Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[ConstantineTG]

I agree with the idea that Renaissance was coupled to the Fall of Constantinople. But the rest of this is dubious history at best. Early connections are well know, notably the link between Damascene and Aquinas.

The suggestion that there was an interruption of the intellectual heritage, and that people had to start from scratch, somewhat disembodied, better fits that contemporary East than the West after the dark ages.

There was an interruption. Have you forgotten that Barbarians were knocking at the door of Rome for decades, even the Pope himself had to fell to Constantinople for the time to avoid the conflict. The West at this time largely didn’t even exist. How can there be advancements in the West? It’s funny when people use this period to accuse the East of being the bedrock of heresy. How can the West come up with heretical ideas where there aren’t as much thought given to the faith as there was in the East when the West was mostly barbarian?

 

[LionHeart777]

My responses below in red.

Let me cut & paste your responses (in red) & respond:

you said: "To say the Greeks had a huge issue with it is an understatement which is why that false union was utterly rejected by the Orthodox Church and not just by the Greeks. "

Well, the CA tract is citing the “Catholic Encyclopedia” as their source, what is your source?

The alternate explanation given by the same tract is that the union didn’t last because the
Eastern brethren were pressured by their Muslim rulers.

you said: "
I haven’t read what you’re claiming another author wrote about what Bishop Kallistos supposedly said."

Well now you have; at least that citation. The source is given: “(Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).” (Ibid.)

You said: “Yes, I’m sure that is what Catholics believe on the issue. As an Orthodox Christian, I don’t find it convincing in the least. The Bible & the Ecumenical Council’s Creed says what it says and it can’t be twisted to say something different…Gal. 1:8 ‘But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.’”

We disagree then on how to interpret the evidence available in Sacred Scripture; and it is up to the hierarchy of each side to sort it out. Thankfully, not all Eastern Orthodox Bishops seem to on the exact same page as you. Your accusation of twisting the words of the Bible and that of the Ecumenical Council’s Creed are just that; an accusation. The Creed was modified (to my understanding); it would seem that you have the burden of proof of proving that a Creed cannot be modified.

Regards,

Nick

 

[Surnaturel]

You just made the same distinction as the Orthodox. The Orthodox speak of the dine energy, flowing from the divine essence and deifying men. You just said uncreated grace flows from the divine essence and deifies men. Either you believe that uncreated grace is the divine essence, or your above statement is identical with the Orthodox claim.

I did, in fact, mean to say that uncreated is the divine essence communicated to finite creatures in historically conditioned contexts.

 

[jimmy]

So my guess was correct, you do not understand the issue.

The issue isn’t one or two natures per se, but how does Christ’s human nature and divine nature synthesis is understood. The Chalcedonian definition is that there are two distinct natures in Christ. The non-Chalcedonian position is that Christ being human and divine are both found within one nature, whilst maintaining that both human and divine are distinct and are not confused with one another. So it is not like they believe that Christ is divine only or human only, both sides agree that Christ is fully human and fully divine, the argument is only how is that manifested, how does that exactly work? They do not agree that one being can have two natures. Being = nature, so the synthesis of humanity and divinity within Christ happens within one nature. The Chalcedonians believe that it is the mystery of God found in Christ, that two separate natures exist distinctively as two separate natures, even though they are one in Christ. The argument of the non-Chalcedonians come from conter-Nestorianism, that having two natures means you can separate the natures, which means that God the Word could have been separate from Jesus Christ the son of Mary. The Chalcedonian position comes from seeing Christ as eternally divine and then assuming a second nature at the incarnation.

So you see, the difference isn’t huge. This is more of semantics. We already agree Christ is both fully human and fully divine, just how that is understood is where the disagreement is.

The Orientals rejected the phrase ‘in duo’, or in two natures. They spoke of Christs nature as being ‘ek. Duo’, or out of two natures. Before the incarnation you could speak of two natures, but once the union has occurred, you can only speak of two in contemplation. There is one nature after the incarnation that is both divine and human, without mixing the natures in a way that changes either. So acommon phrase among the Orientals was ‘one incarnate nature of the divine word.’ There is one nature (the divine), but it is made incarnate.

