Are Orthodox are Catholic theologies mutually exclusive?

[TheotokosSaveUs]

It has been a legitimate part of the Latin tradition for over a thousand years. We don’t impose it on Eastern Catholics nor would we attempt to impose it upon the Orthodox. What we could do is emphasize to our faithful that it can be expressed as “through the Son” and raise awareness of the potential obstacles an incorrect understanding the clause can cause in Eastern relations.

While issues like the filioque cause strains in relations between Western and Eastern churches, ultimately, we do not disagree with the insertion of the filioque into the Creed because of that. Nor even because the Western church did not have the authority to unilaterally alter it (important as both of those issues are). Fundamentally, it is because it is theological error.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What gives you the impression that (misunderstandings aside, from both Latin and Eastern parties) we do not teach original sin? As defined by Rome, not by Calvinists or other Protestants, mind you.

I am happy to read a good explanation of this issue from an Orthodox source. Is there a good article online which you feel adequately explains the Orthodox belief regarding the fall?

Bonus points if the article also explains why the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception is erroneous in light of Orthodox theology.

If I’m going to disagree, I want to disagree with what you really believe.

 

[Randy_Carson]

While issues like the filioque cause strains in relations between Western and Eastern churches, ultimately, we do not disagree with the insertion of the filioque into the Creed because of that. Nor even because the Western church did not have the authority to unilaterally alter it (important as both of those issues are). Fundamentally, it is because it is theological error.

This is what I am not so sure of. I seem to recall reading documents saying that Catholics and Orthodox can agree on the underlying theology, but that Orthodox object to the changing of the Creed simply because CHANGE to the Creed is not permitted.

Is my understanding wrong?

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

I am happy to read a good explanation of this issue from an Orthodox source. Is there a good article online which you feel adequately explains the Orthodox belief regarding the fall?

Here is one, though it’s by no means exhaustive.

blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/22/original-sin-and-orthodoxy-reflections-on-carthage/

Bonus points if the article also explains why the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception is erroneous in light of Orthodox theology.

If I’m going to disagree, I want to disagree with what you really believe.

It is erroneous in light of Orthodox theology inasmuch as it would be necessary to “fix” something in the Virgin Mary for her to bear the Christ. That she is blameless, as you know, is no distinction between our view and yours.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here is one, though it’s by no means exhaustive.

blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/22/original-sin-and-orthodoxy-reflections-on-carthage/

Thanks.

It is erroneous in light of Orthodox theology inasmuch as it would be necessary to “fix” something in the Virgin Mary for her to bear the Christ. That she is blameless, as you know, is no distinction between our view and yours.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not teach that God “fixed” something so that she could bear the Christ. It teaches that God prevented Mary from ever being “broken” in the first place - which was fitting for her role as the bearer of God’s son.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

This is what I am not so sure of. I seem to recall reading documents saying that Catholics and Orthodox can agree on the underlying theology, but that Orthodox object to the changing of the Creed simply because CHANGE to the Creed is not permitted.

Is my understanding wrong?

I would say so. Again, it’s not that the change is unimportant, in and of itself, but the underlying theology is very different also. The procedit (“proceeds”) in the Latin translation of the Creed can be interpreted more broadly than the more narrowly technical original Greek ekporevetai, leading some theologians to try to redefine this doctrine to refer not to the Spirit’s eternal origin but only to His temporal mission (i.e., His saving work in time for mankind). This definition is indeed consistent with Orthodoxy and taught by some of the Fathers of the Latin West (even using the word filioque), as well as by the Fathers of the Greek East, though not using ekporevetai but proienai. Such an interpretation is nevertheless inconsistent with Rome’s official doctrinal statements, which make it clear that they refer to the Spirit’s eternal origins (Council of Lyons 1274, CCC 246).

