Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[1Tim215Mommy]

I think it is important to not generalize and figure out first, what aspect(s) are we comparing. What are we viewing as to similarity? Language? Cultural outlook? Theology? Liturgy? Musical styles? Modes of expression? etc. Some of these things matter and some are irrelevant. Also, are we just comparing just the superficial or are we going deeper?

If OO is referring to Coptic Orthodox, EO and OO are very similiar theologically, liturgically and spiritually.

 

[JMJ_coder]

If OO is referring to Coptic Orthodox, EO and OO are very similiar theologically, liturgically and spiritually.

The Coptic Orthodox rejected the Council of Chalcedon. So, I see two possibilities. Either you claim that something as significant as agreement of the nature of Christ is non-consequential to your similarness, in which case I would question your sincerity or knowledge. Or, you recognize that it was at the root a case of different cultural expressions of the same one truth, in which case I wonder why you don’t recognize the same in may of the “disagreements” between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

The Coptic Orthodox rejected the Council of Chalcedon. So, I see two possibilities. Either you claim that something as significant as agreement of the nature of Christ is non-consequential to your similarness, in which case I would question your sincerity or knowledge. Or, you recognize that it was at the root a case of different cultural expressions of the same one truth, in which case I wonder why you don’t recognize the same in may of the “disagreements” between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox.

I personally know a Coptic Orthodox family who’s direct ancestors were converted by St. Mark. They tell me that Coptic Orthodox have always believed that Jesus is fully God and fully Man and that His Divine Will and Human will were united, but not mixed, within the One Person Jesus, but that do to lack of fluent Greek their representatives in the Council didn’t understand what the rest of Orthodox Church meant by 2 Natures of Jesus, if they had understood fully, they would have agreed. They say that Coptic Orthodox never believed that the Divine Nature & Human Nature were ‘mixed’ even though they said Jesus has 1 Nature. Ultimately, is a term we don’t agree with, while we share the same belief.

Orthodox are different than Catholic in many theological ways. Just a few to mention here.

1. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally and eternally from the Father and the Son as if from a single spiration. CCC#246 While Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and comes to us, in time, from the Father through the Son. John 14:26/John 15:26
2. Catholics believe in Development of Doctrine, Orthodox don’t. With Development of Doctrine, Catholic of today understand more clearly the teachings of Jesus than the Apostles did who lived with Him and spoke with Him daily for 3 years AND “good” Catholics of yester-years would be considered “cafeteria” Catholics today unless they changed their beliefs/teaching, like Catholic St. Thomas Aquinas who taught against the now Catholic Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
3. Catholics belief Grace is created. Orthodox believe Grace is the Uncreated Divine Energies of God Himself. The belief of Grace changes everything else even the Mysteries/Sacraments and Salvation.

 

[dvdjs]

I personally know a Coptic Orthodox family who’s direct ancestors were converted by St. Mark. They tell me that Coptic Orthodox have always believed that Jesus is fully God and fully Man and that His Divine Will and Human will were united, but not mixed, within the One Person Jesus, but that do to lack of fluent Greek their representatives in the Council didn’t understand what the rest of Orthodox Church meant by 2 Natures of Jesus, if they had understood fully, they would have agreed. They say that Coptic Orthodox never believed that the Divine Nature & Human Nature were ‘mixed’ even though they said Jesus has 1 Nature. Ultimately, is a term we don’t agree with, while we share the same belief.

While there has been progress in reconcliation of the OOCs with both the EOC and CC, in particular in differentiating mono- versus miaphystism, the OO still do no accept Chalcedon.

Orthodox are different than Catholic in many theological ways. Just a few to mention here.

1. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally and eternally from the Father and the Son as if from a single spiration. CCC#246 While Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and comes to us, in time, from the Father through the Son. John 14:26/John 15:26

This is not seen as a church dividing issue by theologians and scholars. The key point, in agreement, is that the Father is the origin of the Spirit

1. Catholics believe in Development of Doctrine, Orthodox don’t. With Development of Doctrine, Catholic of today understand more clearly the teachings of Jesus than the Apostles did who lived with Him and spoke with Him daily for 3 years AND “good” Catholics of yester-years would be considered “cafeteria” Catholics today unless they changed their beliefs/teaching, like Catholic St. Thomas Aquinas who taught against the now Catholic Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Doctrine of course develops in Orthodoxy as well. The ecumenical councils clarified teachings - they taught “more clearly” on the Trinity, on the divinity of Christ, on the Theotokos, etc. There is no reason to think that Aquinas would now have trouble with the IC than Chysostom would with the sinless of the Theotokos.

