Can Catholics disprove Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Wesrock]

AnonymousSinner:

Of course, probably the biggest difference between the Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is the latter would view St. Peter as a first-among-equals with the other apostles, an error which is contrary to the Bible as this video shows.

Consider the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Everyone is debating until Peter stands up, and then everyone is silent. Peter has the final say.

If Peter has supreme authority and universal jurisdiction over the entire church, why is he mentioned second after James. James is supposed to be under the authority of Peter, who is the supreme head of the church, so the correct protocol would be to name Peter first, and then James second. Gal 2:9 names James before Peter, indicating that the protocol was not to put Peter first over all the others.

And you know correct protocol… how? James was Bishop of Jerusalem. The council was being hosted in his See. He was the host.

 

[AlNg]

OK. So if Pope Francis were to travel to Orlando FL, and meet with Bishop Noonan , and they were together at a ceremony, it would be OK to introduce the two as:
I am very honored to have here today Bishop Noonan and Pope Francis? I thought that the general rule was to mention Pope Francis first, and then the local bishop second.

 

[po18guy]

Why must everything be proved or disproved? Because of the scandal in the Church? If so - I said if so - that is a poor reason for searching elsewhere. That is a failure of man, not of Christ’s Church.

Look at it from the viewpoint of the Oriental Orthodox, who disagree with the Eastern Orthodox. “Orthodoxy” is not a monolith.

What did Saint Paul write? “There must be factions, so that those of you who are approved may be made known.”

Read the early Church fathers. All recognized the Bishop of Rome, seated in the chair of Peter, as being prime - the CEO if you will, and unifier.

 

[StAugustine]

Yes, as a former Convert to Orthodoxy and revert to Catholicism, I can disprove the claims of the Orthodox Church on-

1. Its possession of the marks of the true Church.
2. Its objection to the filioque clause.
3. Its objection to the Latin notion of Sanctifing grace.

Let’s just start with these three and you can pick which one you find most threatening to address.

1. The true Church founded by Christ is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic. It possesses unity in faith, sacraments, teaching and discipline. It is Holy because its founder is Holy and its members are called to be Holy and it possesses the means of holiness for others. It is Catholic because it is found all over the world, which is a necessary condition of the true Church of Christ, and its teaching is that which has been held every, always and by all, and it is apostolic because it possesses apostolic succession and holds to the apostolic teaching.

Orthodoxy, while having a semblance of unity, and while we all have our dissenters, certainly is at least wounded in its unity, by not having that which its own saints would admit is useful for it- namely, communion with Rome-

“We should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. But only let them show that he is true to the faith of Peter and his successors; then let him have all the privileges of Peter, let him be first, the head of all and the supreme hierarch. Only let him be faithful to the Orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agathon, Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we too shall call him apostolic father and the first among hierarchs; then we will be under his authority not only as under Peter, but the very Saviour Himself.” (PG 145, 120 AC) St. Symeon of Thessaloniki

Regarding the mark of Holiness, they certainly possess true sacraments that can convey grace, but they are objectively offensive to God by being administered in a state of schism. They certainly number many holy men in their ranks, but their fall from unity condemns them.

 

[StAugustine]

Regarding the objection to the Filioque-

1. Here is the gist of the argument- Everything in the Trinity is either one or three. if it is one, it belongs to the one common and substantial nature, if it is three, it is particular to one of the persons. So the “Begottenness” of the son is a singular property that belongs to the Son alone, for only the son is begotten. To be unbegotten is a singular property belonging to the father alone, for he alone is Unbegotten. Now, the argument the Orthodox try to proffer is this- “Is the Father’s ability to spirate, to breathe forth the Spirit a PERSONAL property or a NATURAL property?” With this question they think to lay a trap- If we say “Personal,” they say “Why then do you confuse the Father with the Son by sharing personal properties? This is heresy, it’s a kind of Semi-Sabellianism, semi-modalism.” If we say “Natural” they rightly accuse us as heretics, for that means all three persons can spirate, and the fourth would then spirate a fifth, and the fifth a sixth, etc, until we have a godhead of infinite persons.

