Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[jimmy]

It was composed of 700 not a few as you say. Or do you think the Byzantine Emperor (who really wanted unity) and Patriarch were on an Italian vacation, and decided to bring only a few so as to accomplish nothing.

So what, how many did Ephesus II in 449 have? That had more than a few as well but it was rejected. Bishops aren’t equivalent to the Church. In the west, if the bishops and pope sign it, then it is as binding as scripture. That isn’t the case in the EO. The whole Church must accept it.

 

[Mickey]

The rejection of the the council in the East is a fact of history.

The Great Synaxaristes of the Holy Orthodox Church has a superb account of the many problems associated with Florence. Thank God for St Mark of Ephesus.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Unity must be based on Truth. But you cannot say that all of your bishops and patriarchs, and the emperor were all heretics for agreeing as a matter of faith, purgatory, filioque, primatial structures, etc, etc. They individually signed it as truth. It’s not credible to say it was not based on truth or you have to say they were all heretics. Furthermore, there must have been agreement at the council, or it would not have ended with everyone thinking there was unity. It just does not work that way. How Mark of Ephesus fits into this, I can only deduce that his signature was not needed until later when the East suddenly claimed they had to have an Orthodox Synod to ratify.

Read Church history, it doesn’t work that way. There were many synods that were convened and believed to be finalized and later overturned because the decisions proved to be against the true faith. The first council thought to be the Seventh Ecumenical Council taught that iconoclasm was correct. Only later was it overturned and the true Seventh Ecumenical Council was revealed to be iconodule (lovers of icons).

Synods isn’t “touch-move chess”. Not just because they signed something they cannot overturn their signatures later. The truth surpasses all, there is no reason why we cannot go back on something that has proven to be based on falsehood. People commit mistakes, and it is clear that the Byzantine Emperor and the Eastern bishops here committed error by agreeing to a union only because of political interest.

 

[LionHeart777]

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

**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:**

1Tim215Mommy,

Thank you for the kind words! There are many wonderful common treasures that Catholics and Orthodox share Please forgive me for being cantankerous and uncharitable in my responses. I’ll respond a bit and realize that we may have to agree to disagree.

I link back to your last post to me.

You said: "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?
"

Thank you for your source. I would say that the reason for the eventual rejection of Florence by the Eastern Orthodox is debatable, and I am reading up on this myself. Both irenaeuslyons and myself have offered our understanding. As far as you saying that the others “threw away their Orthodoxy and signed” at Florence, I would like to say that I came across an article on the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America entitled, “Agreed Statement On Filioque Adopted By North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation”. The article says, “In a final section, the Consultation makes eight recommendations to the members and bishops of the two churches.” (Source: goarch.org/news/goa.news1003) One of the 8 recommendations was “…that in the future both Catholics and Orthodox ‘refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side’ on this subject, and that the theologians of both traditions make a clearer distinction between the divinity of the Spirit, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, ‘which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.’” (Ibid.)

Now the article is dated October 28, 2003, so if there has been more recent recommendations or there were or are conflicting ones, I am all ears. Incidentally, Oct. 28th is my dad’s birthday, but more interesting is that in the West at least and if memory serves, it is the Feast Day of St. Jude Thaddeus; the Patron Saint of lost causes I’m not saying that reunification is a lost cause all though perhaps some have been tempted to think so throughout the years.

You said: " 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."

I think I touched on this a bit above. I will say that it would seem that exploring the available historical data and listen to both sides would perhaps be an objective way for an inquirer to address the topic. I also think there is a burden of proof here for you to show that this was a “politically forced union”.

continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

continued…

You said: "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.)"

We disagree on the relevant passages of Sacred Scripture, and I disagree that Catholics “read into the Bible…what is not there” .

I would disagree where the burden of proof lays, as you were the one to make the accusation in this thread, so in my thinking it should be you to substantiate it. However, I am taking what you have written above as, in the very least, a partial substantiation of what you were saying and I will respond with part of an article I was browsing last night.

Regarding the documents of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, and those of Ephesus will come into play here, I will quote the article (click in and see for a broader context_:

First of all, please notice how, in the quotes from Canon VII of Ephesus and St. Cyril of Alexandria above, the prohibition is not against adding to the Creed of Constantinople I (A.D. 381), but rather adding to the Creed** “defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea**” (A.D. 325); and, as we already observed, the Creed of Nicaea makes no mention of the Spirit’s procession, but merely reads:

We believe]** in the Holy Sprit** [sic]… (followed by a direct anathema against Arianism.)