1. Catholics belief Grace is created. Orthodox believe Grace is the Uncreated Divine Energies of God Himself. The belief of Grace changes everything else even the Mysteries/Sacraments and Salvation.

CC theology uses the term created grace in considering the impact of grace within creatures. It is analogous to essence/energy distinctions the EOC in that it preserves the essential distinction between Creator and creature, while also conveying the idea of creatures participating in divine life. Fr. Kimel - an Orthodox priest who occasionally posts here - wrote beautifully on this point over at byzcath some time ago.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Coptic Orthodox rejected the Council of Chalcedon. So, I see two possibilities. Either you claim that something as significant as agreement of the nature of Christ is non-consequential to your similarness, in which case I would question your sincerity or knowledge. Or, you recognize that it was at the root a case of different cultural expressions of the same one truth, in which case I wonder why you don’t recognize the same in may of the “disagreements” between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox.

Do you even know what their position is on Chalcedon, what they rejected, and what they actually believed? You keep stressing this point but I’m getting the feeling that beyond the fact that they rejected the findings of the council, you have no clue what the actual disagreement is. While they did reject Chalcedon, the difference of position between EO and OO is not as far apart as you think it is.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

My responses are below in Red.

While there has been progress in reconcliation of the OOCs with both the EOC and CC, in particular in differentiating mono- versus miaphystism, the OO still do no accept Chalcedon.

Yet they still remain far closer to Orthodoxy than the Catholic Church

This is not seen as a church dividing issue by theologians and scholars. The key point, in agreement, is that the Father is the origin of the Spirit

I do agree with you that both Churches do agree that the Father is the Holy Spirit’s origin; however, Catholics go beyond that which was revealed in the Bible & in Ecumenical Council and claim that the Holy Spirit has 2 eternal sources of origin, the Father and the Son as if from a single spiration. But it truly is a significant dividing issue. Many mainstream Orthodox Christians (laity), authors, theologians, etc. has spoken & written about whether or not Catholics even worship the same God based on how significatly different the belief about the Trinity is.

Doctrine of course develops in Orthodoxy as well. The ecumenical councils clarified teachings - they taught “more clearly” on the Trinity, on the divinity of Christ, on the Theotokos, etc. There is no reason to think that Aquinas would now have trouble with the IC than Chysostom would with the sinless of the Theotokos.

**Orthodox do Not and never have believed or taught Development of Doctrine.

RE: Catholic St. Thomas Aquinas based on his own detailed writings against the IC, I can’t come to your conclusion that all of the sudden he’d change his mind.**

CC theology uses the term created grace in considering the impact of grace within creatures.

**This sentence doesn’t make sense to me. You’re saying that the Catholic Church teaches that Grace is created because it has an impact on humans? If so, we believe the exact opposite.

Nothing created deify humanity, only God Himself can do deify us. And He does that through a very real sharing of Himself, His Divine Energies also known as Uncreated Grace.**

 

[Surnaturel]

In Catholicism only Uncreated Grace which flows from God’s essence, not the intermediary of ‘energies’ as in EO, can deify humans. Created grace is a gift from God that is healing and leads one to the Church, like prevenient grace, but it doesn’t deify.

St. Thomas was a faithful Catholic and he said himself that his teachings would be in error if they don’t conform to the Churh. Thus, when you know about the man then it is quite certain that he would have accepted his error.

 

[dvdjs]

Yet they still remain far closer to Orthodoxy than the Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In Catholicism only Uncreated Grace which flows from God’s essence, not the intermediary of ‘energies’ as in EO, can deify humans. Created grace is a gift from God that is healing and leads one to the Church, like prevenient grace, but it doesn’t deify.

St. Thomas was a faithful Catholic and he said himself that his teachings would be in error if they don’t conform to the Churh. Thus, when you know about the man then it is quite certain that he would have accepted his error.