If the debate would have stiled at chalcedon, then there probably wouldn’t have been any way for reconciliation, but it continued up till Constantinople II. Over time there was a clarification of the meaning of hypostasis, and the meaning of two natures in one hypostasis. It was affirmed that the hypostasis was that of the second person of the Trinity (this kind of ambiguous at chalcedon).

John Meyendorff has a good book on this subject called Christ in the Eastern Tradition, I think. It covers the developments of Christology from Chalcedon until Nicaea or maybe a little later.

 

[jimmy]

I did, in fact, mean to say that uncreated is the divine essence communicated to finite creatures in historically conditioned contexts.

Which means there is a vast difference between the eastern and western views of Christology, and consequently soteriology. The eastern idea says that in the incarnation there was a mutual penetration of energies within the person of Christ. The divine energies infused the human nature and vice versa. There is an actual divinization of the human nature, because the divine energy becomes infused with itself. In your view divinization remains external and only semantic in a sense. I assume that you would agree that the divine essence doesn’t exist apart from the three persons of the Trinity. The divine essence can never become part of a man, because then he would be God incarnate. Everyone agrees that is an error.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Orientals rejected the phrase ‘in duo’, or in two natures. They spoke of Christs nature as being ‘ek. Duo’, or out of two natures. Before the incarnation you could speak of two natures, but once the union has occurred, you can only speak of two in contemplation. There is one nature after the incarnation that is both divine and human, without mixing the natures in a way that changes either. So acommon phrase among the Orientals was ‘one incarnate nature of the divine word.’ There is one nature (the divine), but it is made incarnate.

If the debate would have stiled at chalcedon, then there probably wouldn’t have been any way for reconciliation, but it continued up till Constantinople II. Over time there was a clarification of the meaning of hypostasis, and the meaning of two natures in one hypostasis. It was affirmed that the hypostasis was that of the second person of the Trinity (this kind of ambiguous at chalcedon).

John Meyendorff has a good book on this subject called Christ in the Eastern Tradition, I think. It covers the developments of Christology from Chalcedon until Nicaea or maybe a little later.

Thanks for explaining it much better. I must admit I am a bit of a noob when it comes to Oriental Orthodoxy, but I do understand the issues around Chalcedon. Many people think that the debate on one or two natures means that the non-Chalcedonians essentially believe that Christ is human only or divine only. But there is far more agreement about Christ’s humanity and divinity that most people realize, that the true issue really is only how this two natures come to exist without confusion within the one person of Christ.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

This Bible passage doesn’t suggest in that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son, but shows that the Holy Spirit came to us in time through the intercession of the Son. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit ultimately proceeds from the Father.

John 14:16-17 Jesus said, “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever - the Spirit of truth…”

John 15:26 Jesus said, "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth Who procceds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

Reading John 20:22 in context with the other sayings of Jesus regarding the Holy Spirit, we can see that the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople got it right when the Bishops of the Council formulated the Creed to read in the section re: the Holy Spirit, “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and Son is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke by the prophets.”

The Bible passages of Jesus’ own words & the Bishops at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople both confirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father eternally & to us into time through the Son. This is what the Orthodox Church believes.

Although a local synod of Toledo in Spain changed their Creed to read, “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son” for centuries the Popes of Rome rejected the synods’ change of the Creed and it wasn’t until Charlemagne’s insistance that a Pope of Rome conceded centuries later - per the history I have read it was a political move to allow the Pope the political priviledge of crowning Charlemagne, not a religious move Pope Hadrian despite his concession to Charlemagne still claimed that the doctrine of single procession was consistent with the Fathers of antiquity and the Tradition of the Church of Rome.

Today, the addition, new(er) belief of the Trinity namely that “The Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son…He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration” CCC#246 is now firmly intrenched into Catholic doctrine.