So, if one wishes to be technical about it (as some Eastern Orthodox choose to do by using Canon VII of Ephesus to challenge the legitimacy of Filioque), then one must conclude that Canon VII of Ephesus renders the Constantinopolitan Creed itself illegitimate, since it also “added to” the Creed of Nicaea.

Source: catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx (Blue color removed, and I recognized the typo with [sic])

So here I’ll ask, what Creed specifically are you faulting the Catholics for adding to? And which Council and what specific Canon are you referring to that, in your view, prohibits this?

 

[Mickey]

Synods isn’t “touch-move chess”. Not just because they signed something they cannot overturn their signatures later. The truth surpasses all, there is no reason why we cannot go back on something that has proven to be based on falsehood. People commit mistakes, and it is clear that the Byzantine Emperor and the Eastern bishops here committed error by agreeing to a union only because of political interest.

Amen.

And in relation to the failed Council of Florence…there was that nagging issue of the Coucil of Basil on the RC side.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

I am new here and have made it about 1/2 through the thread. I am enjoying it greatly. It is wonderful to meet so many people knowledgable about their faith, and who are able to have constructive dialogs about it. I know some people have called it “fighting” but compared to most internet forums, this place is like a drum circle.

At any rate, here are my two cents, being a Roman Catholic married to an Eastern Orthodox, raising our children in the Orthodox Church.

http://www.pontificalmission-jerusalem.org/blog-images/2013-2/20080630cnsph00219.jpg

Here is where both our Churches started, with Jesus bestowing upon Peter and the other Apostles the authority to found His Church and spread the Gospel.

http://ugc.theknot.com/144672-large.jpg

Here is where we are today, and into the conceivable future, sharing the common cup of Christ. Our two Churches are bound together. There is so much more that unites us when compared to what divides us. One needs to look no further than Starbucks coffee shops inside places of worship, Dixie cups of grape juice being presented as Our Lord’s Supper, and those that outright reject Jesus and his teachings entirely.

Just as both Orthodox and Catholics can share the common cup during marriage as a symbol of common joy, strife, and triumph, our Churches should recognize the shared reality that we are, as the Orthodox priest explained to my wife and I during wedding counseling, both the strong trunks on the tree that Christ planted. As such, we will sway and falter, or grow and prosper together.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Frankly, I think this is a bigger problem for the Catholic church than for the Orthodox due to the dogma of infallibility. The Orthodox make no claim to infallibility, consequently, it’s possible that, although the council taught the true faith they may have erred in anathematizing those who held the alexiandrian teachings. The Catholic church can make no such consession. All the lines become solid with infallibility: either you are on the right side or the wrong side.

It’s not a problem at all, because it still is either you profess the truth or you don’t. But, unlike the Eastern Orthodox, we don’t claim a one description to the exclusion of all others type principle. To use a simplistic mathematical analogy, if the answer is 4, does it matter if it is expressed as 2+2 or 5-1 or or 8/2 or square root of 16 or etc. No, it doesn’t, because there are myriad ways to express, look at, and come to the same one truth.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Infallibility doesn’t help with that. To use it in that way is circular. The pope is in fallible because he said he is, therefore we can trust that the pope and thse who followed him teach the truth. It is circular. The only true answer is because you have studied it, and you have faith that your church has remained true, or atleast despite any possible errors God is merciful. No claim to authority is proof of actual authority.

Except, the Pope isn’t the originator of his claim of infallibility. It ultimately comes from Christ and is attested to in both Scripture and Tradition. But, here is the helpful part - once one has come to the knowledge of the truth of the Catholic faith (and I admit that at some point an individual assent is necessary, just as it is in anything) one has a guarantee of truthfulness. If there are multiple disparate and contradictory statements about faith and morals flying about one can know which is the true one by looking to the Church united with Peter.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The rejection of the the council in the East is a fact of history. So is the chrononlogy.
After Florence, there was immediate controversy among the Byzantines, but the pro-union party had the upper hand

Not outside of Constantinople. The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem wrote in the year 1443 an encyclical condemning the council of Florence, and suspended from church service all who had been ordained by the pro-union patriarch until their faith could be investigated.

 

[JMJ_coder]

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.

I think you need to read my post again…this time do it slowly and carefully. And you might want to pick up some history books that go back more than about 50 years.