But here is where the innovation and madness of Photius comes to an end. The correct answer to the above question is “The ability to Spirate the Spirit is a personal property.” And then they clap their hands and gleefully launch into a diatribe about how we are modalists. Steady now! Have you not considered, that that which is had derivatively is not indentical to that from which it is derived?

…what?

Consider- The Son possesses the ability to spirate derivatively FROM the Father, which means it is bequeathed to him in his being begotten from all eternity, and so it is not confusing personal properties at all. The Fathers ability to Spirate is proper to him and unoriginate and unbegotten with him. That which the Son has is Proper and begotten with him, derivatively. That which is had derivatively is distinct from which it is derived, therefore the common ability to Spirate that both Father and Son posses are truly distinctly hypostatic properties, NOT the same property. Therefore there is no Semi-Sabellianism here.

“But the Father Alone is Cause!!!” I know, I know, but here is why this also is a fall into heresy if you are incautious-

The Father is Father because he has a Son. He is not the Father of the Spirit. Therefore, Spiration is not particular to Paternity, if you say it IS, you fall into heresy, because now you are calling the Father the Father of the Spirit, since Spiration is something the FATHER ALONE does. So now the Trinity is a Father with Fraternal Twins! Two distinct SONS! Who is the Semi-Sabellian now? How will the Spirit be distinguished from the Son when the origin of BOTH is an eternal hypostatic PATERNAL emanation?

So much for the heresy of the Filioque. Find anyone before Photius who taught the Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE. IE they discounted any role in the Son playing a mediating role in the ETERNAL Hypostatic procession of the Spirit. You can’t, there aren’t and its WHY the Catholicity of Orthodoxy is false, because the West consistently affirmed exactly this point.

 

[StAugustine]

1. Regarding the Latin conception of created grace.

The Latins tend to refer to any gift given to men from God as a grace. The Spirit himself who indwells us is a gift of uncreated grace given in justification and abiding in our sanctification, and the infusion of charity into the heart is a direct participation in uncreated energy. So what’s the problem? The problem is this- We ain’t Pelagians. The soul of man in its “natural” condition is corrupt, and its powers are corrupt. Not ANNIHILATED, not DESTROYED not INACTIVE, Corrupt, malfunctioning, terminal. Moreover, even if they were healed, they are insufficient to receive the Lord of Glory. That which is merely natural must be granted the capacity to receive the supernatural, a capacity that is truly ontologically proper to the Soul. This is the created grace, the THING God gives the soul to enable it to receive him. IN other words, we take Psalm 50 seriously- “CREATE in me a clean heart O God” and as the prophet says “I will take away your heart of stone and GIVE YOU a heart of flesh.”

This heart, this new capacity in the soul is meant to enable the soul to be a fit receptacle of the uncreated Grace and Author of Grace that will indwell it. In other words, before Christ takes up his abode in our hearts, he renovates it and makes it His own temple. That’s the created part, because there was ONCE when this heart was NOT. And it, being a product of God’s WILL is a creature, for all things he wills outside himself are creations (That’s gonna be really great when we get to the essence energy distinction!). And WHY is it necessary he gift US with a capacity to receive him in such a way where he gives the soul a new quality? Simple- so we are not simply CHANNELING the Holy Spirit. Our acts all begin in God’s grace, but when done they really are US acting, not just God pulling puppet strings.The Soul divinized by the indwelling of God and elevated above nature can do that which surpasses nature- be pleasing to God in a way truly its own, but yet truly gifted by God.

 

[StAugustine]

Even Orthodoxy itself can’t REALLY escape this necessity. Let them brag of their “DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE” experience of the uncreated grace of God via Hesychia, let them simply ANALYZE it in the briefest of terms and they will suddenly realize they only know God through the Agency of a Creature that exists in the soul that wasn’t always there…

“Christ illumines the nous to clearly perceive his divine energies!”

