Armenian Apostolic and Rome?

[twf]

Well I’m not sure what was hostile or rude about what I said but if I offended you I’m sorry. But as to my point it’s just a matter of history that the unia is one of the main reasons there is strong anti-Catholic sentiment is places like Russia.

Yes and it’s been decades since Rome has officially repudiated the process by which segments of Orthodox communities were brought into full communion. The Catholic Church has formally apologized for sins of the past, formally recognizes the Orthodox Churches as true churches with true sacraments, invites individual Orthodox to commune at our masses…etc… And we still have some Orthodox grinding and gnashing their teeth over events that happened centuries ago. (Not at all implying that’s what you’re doing - but some of the “anti-Catholic” sentiment you refer to in certain quarters is unbelievably removed from Christian charity…blaming 21st century CAtholics for the sins of men who died in eras long gone. Honestly, the secular world displays a more Christ-like attitude than some of these people do…look at how the West has forgiven Germany after a mere couple generations… You don’t see many American shops slamming their doors when German tourists pass by because of the sins their grandfathers committed in the wars).

 

[twf]

You can’t have piecemeal unity with just the Armenian Church. You would have to have unity with the entire Oriental Orthodox Church. That’s no where near happening.

I know Rome would likely be very reluctant to accept one Church rather than attempt to achieve full communion with the entire Communion… But I personally would not see this as Unia of the type you refer to. If the entire Armenian Church, which is completely autocephous, decided to seek full communion from Rome, we would be looking at a different situation from a smaller community, say a couple individual dioceses, breaking off from a larger mother church. There is nothing that connects the Armenian Church to the Coptic Church other than shared Faith. There is no administrative connection at all. I believe the Oriental Church is far loosee than even the Eastern Orthodox communion.
The Orthodox Church of Georgia was Oriental Orthodox and broke away from the Orientals to join you Byzantines, no?

 

[thephilosopher6]

If Roman Catholics really and truly wanted unity with the Armenian Church, they could have it by agreeing to what the Armenian Orthodox church teaches, instead of demanding that everyone has to agree with the Roman Catholic Church, especially the doctrines of papal infallibility and universal papal supremacy, which Orthodox have never accepted. IMHO, it makes no sense for Roman Catholics to go around saying that they want unity on the one hand, but on the other hand, to refuse to modify and make acceptable teachings that they know the Orthodox will not accept. The Orthodox can do the same thing and say that in a spirit of brotherly love and reconciliation, we want unity with Rome and what they could mean by that would be that Roman Catholics join the Orthodox church and renounce the teachings offensive to the Orthodox Churches.
Neither Church is budging from its position, and it is obvious that there will be no full unity until some compromise is reached.

Quite the contrary. First of all, the Catholic Church and the Armenian Church believe in all the same things. We are only divided over the role of the Pope. We don’t force any eastern Church to believe in the theology of the western Church, if we did then Eastern Catholics would have to accept the filioque and and the western concept of original sin. We let them keep their traditions and their theology. Everything the Armenian Church believes is in full agreement with the Catholic Church. They have just decided not to submit to Rome.

And the Eastern Orthodox Churches use to be in communion with Rome before a series of events caused them to go into schism. But there are 2 eastern Churches that never broke. They would be the Maronite Church in Lebanon and the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church in southern Italy. If Eastern Orthodox wanted true unity, they would realize their schism and come back to the true Church centered at Rome.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I know Rome would likely be very reluctant to accept one Church rather than attempt to achieve full communion with the entire Communion… But I personally would not see this as Unia of the type you refer to. If the entire Armenian Church, which is completely autocephous, decided to seek full communion from Rome, we would be looking at a different situation from a smaller community, say a couple individual dioceses, breaking off from a larger mother church. There is nothing that connects the Armenian Church to the Coptic Church other than shared Faith. There is no administrative connection at all. I believe the Oriental Church is far loosee than even the Eastern Orthodox communion.
The Orthodox Church of Georgia was Oriental Orthodox and broke away from the Orientals to join you Byzantines, no?

It is very much so. They both reject Chalcedon, and have created a communion with the other non-Chalcedonian Churches in order to show their mutual agreement on the matter. But their traditions and laws are very different. Coptic’s and Ethiopians, for example, don’t allow Catholics to partake of their Eucharist. But the Syrian and the Armenians do allow it. They are looser than the Eastern Orthodox Church and it’s even clear from the start with their huge differences in liturgy’s and traditions.