I’ll ask this of you - and I’ll assume that the difference between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcdonians is one of language and expression and not a true difference of theology (as I stated as possibility #2 in my earlier post). As this rejection of Chalcedon was the main impetus for the schism between the Church and the Oriental Orthodox, why are the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox not yet in communion? What has taken you so long to move forward on healing these divisions? And why do the Orthodox have such temper tantrums over the differences of expression in the Roman theology?

 

[Cavaradossi]

It was composed of 700 not a few as you say. Or do you think the Byzantine Emperor (who really wanted unity) and Patriarch were on an Italian vacation, and decided to bring only a few so as to accomplish nothing.

I don’t know what you meant by this, but the delegation representing the Church of Constantinople at Florence barely numbered two-dozen bishops.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I guess I should extend a thank you to the Orthodox posters here for once again solidly confirming me in the fact that the Catholic Church with the Successor of Peter at its helm is the true Church of Christ and is the only one that has remained 100% true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[JMJ_coder]

That isn’t the case in the EO. The whole Church must accept it.

The Catholic Church’s position is that the truth is not open for democratic election. The Bishops united with the Pope are the ones whom Christ has bestowed authority on. The power to bind and loose does not extend to the laity.

 

[Mickey]

I guess I should extend a thank you to the Orthodox posters here

And I will extend gratitude to you for helping me.

 

[Mickey]

The Bishops united with the Pope are the ones whom Christ has bestowed authority on.

The laity are not a part of the body of Christ in your Church?

 

[JMJ_coder]

And I will extend gratitude to you for helping me.

Anytime.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The laity are not a part of the body of Christ in your Church?

They most certainly are. However, they do not have authority to bind on matters of faith or morals.

 

[jimmy]

The Catholic Church’s position is that the truth is not open for democratic election. The Bishops united with the Pope are the ones whom Christ has bestowed authority on. The power to bind and loose does not extend to the laity.

Truth has nothing to do with democracy, or monarchy (as the west likes). The difference is that there is an organic relationship between the bishop and the faithful in the east. The bishop can do nothing apart from the faithful. The liturgy is celebrated with the faithful (never alone). At a council the bishop is a representative of his Church, not himself (as the west would have it). And if it turns out that the bishop didn’t really represent his Church they probably won’t accept his decisions.

JMJ:

Except, the Pope isn’t the originator of his claim of infallibility. It ultimately comes from Christ and is attested to in both Scripture and Tradition. But, here is the helpful part - once one has come to the knowledge of the truth of the Catholic faith (and I admit that at some point an individual assent is necessary, just as it is in anything) one has a guarantee of truthfulness. If there are multiple disparate and contradictory statements about faith and morals flying about one can know which is the true one by looking to the Church united with Peter.

That is a matter of perspective. Jesus never mentioned the pope. He spoke of Peter, but that isn’t the same as the Pope. In the west, every statement that references Peter is declared equivalent to a statement about the Pope. But the east doesn’t see that, and if you look at the fathers, they didn’t see that. Peter was Peter, and when Jesus spoke to Peter, he spoke to Peter.

The only way that argument works is if you accept the authority of the pope first. To use it against a protestant, or an Orthodox Christian is circular. You must have faith that the CC is right before the argument becomes valid. At that point though, the argument changes to a question of agreement with Rome, rather than a question of which of a variety of competing ideas is correct. In other words, a claim to infallibility doesn’t indicate truth, so you when arguing with a nonCatholic it is foolish to point to infallibility as a sign of where the truth is. You must first prove the validity of the claims of infallibility.

But then the Orthodox (Eastern or Oriental) don’t have a problem with how you know the truth. They trust to their own experience of it, and the Grace of God.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Except, the Pope isn’t the originator of his claim of infallibility. It ultimately comes from Christ and is attested to in both Scripture and Tradition. But, here is the helpful part - once one has come to the knowledge of the truth of the Catholic faith (and I admit that at some point an individual assent is necessary, just as it is in anything) one has a guarantee of truthfulness. If there are multiple disparate and contradictory statements about faith and morals flying about one can know which is the true one by looking to the Church united with Peter.

Your line of questioning is somewhat reminiscent of questions concerning Descartes’ evil demon postulation (for lack of a better term), and figuring out if what one believes stems from the demon. How do I know if X is true? You never do really solve this epistemological question, even with the papacy, because you first must accept the premise that the papacy was established by Christ and that it is infallible concerning matters of faith and morals before you can believe that the papacy will not lead you into error with its teachings. This is not actual certainty, as you yourself have now conceded, but it merely hides this sort of systemic doubt from the mind of the believer. Ultimately, it is still the believer who makes a judgment as to whether something is true or not.