There is no created and uncreated grace in Orthodoxy. Grace is grace. I can’t remember if it was Fr. Thomas Hopko or Fr. Lawrence Farley who explained on Ancient Faith Radio that the origin of the term for grace used in Hebrew pointed to the fact that grace is God giving himself to us. It isn’t some sort of energy (not in the Patristic sense, but energy how we describe it today) that God has or creates that is separate from Him. When God gives us Grace, He gives us Himself. That is why grace deifies us, because it is God himself that is given to us.

 

[Surnaturel]

There is no created and uncreated grace in Orthodoxy. Grace is grace. I can’t remember if it was Fr. Thomas Hopko or Fr. Lawrence Farley who explained on Ancient Faith Radio that the origin of the term for grace used in Hebrew pointed to the fact that grace is God giving himself to us. It isn’t some sort of energy (not in the Patristic sense, but energy how we describe it today) that God has or creates that is separate from Him. When God gives us Grace, He gives us Himself. That is why grace deifies us, because it is God himself that is given to us.

That’s the Catholic position: that grace isn’t an ‘energy’ but God’s gift to us. Uncreated grace means the self-gift of God to Christians, whereas created grace is a gift of God that does not flow from His essence.

Karl Rahner, however, has influenced RC theology post-VII in his teaching that all grace is uncreated grace and God himself, and the effects from God’s gift and relation to us is ‘created grace.’ It is closer to the EO understanding but we still reject the essence-energy distinction and the peculiarities of its theology.

 

[dvdjs]

Hmmm… better quote the Ghosty posts:

In Latin theology, when Grace is called created it doesn’t refer to the substance of Grace, but the instance of Grace. So the Grace is the Divine Life Itself, but our share in it has a beginning in time, and in that sense it is called created. When it is called uncreated it refers to acts of Grace that have no beginning in time, like God’s foresight and plan of Gifts.

Those Eastern Orthodox who complain about “created Grace” mistakenly believe that the Latin teaching is that Grace is a creature, which is not at all what is meant. What is meant is that our participation in Divinity begins, and is not itself eternal; even Eastern Orthodoxy teaches this fact.

… the Summa … specifically addresses the way the term is used. For example:

And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be inact with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, “created in Jesus Christ in good works.”

Eastern Orthodox who don’t pay careful attention to the actual teaching of “created Grace” mistakenly assume that Aquinas means the same thing that Barlaam did, namely that Grace is actually a creature and not really a participation in Divinity. St. Gregory Palamas countered this by referring to Grace as “uncreated”, not in reference to its being in us, but purely in reference to it being the Divine Nature and not some creaturely substance. Aquinas wasn’t dealing with this argument at all, and as can be seen he clearly argued that Grace is participation in Divinity itself, and not some creaturely thing. His use of the term “created” is completely different from that of Barlaam and Palamas.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s the Catholic position: that grace isn’t an ‘energy’ but God’s gift to us. Uncreated grace means the self-gift of God to Christians, whereas created grace is a gift of God that does not flow from His essence.

Karl Rahner, however, has influenced RC theology post-VII in his teaching that all grace is uncreated grace and God himself, and the effects from God’s gift and relation to us is ‘created grace.’ It is closer to the EO understanding but we still reject the essence-energy distinction and the peculiarities of its theology.

Well, no, that is not the Catholic position because I just said there is no “created grace” in Orthodox theology. Because grace is God himself, then all grace is uncreated because God himself is uncreated.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

1Tim215Mommy;10900098:

By what criteria? The separation of the OOs, in stark contrast to the separation of the CCs, is the result of an ecumenical council. Hard to trump that.

That has already been addressed in detail. The Catholic Church did manage to ‘trump that’. Again that has already been detailed. If you who are neither Eastern Orthodox nor Coptic Orthodox still don’t accept reality, then there’s nothing more anyone can say that would be able to convince you.

No that is not the position of the CC.

**Yes, it is. Read your own Catechism of the Catholic Church #246. “The Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son” “He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through spiration”

Note to self, I’m conversing with a Catholic who arguing against his own Faith.