Ok, wonderful, tell me, what is the nous?

“A faculty of the soul, the souls power to perceive spiritual realities.”

So it’s created?

“Yes…”

So God illumines a creature to communicate to the soul the truth of divine realities?

“Yes…”

So this nous, the faculty of the soul, which is a creature, does it function properly in the unbaptized?

“No, it’s subject to corruption.”

Okay, so God must cleanse and revive it in order for it to function properly?

“Yes…”

How?

“Well, he infused the soul with grace and communicates to the nous a new life.”

Is this new life a substantial alteration of the nous?

“No, the nous remains human…”

So, it’s a new quality given to the nous after it is purified by baptism?

“Yes.”

So let’s recap-

God, in order to elevate man to partake in the vision of divine things, purified the soul in baptism, infused it with a divine quality that inheres in the soul itself that elevated it above a purely natural state and yet does not turn it into God himself?

“Yes.”

See, the Latins call that Sanctifying grace. That’s a Latin concept as well…

“…oh…”

Yeah.

What else…? Essence energies? How about this- Preview- What does St. John of Damascus DEFINE as Energy? The activity of an essence. What are all acts OUTSIDE of the Godhead? Acts of creation, because they are acts of Gods will and the internal life of the Godhead is a relation of natural emanations, not acts of the divine will. So will it ever be possible to consider the Divine energy as a NOUN when it is only a VERB whose subject is the Divine essence and whose object is acts within creation? No. That means the divine energies, being ACTS will only be able to be comprehended in their object, the THING in which they are acting, which means they CANNOT be comprehended apart from the agency of a creature. Re-read St. Symeon the New Theologian’s Hymns of Divine Eros- “I behold my hand and see Christ move in me all entire!” Yes, he is perceiving the ACTIVITY of the Divine Essence in HIS SOUL, IN A CREATURE. Not abstractly as if it were a noun…

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Statements like this are the biggest problems problem–on both sides–in Othodox/Catholic relations.

I do not mean to be one making schism bigger than it is- trust me that my intentions are very far from that. However, even saint Photius and Michael Cerularius both tried to excommunicate Pope because of making eucharist from unleavened bread- atleast as far as I know. They both called it a judaistic practice and Michael Cerularius even as far to step on Eucharist from unleavened bread as he believed Jesus was not present in it. That was reason Pope dispatched (poorly chosen) cardinal as his legate to solve this dispute and if necessary, excommunicate Michael Cerularius. (i know cardinals legatine power faded when Pope died and excommunication was invalid, but this clearly shows that if Orthodox do recognize unleavened bread as correct matter for eucharist, their Patriarch was at fault in formal schism/excommunication in 1054).

 

[AlNg]

Regarding the objection to the Filioque-

If it is wrong to omit the filioque in the creed, why do Eastern Catholics omit the filioque in their creed.

The true Church founded by Christ is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic. It possesses unity in faith

IF the Catholic Church possesses unity in faith, why does one part of the Catholic Church say the filioque in the creed, while another part of the Catholic Church does not say the filioque in the creed. It seems to me that the Eastern Orthodox church is more united in the faith because all Eastern Orthodox say the creed without the filioque.

 

[StAugustine]

It is NOT wrong to omit the filioque, it was originally not contained in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. But, just as a local synod (Constantinople I was local before it was shown to be ecumenical) amended the Nicene Creed to add the remainder, so a local synod in the west in Spain added the filioque. As long as the theological understanding of the filioque is not considered heretical (And it is not, because it was taught in the east as well, simply read Gregory of Nyssa and his work on the Trinity).

Unity need not consist in monolithic uniformity so long as the substance of the faith is the same,

 

[ziapueblo]

Regarding the mark of Holiness, they certainly possess true sacraments that can convey grace, but they are objectively offensive to God by being administered in a state of schism. They certainly number many holy men in their ranks, but their fall from unity condemns them.