Catholics and Orthodox certainly believe every different things about the Holy Trinity our God; although, I’m fairly certain we still worship the same God, but only one of the Churches have 20/20. God-Willing we will all be saved and whoever believed incorrectly about Him will know Him fully in the here-after.

The Eastern Orhtodox accepted the Filioque at the Council of Florence. However, when the Patriarch of Constantinople returned, he mysteriously died and the union fell apart. No doubt the Sultan killed the patriarch as they did not want a unified Church. The Sultans actually appointed and deposed 105 of the 159 Patriarchs of Constantinople. So the Union of Florence never got ratified by the Greeks and the schism continued.

 

[jimmy]

The Eastern Orhtodox all accepted the Filioque at the Council of Florence. However, when the Patriarch of Constantinople returned, he mysteriously died and the union fell apart. No doubt the Sultan killed the patriarch as they did not want a unified Church. The Sultans actually appointed and deposed 105 of the 159 Patriarchs of Constantinople. So the Union of Florence never got ratified by the Greeks and the schism continued.

Where did you get that history from? I have never heard it like that. Mark of Ephesus never accepted the filioque. From what I have seen many western theologians blame him for it failing because he preached against it.

 

[Surnaturel]

Which means there is a vast difference between the eastern and western views of Christology, and consequently soteriology. The eastern idea says that in the incarnation there was a mutual penetration of energies within the person of Christ. The divine energies infused the human nature and vice versa. There is an actual divinization of the human nature, because the divine energy becomes infused with itself. In your view divinization remains external and only semantic in a sense. I assume that you would agree that the divine essence doesn’t exist apart from the three persons of the Trinity. The divine essence can never become part of a man, because then he would be God incarnate. Everyone agrees that is an error.

Your assertion that in my view ‘the divinization of human nature remains external and semantic’ does not logically follow (non-sequitur). The divinization comes from the person of the Son unites the human and divine natures together without confusion or mixture. The divine nature in discussion is actually God in his essence which doesn’t make deification more ‘external’ but more intimate to God.

And yes I do agree that the ontological chasm between God and creation can never be crossed.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Where did you get that history from? I have never heard it like that. Mark of Ephesus never accepted the filioque. From what I have seen many western theologians blame him for it failing because he preached against it.

By all, I meant the delegation in Florence came to agreement before the Council ended.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Eastern Orhtodox accepted the Filioque at the Council of Florence. However, when the Patriarch of Constantinople returned, he mysteriously died and the union fell apart. No doubt the Sultan killed the patriarch as they did not want a unified Church. The Sultans actually appointed and deposed 105 of the 159 Patriarchs of Constantinople. So the Union of Florence never got ratified by the Greeks and the schism continued.

Florence was never accepted as a council by the Orthodox. While the representatives who were in Florence did accept the councils canons in exchange for military support in the defense of Constantinople against the Turks, St. Mark of Ephesus never accepted it, so there was no consensus on the Orthodox side. And when they returned to Constantinople, the people rejected Florence as well. Besides, Rome never sent the army to protect Constantinople, so both sides never held their word.

 

[ConstantineTG]

By all, I meant the delegation in Florence came to agreement before the Council ended.

St. Mark of Ephesus was among the delegation.

 

[jimmy]

By all, I meant the delegation in Florence came to agreement before the Council ended.

Mark of Ephesus didn’t accept it though. He was part of that delegation before he left.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Florence was never accepted as a council by the Orthodox. While the representatives who were in Florence did accept the councils canons in exchange for military support in the defense of Constantinople against the Turks, St. Mark of Ephesus never accepted it, so there was no consensus on the Orthodox side. And when they returned to Constantinople, the people rejected Florence as well. Besides, Rome never sent the army to protect Constantinople, so both sides never held their word.

