Any converts from Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Cavaradossi]

So, you take a more universal approach to who you discriminate against?

Do Roman Catholics discriminate against the Anglicans by telling them that their Holy Orders are invalid and that they eat mere bread and wine during their Eucharistic services?

Why is it a grand crime when I state plainly that our faiths differ, but then for a Roman Catholic to do the same to an Anglican, it is just the normal order of business?

Do faithful Roman Catholics believe under pain of anathema in the filioque and papal supremacy? Yes.

Do the Orthodox believe in these things? No, and in fact we reject one of them (the filioque) on pain of anathema.

How then can our faiths not but differ? It makes me no more anti-Catholic or anti-Western to point this out than it makes a faithful Roman Catholic “anti-Anglican” to point out that Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism are different faiths, though the two (like Orthodox and Roman Catholicism) share in a common heritage and up to a certain point in time, a common tradition.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hart exaggerates.

Of course he does.

 

[RyanBlack]

Of course he does.

Hart routinely exaggerates, both in his writing and in conversation. He’s erudition is extraordinary, but he tends toward both sarcasm and hyperbole.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Of course he does.

I mean, why wouldn’t an academic with an armload of degrees from prestigious universities who has authored numerous books and articles on a variety of theological topics intentionally exaggerate the problems within his own Church?

Seems like a great career move to me.

Yes, it is a great career move. There are a lot of Roman Catholic doctors of theology/philosophy who have a similar tendency to make such (sometimes quite infuriatingly negative) exaggerations about the state of the Roman Catholic Church.

So, Soloviev was wrong about the ossification of Orthodox theology (a position later confirmed by members of this forum, IMO), and Hart is largely wrong about the problems associated with anti-Roman Orthodox polemicists…

Solovyov was wrong because he viewed doctrinal “progress” not merely as reflection upon the same contents of revelation, but as an actual process of growth and perfection of knowledge about God.

Are there any concerns or problems within Orthodoxy that you can see? Or is everything just peachy in the East from your vantage point?

Plenty of problems. Hart’s ecumenism is probably one of them (at least in my opinion), along with the theology of Metropolitan John of Pergamon which runs contrary to the patristic teaching on nature and personhood (Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos criticizes Metropolitan John harshly for this, in fact). Then there are disturbing signs that an ecclesiology of degrees of communion (in the style of Yves Congar) is growing more popular within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, though that trend thankfully seems to have met heavy resistance in Greece. Really, there are plenty of problems, but they all relate to non-adherence to the fathers and councils both in disciplinary matters (as handed to us in the canons) and sometimes in matters of doctrine (as can be seen in the errors of some modern ecumenist academic theologians).

 

[Peter_J]

Do Roman Catholics discriminate against the Anglicans by telling them that their Holy Orders are invalid and that they eat mere bread and wine during their Eucharistic services?

Some would say that we do.

 

[josie_L]

Some would say that we do.

But we do not refer to them as heretics, moreover, not everyone shares Cavarodossi’s stance on the filioque either (within Orthodoxy).

 

[Peter_J]

But we do not refer to them as heretics,

Not all Catholics are as friendly toward Anglicans as you and I are.

 

[Peter_J]

Heh. How often have you made ME the topic of discussion, Cav? And you attack me again below, but I have grown accustomed to that from you, so I skip over your ad hominems almost reflexively.

But “bizarre attempts at psychoanalysis”? Is that what I’m doing? Am I the only one who sees an obvious truth? Oh…wait…

“But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.” Jesus of Nazareth, AD 33 (Mt. 15:18)

“Our innermost thoughts are revealed by our actions, aren’t they?” Randy Carson, AD Two Hours Ago



See? That wasn’t so difficult, was it? Thank you. I can see why you do not like Dr. Hart…he is an ecumenically-minded Orthodox theologian who has written appreciatively of John Paul II’s ecumenical overtures to the East and his Theology of the Body. Dr. Hart has criticisms of the Latin Church which you would appreciate, but still…anything positive must be unsettling for those who are bent on another course.

Like those mentioned in this portion (quoted previously):

As regards my own communion, I must reluctantly report that there are some Eastern Christians who have become incapable of defining what it is to be Orthodox except in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism; and among these are a small but voluble number who have (I sometimes suspect) lost any rationale for their Orthodoxy other than their profound hatred, deranged terror, and encyclopaedic ignorance of Rome. For such as these, there can never be any limit set to the number of grievances that need to be cited against Rome, nor any act of contrition on the part of Rome sufficient for absolution.

Any truth to this in your experience?

At the risk of giving away my future-reading powers, I have a feeling that Cavaradossi will soon come to see why a few of us Catholics have, shall we say, “revised our expectations” with respect to conversing with you.

 

[Nine_Two]

Look for the humor, 92…it’s there.