The most damaging charge against it is that it changes the words of Christ Himself: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (John 15:26). The Filioque violates the perfect balance of Orthodox Trinitarian theology: Instead of any particular attribute belonging only either to the divine Nature or the Person, the Filioque grants an attribute to two Persons but not the other. For instance, unbegottenness belongs only to the Father, begottenness belongs to the Son, while procession belongs to the Spirit. Likewise, all divine characteristics (e.g., immortality, perfection, omniscience, etc.) belong to all three Persons. But if being the eternal origin of the Spirit’s spiration belongs to both the Father and the Son, that subordinates the Spirit in that He does not possess something that the other two Persons do.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would say so. Again, it’s not that the change is unimportant, in and of itself, but the underlying theology is very different also. The procedit (“proceeds”) in the Latin translation of the Creed can be interpreted more broadly than the more narrowly technical original Greek ekporevetai, leading some theologians to try to redefine this doctrine to refer not to the Spirit’s eternal origin but only to His temporal mission (i.e., His saving work in time for mankind). This definition is indeed consistent with Orthodoxy and taught by some of the Fathers of the Latin West (even using the word filioque), as well as by the Fathers of the Greek East, though not using ekporevetai but proienai. Such an interpretation is nevertheless inconsistent with Rome’s official doctrinal statements, which make it clear that they refer to the Spirit’s eternal origins (Council of Lyons 1274, CCC 246).

The most damaging charge against it is that it changes the words of Christ Himself: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (John 15:26). The Filioque violates the perfect balance of Orthodox Trinitarian theology: Instead of any particular attribute belonging only either to the divine Nature or the Person, the Filioque grants an attribute to two Persons but not the other. For instance, unbegottenness belongs only to the Father, begottenness belongs to the Son, while procession belongs to the Spirit. Likewise, all divine characteristics (e.g., immortality, perfection, omniscience, etc.) belong to all three Persons. But if being the eternal origin of the Spirit’s spiration belongs to both the Father and the Son, that subordinates the Spirit in that He does not possess something that the other two Persons do.

Well, I’m going to leave this to the professionals. Sometimes, you have to know your limits.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

Well, I’m going to leave this to the professionals. Sometimes, you have to know your limits.

Haha! Well, both of us have the advantage of several millennia of thought on these issues, so fortunately neither one of us has to be original.

 

[GaryTaylor]

For instance, unbegottenness belongs only to the Father, begottenness belongs to the Son, while procession belongs to the Spirit. Likewise, all divine characteristics (e.g., immortality, perfection, omniscience, etc.) belong to all three Persons. But if being the eternal origin of the Spirit’s spiration belongs to both the Father and the Son, that subordinates the Spirit in that He does not possess something that the other two Persons do.

I could only offer my humble thoughts on the homooúsios following after 1700 year discussion in which all believe in the trinity.

If we all agree the Holy Spirit proceeds from One Principle of the Father in the monarchy. Then the dialogue can’t be too difficult.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

I could only offer my humble thoughts on the homooúsios following after 1700 year discussion in which all believe in the trinity.

If we all agree the Holy Spirit proceeds from One Principle of the Father in the monarchy. Then the dialogue can’t be too difficult.

Correct; but that’s not what Latin dogma (to the best of my understanding) says.

 

[twf]

While issues like the filioque cause strains in relations between Western and Eastern churches, ultimately, we do not disagree with the insertion of the filioque into the Creed because of that. Nor even because the Western church did not have the authority to unilaterally alter it (important as both of those issues are). Fundamentally, it is because it is theological error.

Thoughts on this discussion from the United States Catholic bishops? usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

Not all Orthodox agree that we differ on this particular point of doctrine.
Likewise with the Immaculate Conception, mentioned in another post, fundamentally I think both Catholics and Orthodox can agree that Mary was blameless from the first moment of Her conception. That is the key substance of the Catholic dogma. We believe, as do the Orthodox, that all of us come into this world deprived of full communion with the Blessed Trinity due to Adam’s fall. In baptism we “put on Christ” and “partake of the divine nature” (Catholics call this “sanctifying grace”)…in the case of Mary, she did not have to wait for baptism, but was full of sanctifying grace from the first moment of Her conception. Orthodox I have talked to in “real life”, including an Orthodox priest, say they can accept this as being fundamentally compatible with Orthodoxy, as long as there is no insistence on the Latin language of original sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Correct; but that’s not what Latin dogma (to the best of my understanding) says.