Yes, it is said the people rejected it, though for it to be meaningful, they would have to possess some deep theological insight, as they are the sheep not the sheppards entrusted with the deposit. Yes, Mark was the only bishop not to sign against the wisdom of the emperor, all the other bishops and patriarchs in the east. And he was later canonized for his evil deed which eventually climaxed with the fall of Constantinople two decades later. It takes a long long time to raise an army, the crusades are a great example for this. However, the Orthodox going back on their agreement happened immediately after the death of the Patriarch which was upon his return with the delegation from the Council. Mark would not have prevailed had he not died, and there might still be a Constantinople.

 

[jimmy]

Your assertion that in my view ‘the divinization of human nature remains external and semantic’ does not logically follow (non-sequitur). The divinization comes from the person of the Son unites the human and divine natures together without confusion or mixture. The divine nature in discussion is actually God in his essence which doesn’t make deification more ‘external’ but more intimate to God.

And yes I do agree that the ontological chasm between God and creation can never be crossed.

Can you clarify your position on what is the relationship between Christ and the rest of us? Are we like little logoi within the logos? Do we remain seperate hypostases within the hypostasjs of Christ?

I know the Orthodox perspective is that you are a human hypostasis with a human energy, that recieves the divine energies from God. The divine energies penetrate the human nature and make it divine. Since the energy of God is eternal and comes frlm the essence, it truely deities you. It corresponds to Christology; the difference being that Christ was a divine person who assumed the human nature and human energy.

The traditional western view from what I understand, doesn’t speak of Theosis or deification, but rather a transformation of nature through created grace. Through nearness God changes your nature. There is no theosis in the sense that the east has it. And you confirm this with your post. You accept that there is an absolute chasm between human and divine, but maintain no way to bridge the gap and are forced to speak of a created Grace to explain the change in man. I realize that you didn’t mention created Grace, but that is the logical conclusion.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

St. Mark of Ephesus was among the delegation.

Keep in mind Ephesus at this point in time was not a city. It was a miserable little village that had long lost its glory and population. Mark was not an important bishop at all. The only reason the village still had a bishop was because of its tradition with Mary and the Evangelist. He was making a name for himself and that was all.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Nick, I absolutely Love your name! St. Nicholas is one of my favorite Saints. My youngest, less than 2, waddles up to the icon corner and takes the little icon we have of him off the wall & kisses and hugs him and them brings him to me to put him back because so far she’s only has the skill to take him off the wall My responses are now in blue

Let me cut & paste your responses (in red) & respond:

you said: "To say the Greeks had a huge issue with it is an understatement which is why that false union was utterly rejected by the Orthodox Church and not just by the Greeks. "

Well, the CA tract is citing the “Catholic Encyclopedia” as their source, what is your source?

The writings of St. Mark of Ephesus. Plus there is the fact that not a single Orthodox Church acknowledges the Council of Florence as an Ecumenical Council. It is clearly & historically documented that the Rome Emperor of Constantinople sent the Bishops with the political order of unity at all costs. All but St. Mark of Ephesus succombed to that political pressure and threw away their Orthodoxy and signed. Have you not read what became of them when they returned to the East?

The alternate explanation given by the same tract is that the union didn’t last because the
Eastern brethren were pressured by their Muslim rulers.

Maybe that’s the Catholic Churches explanation; however, they being outside of the Orthodox Church may not be the best source of information as to why the Orthodox Church rejected the politically forced union.

you said: "
I haven’t read what you’re claiming another author wrote about what Bishop Kallistos supposedly said."

Well now you have; at least that citation. The source is given: “(Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).” (Ibid.)

If it’s true that he actually said what the author claims he did, then he would be going against major Saints, like St. Photius & St. Ephesus, would be going against every Orthodox Church Father I’ve read, every priest & spiritual father I’ve spoken with. If it’s true.

You said: “Yes, I’m sure that is what Catholics believe on the issue. As an Orthodox Christian, I don’t find it convincing in the least. The Bible & the Ecumenical Council’s Creed says what it says and it can’t be twisted to say something different…Gal. 1:8 ‘But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.’”