 

[Tomdstone]

And the Eastern Orthodox Churches use to be in communion with Rome before a series of events caused them to go into schism…

They say it was Rome who broke from the true Orthodox Church and that it is Rome which is in heresy. Please see the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs:
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
According to their thinking, full union can occur as soon as the Roman Catholic Church joins the Orthodox Church, which they welcome with “brotherly love and zeal” according to this encyclical.

 

[thephilosopher6]

They say it was Rome who broke from the true Orthodox Church and that it is Rome which is in heresy. Please see the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs:
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
According to their thinking, full union can occur as soon as the Roman Catholic Church joins the Orthodox Church, which they welcome with “brotherly love and zeal” according to this encyclical.

There is no heresy in the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox broke from Rome due to a series of unfortunate histroical events.
catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no heresy in the Catholic Church.

That is the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church. But that is not what the Encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs says. According to their encyclical and brotherly salutation, the Eastern Orthodox will welcome back Roman Catholics into full union with brotherly love and zeal if the Roman Catholics will agree to the “undefiled, divine, spotless, and perfect Creed of the Christian Faith, in conformity to the voice of the Gospel and the decrees of the seven holy Ecumenical Synods and the teachings of the ever-existing Catholic Church” keeping in mind that “Our bounteous LORD and God, who hath redeemed us by his own Blood, requires nothing else of us but the devotion of our whole soul and heart to the blameless, holy faith of our fathers, and love and affection to the Orthodox Church,” Please see:
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

 

[Tomdstone]

First of all, the Catholic Church and the Armenian Church believe in all the same things…

Here’s what the armeniapedia says:
"The main theological differences and disagreements between the Eastern (including the Armenians) and the Church of Rome (Catholics) are in the following issues:
Filioque: according to the teachings of the Church of Rome, the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, proceeds from the Father and the Son, while the Orthodox teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only;
Papal Supremacy: the Roman Catholics consider the Pope the “Vicar of Christ”, while the Orthodox churches consider him only as “first in honor” and in pastoral diakonia.
Papal Infallibility: The Catholics follow a “monarchical” model of ecclesial polity, while the Orthodox follow a “conciliar” model, i.e., church councils determine church dogma, canons and policies.
There are also other minor differences among these two branches of churches, such as the rules of fasting; unleavened bread at Eucharist (West); manner of conferring confirmation; celibacy of clergy; divorce (not sanctioned in Roman Catholicism); purgatory (East doesn’t teach it); …”
armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Apostolic_Church#THE_FAITH_OF_THE_ARMENIAN_CHURCH

 

[phil19034]

If Roman Catholics really and truly wanted unity with the Armenian Church, they could have it by agreeing to what the Armenian Orthodox church teaches, instead of demanding that everyone has to agree with the Roman Catholic Church, especially the doctrines of papal infallibility and universal papal supremacy, which Orthodox have never accepted. IMHO, it makes no sense for Roman Catholics to go around saying that they want unity on the one hand, but on the other hand, to refuse to modify and make acceptable teachings that they know the Orthodox will not accept. The Orthodox can do the same thing and say that in a spirit of brotherly love and reconciliation, we want unity with Rome and what they could mean by that would be that Roman Catholics join the Orthodox church and renounce the teachings offensive to the Orthodox Churches.
Neither Church is budging from its position, and it is obvious that there will be no full unity until some compromise is reached.

Tomdstone - it goes both ways. Why is it that the Catholics must “fold”? Why can’t the Orthodox “fold”?

To come into communion with one another BOTH sides must be willing to compromise.

There are many things the Catholics are willing to compromise on, but I see little (if anything) the Orthodox are willing to compromise on (if I’m wrong, please correct me).

This was happening before the schism… For example: Constantinople was always upset with the Latin Church moving to the disciple of celibate priests. Rome was NOT pushing that on the other Patriarchs, only the Western Church. Yet, that upset Constantinople for some reason which I cannot for the love me understand. It’s ok for the different Rites to have differences, but that’s something that Constantinople had a hard time with. Today, all of the Eastern Orthodox use the Byzantine Rite, even Antioch. The different Rites should be able to have different discipline, theology, worship & expression of faith, but NOT different Dogma & Doctrine.

This is the point of view that Rome expresses, but Constantinople / Moscow historically doesn’t.

Truth is, I strongly believe that the Catholic Church would have communion with the entire Oriential Orthodox communion before ever having communion with the Eastern Orthodox.