I’m not sure that the Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox are “objectively offensive to God.” The Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith on it’s Note on the Expression “Sister Churches” in the final paragraph states, “Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.”

Dominus Iesus in paragraph 17 states, “Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60”

The Catholic Church sees the Orthodox as “sister Churches” and as “True Churches” because they “have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.”

We are not in full communion with the Orthodox but at the very least and imperfect or partial communion.

ZP

 

[AlNg]

It is NOT wrong to omit the filioque

Then why is it heretical to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father?

So much for the heresy of the Filioque.

Unity need not consist in monolithic uniformity so long as the substance of the faith is the same,

The true Church founded by Christ is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic. It possesses unity in faith

How can the substance of the faith be the same if one creed is said with the filioque and another creed is said without the filioque. In one Catholic Church, people say that they believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Yet in another Catholic church, people say that they believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. In the past, in many Catholic Churches they said that the Blood was shed for all. However, today, in most Catholic Churches they say that the Blood was shed for many. How does this show that the Catholic Church is more unified than the Orthodox Churches, when the Orthodox Churches are consistent and have been consistent in their belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and that the Blood was shed for many? You brought up the question of the marks of the true Church and you claim that you can tell which church is the true church if it has the four marks, one of which is unity of belief. But the Orthodox Church has had the unity of belief in the filioque issue, and the Catholic Church has not and does not even today have the unity of belief on the filioque. Some Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, while other Catholics profess belief in a Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Further the Orthodox Church has had the unity in belief of the Blood being shed for many and the Catholic church has not had this unity in belief, since at one time it was declared at Mass said in the USA that the Blood was shed for all, but now it is said that the Blood was shed for many.

their fall from unity condemns them.

So if a church does not have unity of belief, they are condemned? How would that apply to the two issues I have mentioned above?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The true Church founded by Christ is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic. It possesses unity in faith

If Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and the Son, he aswell proceeds from Father. Both are true and it is not needed to say both- but it is needed to respect both as truth. In creed it never says that Mary was a virgin before and after our Lord was born, but we still believe in it- creed would simply be too large if it had to state everything. You can omit filioque aslong as you dont deny it. We believe Eastern Orthodoxy has valid apostolic succession and sacraments but aslong as they remain in schism they remain in sin- and sins require consent to be sins, so willingly remaining in schism puts them under sin while unwillingly, through no fault of their own remaining in schism, it is not sin yet it makes them miss out on full unity with Christ and His Church. Consistency does not come from never changing words- it comes simply from faith. As centuries passed people have changed and so has language- pre-schism Church changed the creed to better reflect faith too, many parts of liturgy have changed over the liturgies (you can not simply believe any liturgy is precisely identical to liturgy Apostles celebrated). Consistency does not mean uniformity- after all early church had married bishops and had numerous presbyters in one city, nowaday practice differs. Why? Because times have changed and so have needs of people and the Church.

 

[eagerbeaver]

And is the OP satisfied with the answers to his questions ? He does seem to have abandoned his thread.

 

[StAugustine]

I never said it was heretical to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. It is potentially heretical to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE if ALONE is understood to mean-

1. The Son plays absolutely no mediating role in the eternal Hypostatic procession of the Person of the Holy Spirit.
2. That Spiration is a property PARTICULAR to the Father alone. This would mean that the begottenness of the Son and the Spiration of the Spirit are BOTH Paternal acts, rendering the Son and the Spirit Fraternal twins. This leads to Orthodoxy’s own semi-sabellianism where the Son and Spirit share the indistinguishable property of being derived of a Paternal act, making them virtually identical.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s a pretty good microcosm of east-west ecumenism.

1. Energetically and cheerfully engage ecumenism, seeing as to how close we are already!
2. Encounter enduring problems like anathemas that have to be rolled back that make someone look unacceptably wrong.
3. Get burnt out and jaded to the topic.