Sure it is, it can’t be any other way.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

Thoughts on this discussion from the United States Catholic bishops? usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

Definitely will read this, given time.

Not all Orthodox agree that we differ on this particular point of doctrine.

But we have to address it from what the magisterium says officially. I have spoken to many Catholics who do not disagree with what I hold. That doesn’t mean the doctrine is the same on paper.

Likewise with the Immaculate Conception, mentioned in another post, fundamentally I think both Catholics and Orthodox can agree that Mary was blameless from the first moment of Her conception.

Indeed.

That is the key substance of the Catholic dogma. We believe, as do the Orthodox, that all of us come into this world deprived of full communion with the Blessed Trinity due to Adam’s fall. In baptism we “put on Christ” and “partake of the divine nature” (Catholics call this “sanctifying grace”)…in the case of Mary, she did not have to wait for baptism, but was full of sanctifying grace from the first moment of Her conception. Orthodox I have talked to in “real life”, including an Orthodox priest, say they can accept this as being fundamentally compatible with Orthodoxy, as long as there is no insistence on the Latin language of original sin.

I don’t think the Latin language on original sin is substantively different from what we say. Where we disagree is in what you wrote regarding her not needing sanctifying grace from the moment of her conception. We hold she was subject to all of the effects of original sin; mortality, an inclination to sin, etc. excepting that she resisted sin throughout her life. She had no need of being preserved from original guilt, since such a thing doesn’t exist.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

Sure it is, it can’t be any other way.

The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. (Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 246, quoting the Council of Florence, 1438)

 

[Wandile]

I would say so. Again, it’s not that the change is unimportant, in and of itself, but the underlying theology is very different also. The procedit (“proceeds”) in the Latin translation of the Creed can be interpreted more broadly than the more narrowly technical original Greek ekporevetai, leading some theologians to try to redefine this doctrine to refer not to the Spirit’s eternal origin but only to His temporal mission (i.e., His saving work in time for mankind). This definition is indeed consistent with Orthodoxy and taught by some of the Fathers of the Latin West (even using the word filioque), as well as by the Fathers of the Greek East, though not using ekporevetai but proienai. Such an interpretation is nevertheless inconsistent with Rome’s official doctrinal statements, which make it clear that they refer to the Spirit’s eternal origins (Council of Lyons 1274, CCC 246).

The fathers speak of an eternal procession :

St Cyril if Alexandria

“For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.”

St Athanasius of Alexandria

“David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit.”

"Everything the Spirit has, He has from the Word "

St Basil the Great

“He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts”

St Epiphanios of Salamis

" For if he calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit"

The most damaging charge against it is that it changes the words of Christ Himself: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (John 15:26).

That’s because the Greek word there is εκπορεύομαι which refers to ultimate origin in this context. It would be heretical for Christ to have said otherwise.

The Filioque violates the perfect balance of Orthodox Trinitarian theology: Instead of any particular attribute belonging only either to the divine Nature or the Person, the Filioque grants an attribute to two Persons but not the other. For instance, unbegottenness belongs only to the Father, begottenness belongs to the Son, while procession belongs to the Spirit. Likewise, all divine characteristics (e.g., immortality, perfection, omniscience, etc.) belong to all three Persons. But if being the eternal origin of the Spirit’s spiration belongs to both the Father and the Son, that subordinates the Spirit in that He does not possess something that the other two Persons do.

the Holy spirit does not proceed εκπορεύομαι from the Son as Florence clearly stated he does not have ultimate origin in the son but rather from the father who is “the source of the trinity, the principal without principal”

Florence neither seeks to create two principles or rather, two ultimate origins. The decree itself states :

"The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father."