(Side note suggestion - In order to not mislead people on this cite, you might change your religion from Byzantine Catholic to Cafeteria Catholic; otherwise, you will continue to scandlize non-Catholics as you agrue against Catholic Church teachings.)**

 

[dvdjs]

By what criteria? The separation of the OOs, in stark contrast to the separation of the CCs, is the result of an ecumenical council. Hard to trump that.
That has already been addressed in detail. The Catholic Church did manage to ‘trump that’. Again that has already been detailed. .

No. I have asked for detail. But it has nothing substantive has been provided. .

No that is not the position of the CC.
Yes, it is. Read your own Catechism of the Catholic Church #246. “The Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son” “He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through spiration”

Hmm… what happened to “2 eternal sources of origin”? That is what I quoted and objected to. The CCC does not have it! And that is not a subtle point, but the crucial point in theological discussions.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

No. I have asked for detail.

I’m not going to repeat the detail you have already been given. Post #361

Hmm… what happened to “2 eternal sources of origin”? That is what I quoted and objected to.

**My goodness, now you’re denying that the Father is eternal & that the Son is eternal?

It’s a crazy way to waste the precious gift of time that God has gifted me with to have repeat myself to try to convince a Catholic who is arguing against basic teachings of their own Church. :banghead: Blocking feature to the rescue **

 

[dvdjs]

I’m not going to repeat the detail you have already been given.

What very little has been given has been refuted. No details of substance.

Hmm… what happened to “2 eternal sources of origin”? That is what I quoted and objected to.

My goodness, now you’re denying that the Father is eternal & that the Son is eternal?

Why assume that? This issue, of course, hinges on “origin”. That has been the key point in discussion of theological commission, and in most every one of the many threads on the filioque at CAF. “2 eternal sources of origin” is not in the CCC; it contradicts Catholic teaching.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

1. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally and eternally from the Father and the Son as if from a single spiration. CCC#246 While Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and comes to us, in time, from the Father through the Son. John 14:26/John 15:26

The Holy Spirit processing from Jesus Christ -
Jn 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

First of all, one cannot give what one does not possess.

Secondly, in the words of St Athanasius -
“the same things are said of the Son as are said of the Father, except His being
said to be 'Father.”’

 

[RyanBlack]

That’s the Catholic position: that grace isn’t an ‘energy’ but God’s gift to us. Uncreated grace means the self-gift of God to Christians, whereas created grace is a gift of God that does not flow from His essence.

Karl Rahner, however, has influenced RC theology post-VII in his teaching that all grace is uncreated grace and God himself, and the effects from God’s gift and relation to us is ‘created grace.’ It is closer to the EO understanding but we still reject the essence-energy distinction and the peculiarities of its theology.

Since the essence-energies distinction predates the schism, can be found in the writings of St. Basil the Great, a Doctor of the Church, and is used by the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Byzantine tradition, it is not correct that Catholics reject it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I guess he was more orthodox than Photius and Palamas. Photius and Palamas say that Mary was free from any sin… from conception. Palamas says it was in stages starting with her ancestors until the perfection of her birth. Photius says from her starting point in the embryonic state.

You assume that Ss. Photius and Gregory understood the distinction between nature and grace in the same way that the Neo-Scholastic movement understood it, which they most certainly did not. For the virgin to be sanctified from the embryonic state is not a very incredible claim, given the tendency of the Eastern fathers to understand our inheritance from Adam as being primarily the inheritance of death, which drives us into Sin, rather than a stain on our soul which prevents us from living a holy and sinless life.

But then again Athanasius did not agree with Photius on the filioque either.

That is only true if you read Athanasius either purely in translation, or if you were to assume that verbs like προείμι and ἐκπορεύω are identical in meaning. But St. Athanasius never wrote that the spirit proceeds from the Father (that is, using the verb ἐκπορεύω which is the one in the creed).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Since the essence-energies distinction predates the schism, can be found in the writings of St. Basil the Great, a Doctor of the Church, and is used by the Eastern Catholic Churches in the Byzantine tradition, it is not correct that Catholics reject it.

Thing is, most of Roman Catholic theology today originated in the Second Millennium. A lot of Patristic teaching from the First Millennium is largely forgotten in the West.