Are you saying that the original post which I was replying to was completely in jest, that you were not accusing Cavardossi, or other Orthodox, of being anti-Western for accepting the implicit Orthodox teaching that we all hold a different faith?

In that case it was a bad joke in poor taste.

 

[Nine_Two]

But we do not refer to them as heretics, moreover, not everyone shares Cavarodossi’s stance on the filioque either (within Orthodoxy).

Who said Catholics were heretics here?

Certainly there are some in the Orthodox Church who do hold that belief (although in a grand continuation of the Anglican analogy, there are also Catholics who hold Anglicans to be heretics).

 

[josie_L]

Not all Catholics are as friendly toward Anglicans as you and I are.

I meant that the CC does not regard Anglicans (or that faith group) as heretics (not that I’m aware).

 

[josie_L]

Who said Catholics were heretics here?

Certainly there are some in the Orthodox Church who do hold that belief (although in a grand continuation of the Anglican analogy, there are also Catholics who hold Anglicans to be heretics).

Individual Catholics, maybe (few though I would think), but not the Catholic Church.

 

[mardukm]

it saddened me (because I’m well aware that there are Orthodox bishops, scholars, theologians, who have no problem with the filioque, i.e., they understand it is not heretical).

I’m going to assume the best. I think he understands that the Latins use the term “cause” in a different sense than the Greeks did. But even with that understanding, the misunderstanding unfortunately greatly prevails in general, from both sides.

I think, as far as filioque is concerned, all he is asking for is a dogmatic statement insisting that the use of the terms “Cause” and “Principal” do not mean the Son is the Source of the Holy Spirit IN ANY WAY. I know that the Official Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory should be enough, but it was not a dogmatic declaration, and (if the last debate on filioque in which I was involved with Fr. Morris a few months ago is any indication), there are actually Catholics who do not attach to the Official Clarification any sort of doctrinal relevance, and still insist that the Son is the Source or A Source of the Holy Spirit. If my assumption of Cavaradossi’s intentions are correct, I would certainly agree with him.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Individual Catholics, maybe (few though I would think), but not the Catholic Church.

However, if I remember the conversation correctly, the idea was that it is “anti-Catholic” of the Orthodox even to deny us communion or not recognize our sacraments.

 

[Nine_Two]

Individual Catholics, maybe (few though I would think), but not the Catholic Church.

You didn’t answer the other part of my post.

Who said Catholics are heretics?

I can guarantee you it wasn’t the Orthodox Church itself, which brings us back to the original point. How is our discrimination any different than your discrimination?

Before you answer, I’ll give you the two possible answers I’ve seen before.

Some have responded that you have the Pope so you don’t have the same standards of behavior we do.
If you want to respond that way then I would say that using the Pope as an excuse for any sort of behavior or double standards is something we don’t accept, and that the Roman hierarchy itself does not seem to accept, and that taking that position cuts us off from any further chance of dialogue.

The second response I’ve seen is an acknowledgement that the position of our two churches is in fact the same, and that considering you another faith does not mean that we hate you, or are “anti-west”.
To this I would thank you for not taking an unnecessarily partisan perspective to an issue that doesn’t need it.

You can of course surprise me with a third take on the issue.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Plenty of problems. Hart’s ecumenism is probably one of them (at least in my opinion), along with the theology of Metropolitan John of Pergamon which runs contrary to the patristic teaching on nature and personhood (Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos criticizes Metropolitan John harshly for this, in fact). Then there are disturbing signs that an ecclesiology of degrees of communion (in the style of Yves Congar) is growing more popular within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, though that trend thankfully seems to have met heavy resistance in Greece. Really, there are plenty of problems, but they all relate to non-adherence to the fathers and councils both in disciplinary matters (as handed to us in the canons) and sometimes in matters of doctrine (as can be seen in the errors of some modern ecumenist academic theologians).

As can be seen above, I deleted my post after reflecting that it wasn’t worth continuing our exchange, but you captured my quote before I hit the delete button.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

 

[josie_L]

I’m going to assume the best. I think he understands that the Latins use the term “cause” in a different sense than the Greeks did. But even with that understanding, the misunderstanding unfortunately greatly prevails in general, from both sides.

I think, as far as filioque is concerned, all he is asking for is a dogmatic statement insisting that the use of the terms “Cause” and “Principal” do not mean the Son is the Source of the Holy Spirit IN ANY WAY. I know that the Official Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory should be enough, but it was not a dogmatic declaration, and (if the last debate on filioque in which I was involved with Fr. Morris a few months ago is any indication), there are actually Catholics who do not attach to the Official Clarification any sort of doctrinal relevance, and still insist that the Son is the Source or A Source of the Holy Spirit. If my assumption of Cavaradossi’s intentions are correct, I would certainly agree with him.