 

[Wandile]

Continued…

Now when one reads the Greek terms translates into Latin, there is an apparent false equivalence attributed to them as Latin philosophy understands the idea of ultimate origin and secondary origin and further. Further the Latin term procedere refers to origin of any kind, proper/principal and those subsequent from it. Where as the greek εκπορεύομαι is specific to ultimate origin. Thus the Latins and Greeks created a false equivalence and that’s why it was troublesome when the decree is read in Greek and why the Greeks later rejected it. This false equivalence was present for a long time and hence why St Thomas Aquinas erroneously described St John Damascene as a follower of the Nestorian error that taught , as part of parcel of their Nestorian teaching, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. He neve reliased that εκπορεύομαι meant ultimate origin and not what procedere mean. The false equivalence was only realised on both side in the last century. Thus dialogue between the two churches has advanced on the issue remarkably because of this. So thus here is a linguistic error in that “procedere” refers to originating “in any way at all,” this is just what ekporeuw does not mean in Greek…

However the Saint was right on everything else in this issue. St Thomas Aquinas expertly deals with the question of the filioque when he states. :

For since the Son and the Holy Spirit are two persons the procession of one must be distinct from the procession of the other

Note : Latins procedere means to go forward. As such he is saying the way the son goes forward must be different from the east that the Holy Spirit goes forward lest the two are confused.

He goes on to expertly say :

"Now the Son and Holy Spirit are likewise one in essence. Therefore they are one in every respect, except in those things wherein relative opposition makes them distinct. But if the Holy Spirit proceed not from the Son they would nowise be distinct by reason of relative opposition: and consequently they would in no way be distinct from each other

He goes on to note famously that For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father.

The Greeks have always maintained a complementary position of “through the Son” to that of “from the Son” in the west. Through the Son is understood as; The Father sends the Son: the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit, the Son isn’t a vessel which Divinity passed through in a non active role. This understanding is disturbing.

Thus again with the gospel of John :

" He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you"

In God there are two Internal “Divine Processions”. The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense). The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to a Father. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration.

 

[Wandile]

Continued…

And again as St Thomas explains in the highest sense this participation would be generation but not in any way corporal but spiritual :

“since the divine intelligence is of the highest perfection, it is necessary that the divine word be perfectly one with Him from whom He proceeds without any diversity of Nature.”

Finally St Thomas explains conclusively the way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in that he proceeds properly from the father agreeing that the father is principal without principal and then from the Son however not numerically as to produce to different types of spirations or processions :

“If the Son received from the Father a numerically distinct power for the spiration of the Holy Ghost, it would follow that He would be a secondary and instrumental cause; and thus the Holy Ghost would proceed more from the Father than from the Son; whereas, on the contrary, the same spirative power belongs to the Father and to the Son; and therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds equally from both, although sometimes He is said to proceed principally or properly from the Father, because the Son has this power from the Father”

This last line of St Aquinas is an affirmation of the monarchy of the Father and how it is in harmony with the Filioque.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. (Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 246, quoting the Council of Florence, 1438)

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LYONS2.HTM

Here, you can read the Council of Lyons on the Trinity, its no different at Florence.

We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LYONS2.HTM

Here, you can read the Council of Lyons on the Trinity, its no different at Florence.

Correct. It’s the eternally from the Father and the Son that we disagree with.

 

[Wandile]

St Hilary of Poitiers explains how the temporal and eternal mission reflect each other as God acts the same way in eternity as he does temporaly. That is God is consistent.

“Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son.”

In the same work, the holy Doctor clarifies,

"For the present I forbear to expose their license of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus,-- “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and stroll declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you” [Jn 16:12-15]. Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing."

The saint here speaks of the temporal mission and the eternal derivation of the existence of the Spirit. He does not restrict Jn 16:12-15 to the temporal mission, but uses it to bolster his argument about vocabulary in terms of the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and Son. “Receiving from the Son” means “proceeding from the Father” and receiving from the Father. Thus “receiving from the Son” denotes the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit. This implies that the Son participates in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as regards His being, or else the saint would not relate the Son to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Since the divine St. Hilary elsewhere affirms that the Spirit eternally proceeds, as regards His existence, from the Father and the Son, He regards proceeding from the Father and proceeding from the Son as one eternal act, or one spiration.