodox & Roman Catholics think completely different. Conservative Orthodox say that we need to be in agreement before we are in communion.

While attending the Roman Church I ran into a lot of those ultra-montanism types, as well as those who were the exact opposite. These opposite types would actually judge me for believing too strongly in the papacy! Odd indeed! Those of the ultra-montanism would judge me to be a heretic for not accepting all the doctrines and/or dogmas expounded infallible by the Magisterium! The rest were in the majority, but they weren’t really of the same mind per say, rather there were of those you have seen who where “focused on their feelings and social issues than on theosis”. I can not grow there, I cannot be at peace with many there. In contrast, any Orthodox Church, whether it be Russian, Greek, Serbian, Arabic, new or old calendar, I feel right at home. There are liberals, but they don’t judge others nor are they judged by others. There are not different parties holding differing views on “dogmatic” issues going about claiming those who are not like them are not “good Catholics”. There a few altra-conservative who would condemn New Calendarists and ecumenists as hereitics, and some, not so altra-conservative that may condemn these altra-conservative as being “extremists”, but it is not the same. The altra-conservative believe all the same things as the rest of the Orthodox, it is just that they will say “how can you really believe the Orthodox faith if you are ok with (for example) giving communion to non-Orthodox”. So we don’t really have differing beliefs within the same church at odds with each other, it really is just a matter of disagreements over how conservative our practices should be.

We Orthodox tend to find ways to resolve our conflicts in time anyway. Just 10 or 20 years ago no one would have ever guessed that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate would come together, but it happened! I do think Rome and the Orthodox will likewise come together, but it will happen mainly because of what the Russian Church will soon do, not a whole lot of what Rome does, although I’m sure Rome will try to make it look like it happened because of them. Rome has lost it’s ability it once had to unite the Church. Russia, on the other hand, does inspire Church unity. As the saying goes, “New Rome has gone the way of Old Rome. Behold a 3rd Rome stands, and a 4th there shall not be”. And, “The first shall be last, and the last shall be first”. Look to Russia for the unity of the Universal Church rather than Rome. But Rome still is in the first place, because “The callings of God or without repentance”, hence it is the first place of honor, of course Rome was more than that a long time ago, but first in honor is all that is left today. The land where there has been more martyrs in this last century than in the entire history of Christianity will be from were the seed of the Church will be. For “The Martyrs are the Seed of the Church”.

 

[militantsparrow]

Kevin Allen on his The Illumined Heart podcast 3/31/2011 # 168 has an good interview with Archimandrite James Babcock, Melkite. I think the host asked the kinds of questions that are right on target and Fr. Babcock provided clear answers. Father has been quite involved with the Society of St. John Chrysostom — Western Region, SSJC where he has plenty of exchange with those Orthodox who are interested in finding ways to meet and work together with Catholics.

This is great. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Stephentlig]

Hi. I heard him speak that eastern Catholics do not agree with the ‘‘latin’’ dogmas of rome. and they are only in communion canonically? but the thing is is that they are not ‘‘latin’’ dogmas. They are universal Catholic dogmas. Latinzation is only ritual not dogmatic. So we must believe in purgatory and the Immaculate conception and assumption of the blessed Virgin if we are to claim to be in communion with Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi. I heard him speak that eastern Catholics do not agree with the ‘‘latin’’ dogmas of rome. and they are only in communion canonically? but the thing is is that they are not ‘‘latin’’ dogmas. They are universal Catholic dogmas. Latinzation is only ritual not dogmatic. So we must believe in purgatory and the Immaculate conception and assumption of the blessed Virgin if we are to claim to be in communion with Rome.

You are correct.

Therefore, Eastern catholics cannot be Orthodox.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Given that there’s a nuanced view of the fillioque in the Wester Catholic Church, i.e. “and the Son” actual means “throughthe Son”, why doesn’t the West change the Creed to say what it means or take it out all together and end this confusion?
I find the whole metaphor that the Spirit is the love between teh Father & the Son to be completely confusing… especially in the context of thsoe words meaning (at least in America).

Actually, you’ve hit on a very Orthodox perspective here!

The Eastern Church balks at calling the Spirit the “Love between the Father and the Son” since “Love” is characteristic to all Three Divine Persons.

And I agree with you on the other matter!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Hi. I heard him speak that eastern Catholics do not agree with the ‘‘latin’’ dogmas of rome. and they are only in communion canonically? but the thing is is that they are not ‘‘latin’’ dogmas. They are universal Catholic dogmas. Latinzation is only ritual not dogmatic. So we must believe in purgatory and the Immaculate conception and assumption of the blessed Virgin if we are to claim to be in communion with Rome.

Well, there is a way in which you COULD be seen to be contradicting yourself - with the best of intentions!

What does the Immaculate Conception ultimately say? That the Theotokos never had the stain of sin on her soul.

And the Eastern Church has always agreed with that, so the dogma and the way it is phrased points to a Latin framework of Original Sin that is foreign to the East.

So one can reject that framework as contained in the way that dogma is expressed and yet believe that the Virgin Mary as All-Immaculate, as the Eastern liturgical services proclaim.

The same is true for the Assumption which the East fetes very highly - and therefore without defining it! Lex orandi-lex credendi.

So Latinization can be both in terms of ritual/liturgical matters and ALSO in terms of theology.

The theology of the dogmas you cite are truly “Latin” but that doesn’t mean the East doesn’t affirm in the “pith and substance” of what they represent.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

You are correct.

Therefore, Eastern catholics cannot be Orthodox.

He is not correct and neither are you sir!!

But I say that in a very loving way!

Alex