However, I pray for Communion happens in the 21st century.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Here’s what the armeniapedia says:
"The main theological differences and disagreements between the Eastern (including the Armenians) and the Church of Rome (Catholics) are in the following issues:
Filioque: according to the teachings of the Church of Rome, the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, proceeds from the Father and the Son, while the Orthodox teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only;
Papal Supremacy: the Roman Catholics consider the Pope the “Vicar of Christ”, while the Orthodox churches consider him only as “first in honor” and in pastoral diakonia.
Papal Infallibility: The Catholics follow a “monarchical” model of ecclesial polity, while the Orthodox follow a “conciliar” model, i.e., church councils determine church dogma, canons and policies.
There are also other minor differences among these two branches of churches, such as the rules of fasting; unleavened bread at Eucharist (West); manner of conferring confirmation; celibacy of clergy; divorce (not sanctioned in Roman Catholicism); purgatory (East doesn’t teach it); …”
armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Apostolic_Church#THE_FAITH_OF_THE_ARMENIAN_CHURCH

The Filioque is not a doctrine or a teaching. It is something in the creed.

Papal Supremacy/Papal Infallibility are the only things that separate us.

Fasting, unleavened bread, confirmation, celibacy and etc. are matters of tradition not of faith.

We believe in all the same things with the exception of Papal supremacy.

 

[thephilosopher6]

That is the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church. But that is not what the Encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs says. According to their encyclical and brotherly salutation, the Eastern Orthodox will welcome back Roman Catholics into full union with brotherly love and zeal if the Roman Catholics will agree to the “undefiled, divine, spotless, and perfect Creed of the Christian Faith, in conformity to the voice of the Gospel and the decrees of the seven holy Ecumenical Synods and the teachings of the ever-existing Catholic Church” keeping in mind that “Our bounteous LORD and God, who hath redeemed us by his own Blood, requires nothing else of us but the devotion of our whole soul and heart to the blameless, holy faith of our fathers, and love and affection to the Orthodox Church,” Please see:
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

Yes, and that is the opinion of some Eastern Orthodox which in the Catholic opinion is wrong. Most of the time when Eastern Orthodox accuse us of heresy it’s either because they don’t really understand what we teach (like the misconception about original sin and the filioque) or they don’t understand that this is theological viewpoint of the west that is widely held in the west. But it is the theological opinion of the west and in no way would ever been imposed onto the east. The east can keep its theology and the west can too.

 

[Tomdstone]

But it is the theological opinion of the west

If the filioque is only a theological opinion, why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church drop it from the creed in order to promote union in a spirit of brotherly love.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why is it that the Catholics must “fold”? Why can’t the Orthodox “fold”?.

Very simple.
The Orthodox maintain that the filioque is a serious heretical error and is not acceptable.
The Roman Catholics maintain that the creed can be said with or without the filioque, and they maintain that per filium means the same as filioque.
If Catholics say that the creed can be said without the filioque or at least changed to per filium, and it is perfectly acceptable to do so, why then don’t the Roman Catholics drop the filioque from the creed instead of keeping it, knowing that it seriously offends the Orthodox?
Further before 1800, there was no doctrine of papal infallibility and the Roman Catholic Church got along just fine without it.
Further, the tradition of icons is much more in keeping with the prohibition against “graven” or 3 dimensional images such as statues. Since the Bible itself speaks against “graven” images, and since icons are acceptable to Roman Catholics, why doesn’t the Catholic Church agree to use icons exclusively. Anyway, in many of the modern Catholic Churches, there are few if any statures.
For a more detailed explanation, please see:
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

 

[Tomdstone]

Why is it that the Catholics must “fold”? Why can’t the Orthodox “fold”?

Another reason is that it is the Catholic Church that is pushing hard for reunion and full communion, at least in its speeches and sermons. But the Eastern Orthodox are in not so much of a hurry to reunite with the Catholics for several reasons, including historical, liturgical and theological reasons. Many of them seem to be happy just the way things are now.

 

[phil19034]

If the filioque is only a theological opinion, why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church drop it from the creed in order to promote union in a spirit of brotherly love.

We have in many (if not all) Eastern Catholic Churches. They have never been forced to use the Filioque.

 

[thephilosopher6]

If the filioque is only a theological opinion, why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church drop it from the creed in order to promote union in a spirit of brotherly love.