We disagree then on how to interpret the evidence available in Sacred Scripture; and it is up to the hierarchy of each side to sort it out. Thankfully, not all Eastern Orthodox Bishops seem to on the exact same page as you. Your accusation of twisting the words of the Bible and that of the Ecumenical Council’s Creed are just that; an accusation. The Creed was modified (to my understanding); it would seem that you have the burden of proof of proving that a Creed cannot be modified.

**I personally can’t see how anyone can read into the Bible & the Creed what is not there, but I do recognize that all Catholics faithful to their Church do read into what’s not written so you’re not alone in disagreeing with the Biblical & Conciliar evidence.

Please read the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. The documents say, and I’ll paraphrase since it’s not in front of me, but I do recommend you look it up to read it for yourself: “If anyone ADDS or removes a single iota to this Creed is Anathama.” It’s your Church who has added to the Creed two additional & separate phrases, “God from God” & “and from the Son” so it seems to me the burden of proof is on you to come up to defend your Church who has, by the additions, fallen under the Anathama of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. (I don’t really expect you to defend your Church, my point is that if anyone has a burdern of proof to meet it is the Catholic Church.)**

Regards,

Nick

**Again, I really love your name & pray that St. Nicholas the Wonderworker remains always with you!

The topic of the thread is “Best of both worlds” and I think that our common Saints, like St. Nicholas, are a wonderful common treasure that Catholics & Orthodox share! :extrahappy:**

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Mark of Ephesus didn’t accept it though. He was part of that delegation before he left.

I wonder how it is though that the Eastern Patriarch and the Emperor, thought they had an agreement then, because the council did not end with a stalemate.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Yes, it is said the people rejected it, though for it to be meaningful, they would have to possess some deep theological insight, as they are the sheep not the sheppards entrusted with the deposit. Yes, Mark was the only bishop not to sign against the wisdom of the emperor, all the other bishops and patriarchs in the east. And he was later canonized for his evil deed which eventually climaxed with the fall of Constantinople two decades later. It takes a long long time to raise an army, the crusades are a great example for this. However, the Orthodox going back on their agreement happened immediately after the death of the Patriarch which was upon his return with the delegation from the Council. Mark would not have prevailed had he not died, and there might still be a Constantinople.

You’ve just proved the point, the false union was purely a political move damanded by the Patriarch and sealed by unfaithful bishops. Thanks be to God for holy St. Mark of Ephesus who at great personal loss held firm to the Faith of the Apostles.

Furthermore, Constantinople still exists and our Patriarch is still there, the secular city is called Istanbul. The Christian Faith is still alive despite Islam just as it was before there was a Christian Empire when the city was still called Byzantium. Empires come & go, but the Orthodox Faith remained fully “Orthodox” in Faith due to the amazing St. Mark of Ephesus and the Orthodox Christian Faithful who would not accept anything less than “Orthodox” Orthodoxy.

P.S. - I’m sure you would NOT want someone calling Catholic Saints evil, so I do hope you apologize for the trendous offense you have cause all Orthodox Christians by calling one of our Saints “evil”. Shame on you! I hope you will print an apology.

 

[joe371]

From a Catholic and Orthodox perspective, I woudl like to hear opinions on this question. Can a Catholic be in two worlds: attend Divine Liturgies vs. the Mass (except for days of Catholic obligation), grow in holiness as a result of practicing the tenets of Orthodoxy outside of reception of the Sacraments, and at the same time remain technically Catholic?

Interesingtingly I read a declaration from the Conference of Catholic Bishops that Catholics married to Orthodox spouses may raise their children Orthodox with the blessing of the Catholic Church so that a family would be combining the two faiths.

DJL

I am not sure. Former, Pope Benedict XVI, had this to say and I agree:

“An emphasis on this Eucharistic basis of ecclesial communion can also contribute greatly to the ecumenical dialogue with the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which are not in full communion with the See of Peter. The Eucharist objectively creates a powerful bond of unity between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, which have preserved the authentic and integral nature of the Eucharistic mystery.”