Blessings,
Marduk

Have you read the last few pages, i.e., he claims that at the council of Florence we Catholics have dogmatically proclaimed that the Son is the source of the Holy Spirit (I haven’t yet responded to his post because I"m still in the process of reading up on the council and the filioque to offer a proper rebuttal)? I’ve already had a prior discussion with Cavaradossi concerning the filioque, i.e., I’ve mentioned the differences in terms and such, in fact, I quoted from this article to bring that point home, here’s another excerpt:

Mr. Quattrone asks why the Westerners at Ferrara-Florence did not voice an “Amen!” to Mark of Ephesus’ promotion of the Father’s monarchy. To this, I must give the same answer. The Father’s monarchy in the Spirit’s procession was not an issue for the Westerners, nor did the West ever deny it (as illustrated by John of Montenegro’s passionate but imperfect defense). Their focus was on proving the validity of a ‘collective procession’ of the Spirit (a procession involving both Father and Son), because that is what the Byzantines denied. What’s more, the author of The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy (quoted by Mr. Quattrone above) is simply wrong when he claims that John of Montenegro (and thus the Western Church) saw the Son as a “cause” of the Spirit in the sense of an “aition”. This is specifically what John of Montenegro was denying when he proclaimed that Rome recognizes only one Cause (Aition) of the Spirit – namely, the Father. It is only when one twists and misrepresents the Western view (force-fitting it into a Byzantine preconception) that a ‘contradiction’ is created. The Roman position has never changed: The Father is the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit; but, with that taken for granted, one may also validly speak of the Spirit proceeding from both Father and Son in a collective sense – that is, with the Father acting as Cause (Aition / Principium) and the Son acting as eternal, essential Participant in the Father’s spirating of the Spirit – the Spirit of Sonship, which of course requires the Personal existence and participation of a Son.

At this point, it may be very helpful for us to distinguish between two important Greek words. Above, we discussed the semantic differences between the Greek term “ekporeusis” (i.e., to proceed from a sole Source, Principal, or Cause) and the unequivalent Latin term “procedit” – the term unwittingly used by the West to translate Constantinople I’s “ekporeusis”, and so the root of the semantic confusion. However, there is yet another Greek term for “proceeds”, which is “proienai”, and this term, which is equivalent to the Latin term “procedit”, is used quite often among Eastern (especially Alexandrian) fathers to refer to the Spirit’s procession from both Father and Son. For, when the Greek fathers use “proienai”, they are not referring to the Father’s monarchy at all, but to the same, collective sense of the Spirit’s procession (involving both Father and Son) as expressed in the Western tradition. We will explore this aspect of the Eastern fathers’ theology below.

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx

p.s. Would the clarification of HH JPII be “a Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which is entitled Filioque: A Clarification.”?

 

[josie_L]

However, if I remember the conversation correctly, the idea was that it is “anti-Catholic” of the Orthodox even to deny us communion or not recognize our sacraments.

My conversation with Cavaradossi went beyond communion and recognizing our sacraments (I wasn’t actually part of that conversation), i.e., we were talking about the filioque and during that conversation some things were brought up, hence, the reason I mentioned “heretics”.

p.s. For all of you concerned, I am not mad at Cavarodossi (I hope he’s not mad at me), I’m just disappointed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

here’s another excerpt:

From that same article:

In their rejecting of the Filioque, do I say that the Eastern Orthodox are heretics? No, I do not say that; at least not as far as formal heresy goes – that is, heresy as a matter of direct profession, as opposed to a failure to profess or appreciate essential truth. For, officially-speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church merely holds fast to the original, orthodox pronouncement of the Constantinopolitan Creed – the decree that the Father alone is the Cause (Aition) of the Spirit. However, in focusing on this truth and rigidly ignoring additional truth, many Eastern Orthodox come very close to heresy – that is, the sin of a schismatic mentality, which is the sin of rejecting the totality of Truth, and so dividing the unity of the Church, which is “the pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). As a very wise priest once said, "All heresies are, in some sense, ‘true’. The problem is that they zealously stress one truth at the expense of other truths

One wonders whether this might be applied to the rejection of the development of the papacy, also.

 

[josie_L]

Who said Catholics are heretics?

Hi Nine_Two, I can answer the question but I won’t.

I can guarantee you it wasn’t the Orthodox Church itself, which brings us back to the original point. How is our discrimination any different than your discrimination?

No, you misunderstood me, I do not believe that the Orthodox Church believes this of the CC (although for certain there are those within Orthodoxy who view us as heretical). Moreover, I did not intend to butt into the conversation that Cavaradossi was having with Peter, but I felt compelled to make a point, i.e., it had nothing to do with sacraments or communion, so no I do not feel discriminated against because the OC will not allow us to commune with them. I have utter confidence that one day we will though.

God bless!