It is not a theological opinion. The filioque is something the west includes in its creed. The east chooses not to. It has been used in the western creed since the 6th century and became very widespread by the 7th and 8th centuries. The Latin fathers, especially in the 4th and 5th century, speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. If the Eastern Orthodox truly wanted unity, then why don’t they include it?

 

[Tomdstone]

If the Eastern Orthodox truly wanted unity, then why don’t they include it?

Because:
"The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).

i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.
…
iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nicea and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.

v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.

vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.

vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.

viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.

ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.

x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.

xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.

xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed…

xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.

xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.

xv. It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: “If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic” (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council."
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

 

[prodromos]

There is no heresy in the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox broke from Rome due to a series of unfortunate histroical events.
catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy

One of the most biased and hypocritical articles I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

 

[adf417]

Another reason is that it is the Catholic Church that is pushing hard for reunion and full communion, at least in its speeches and sermons. But the Eastern Orthodox are in not so much of a hurry to reunite with the Catholics for several reasons, including historical, liturgical and theological reasons. Many of them seem to be happy just the way things are now.

It seems to me you have ansered your own questions right here.

Peace!!!

 

[thephilosopher6]

“The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences.” (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43)

The quote above (emphasis mine) from renowned Eastern Orthodox bishop and scholar Kallistos Ware illustrates how even a keen and scholarly Eastern mind (such as that of the good bishop) can easily overreact and zealously mischaracterize the doctrine of Filioque. While a Westerner might be tempted to attribute this to blind prejudice on the part of the East, the reality is that both East and West have so poorly communicated with one another on this issue over the centuries that it is easy to understand why an Easterner would object to Filioque as strongly as many do. Indeed, what is at stake for Easterners (or so it certainly seems to them) is the very integrity of their native (Apostolic) theology, as well as their Byzantine cultural heritage (I will elaborate on what I mean by these below). Filioque threatens both of these things; and this threat (whether real or perceived) is, and has always been, the driving force behind the East’s zealous opposition to the doctrine –that is, to the Traditional and Apostolic perspective of the Western Church, resulting (in large part) in the Great Schism.

To most effectively address the controversy and respond to Eastern objections, we would do well to first review how the controversy came about. “Filioque,” a Latin expression meaning “and the Son,” is of course a clause that was added by the Latin West to the Constantinopolitan Creed, originally formulated in Greek by the First Council of Constantinople in the year A.D. 381. This Creed of 381, in regard to the Holy Spirit, originally read:

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified.”

The Western Church, first in A.D. 589 at the regional council of Toledo, amended this statement to include:

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son (i.e., Filioque). With the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified.”

Now, while it took quite some time for the Eastern Church to become aware of, and offended by, this Western amendment, it eventually became a serious bone of contention between Eastern and Westerner churchmen. And for good reason. For, in the original Greek text of the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, the term “proceeds” (ekporeusis) had a specific and all-important meaning. It meant to originate from a single Source, Principal, or Cause (Aitia). And the single Source, Principal, or Cause of the Holy Spirit is of course the Father, and the Father alone. As St. Gregory of Nazianzus says …

“The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for It is not by generation, but by ekporeusis” (Discourse 39. 12)

Indeed, it was this very theology of the Cappadocian fathers (i.e., Sts. Gregory Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa) that the bishops at Constantinople I (381) intended to promote when they authored the Creed to say “The Holy Spirit …Who proceeds from the Father.” –a reference to the Father’s Monarchy as the sole Source, Principal, or Cause of the Spirit. And the bishops at Constantinople I did this to counter the heresy of the Macedonian Arians, who, at the time, were claiming that the Spirit is merely a “creation” of the Son. ‘No,’ say the Council fathers, ‘the Spirit is Divine and has His Source, like the Son, with the Father. It is from the Father that the Spirit proceeds.’

So, to someone coming from this Eastern heritage –indeed, for any Greek-speaker who knows what the term “ekporeusis” implies (i.e., procession from a single source, principal, or cause), the addition of the Latin clause “Filioque” (“and the Son”) seriously challenges, if not totally destroys, the originally-intended meaning of this Creedal statement. And we Roman Catholics fully agree and admit this. The introduction of the Filioque is clearly a departure from the original intention and design of the A.D. 381 version of the Constantinopolitan Creed. However, it is not a departure from Apostolic orthodoxy. And here is why:

catholicbridge.com/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.php

You can read the rest there.