Catholic and Orthodox reunion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wandile said:
Very hard not to considering the catholic point of view of the events the surrounding circumstances.

But I hear what you are saying.
Click to expand...
Very wrong to do so, since he is a Saint of the Catholic Church.
 
Aramis said:
That it refers to origin has NEVER been what Rome has taught. It’s a mistranslation error by priests of Constantinople.

The latin does not reference origination, only transmission.
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does teach that the Holy Spirit has his origin from the Son. There is room for nuance on what that means, but we have to be honest about history.

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.” By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”. But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: “The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.” The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: “With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified.”

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

. . .

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church does teach that the Holy Spirit has his origin from the Son. There is room for nuance on what that means, but we have to be honest about history.

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.” By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”. But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: “The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.” The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: “With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified.”

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
. . .
​
Click to expand...

My personal response is to ask if the Roman Catholic Church teaches also that the Spirit also has everything that the Father has. Is the Holy Spirit an equal member of the Trinity?. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because the Son has everything that the Father has seems to me to imply that the Father and the Son share in something that is not shared by the Holy Spirit thereby making the Holy Spirit an inferior person of the Trinity. Perhaps this point can be clarified further?
I still think that the Biblical language that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son or through the Son is more precise and avoids the confusion that the filioque causes.

Archpriest John W. Morris​
 
Is “honest and blunt” code for vilifying? 😉

I wonder if anyone in England ever says “We must be honest and blunt when speaking about all the trouble Thomas More caused.” :ouch:
 
Wandile said:
You have a point but we must be honest and blunt when speaking about all the trouble he caused
Click to expand...
Are you willing to be “honest and blunt” about “all the trouble” caused by some western bishops, including some who were bishop of Rome, or is your polemic reserved for eastern bishops?
 
frjohnmorris said:
Pope Nicholas I exceeded his authority by interfering in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Click to expand...
Both Ignatius and Photius petitioned Rome for adjudication. Photius was undeniably an intruder on Ignatius’ See,however, and entirely reversed his position WRT Rome after he didn’t like the result he wanted. It’s certainly possible he THEN found a valid doctrinal reasons to do so, though the cynicism seems patently obvious, and he certainly wasn’t casting anathema at Rome before the decision against him in 862.
When Ignatius died, Pope John VIII did no hesitate to recognize the restoration of St. Photius to the Patriarchal throne and to ratify the Council of Constantinople of 879 that rejected the decisions of the Council of Constantinople of 869 that deposed St. Photius by the Council of 869.
Click to expand...
Once Ignatius was dead, Photius’ election was perfectly valid and canonical. Note that the next Pope rejected the Emperor’s intrusion of his brother Stephen in Photius’ place in 886 for the same reason Photius’ intrusion on Ignatius was rejected: the illegal intrusion of the Emperor’s appointee on the Patriarch’s throne instead of the legitimately elected holder.
 
RyanBlack said:
Are you willing to be “honest and blunt” about “all the trouble” caused by some western bishops, including some who were bishop of Rome, or is your polemic reserved for eastern bishops?
Click to expand...
Reverence and honesty (no rude bluntness) would be best when speaking of the holy Fathers of the Church. One can be honest about the mistakes of a saint without treating him as a wicked man (which he is not, or else he would not be a saint). 🙂
 
RyanBlack said:
Are you willing to be “honest and blunt” about “all the trouble” caused by some western bishops, including some who were bishop of Rome, or is your polemic reserved for eastern bishops?
Click to expand...
I’d settle for honest, regardless of western or eastern.
 
Wandile said:
You have a point but we must be honest and blunt when speaking about all the trouble he caused
Click to expand...
Did St. Photius cause the trouble, or Pope Nicholas by attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople? Or did the East cause the trouble by objected to the unilateral alteration by the West of the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils. You see being honest and blunt goes both ways. However, I agree sometimes to arrive at a mutual understanding we have to work through our differenes. If we are afraid to offend each other we will never resolve our differences because we cannot honestly express ourselves for fear that we will offend the other side.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
frjohnmorris said:
Did St. Photius cause the trouble, or Pope Nicholas by attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople?
Click to expand...
Like it was mentioned earlier, both Ignatius and Photius petitioned Rome for adjudication.
Or did the East cause the trouble by objected to the unilateral alteration by the West of the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils.
Click to expand...
If I’m not mistaken the councils said the faith of the creed cannot be altered, not the actual words.
The third ecumenical council, held at Ephesus in 431, which quoted the creed in its 325 form, not in that of 381,[43] decreed in its seventh canon:
Click to expand...
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized. And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.[44]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque#Nicene_and_Niceno-Constantinopolitan_Creeds
Click to expand...
Filioque is the same the faith as that of the creed. I don’t see a huge uproar from the east concerning the Armenian creed or the creed of the church of the east when they were in communion with the Chalcedonians
see being honest and blunt goes both ways. However, I agree sometimes to arrive at a mutual understanding we have to work through our differenes. If we are afraid to offend each other we will never resolve our differences because we cannot honestly express ourselves for fear that we will offend the other side.
Click to expand...
Archpriest John W. Morris
Click to expand...
Amen. /quote
 
frjohnmorris said:
Did St. Photius cause the trouble, or Pope Nicholas by attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople? Or did the East cause the trouble by objected to the unilateral alteration by the West of the Creed as approved by the Ecumenical Councils. You see being honest and blunt goes both ways. However, I agree sometimes to arrive at a mutual understanding we have to work through our differenes. If we are afraid to offend each other we will never resolve our differences because we cannot honestly express ourselves for fear that we will offend the other side.

Archpriest John W. Morris
Click to expand...
Indeed.

At the risk of sounding cliche, I think the truth lies somewhere in between: We can’t assume that Pat. Photius was a villain b/c of his disagreement with Pope Nicholas … but neither should we assume he was perfect b/c of his reconciliation with Nicholas’ successor, Pope John.
 
AdvocatusVerbum said:
Both Ignatius and Photius petitioned Rome for adjudication. Photius was undeniably an intruder on Ignatius’ See,however, and entirely reversed his position WRT Rome after he didn’t like the result he wanted. It’s certainly possible he THEN found a valid doctrinal reasons to do so, though the cynicism seems patently obvious, and he certainly wasn’t casting anathema at Rome before the decision against him in 862.
Once Ignatius was dead, Photius’ election was perfectly valid and canonical. Note that the next Pope rejected the Emperor’s intrusion of his brother Stephen in Photius’ place in 886 for the same reason Photius’ intrusion on Ignatius was rejected: the illegal intrusion of the Emperor’s appointee on the Patriarch’s throne instead of the legitimately elected holder.
Click to expand...
The cause of the conflict between Ignatius and St. Photius was that Ignatius and his followers advocated punishment for the Bishops and clergy who had yielded to the imperial policy of iconoclasm. St. Photius and his followers advocated forgiveness if they repented and recognized the decisions of the 7th Ecumenical Council. This must be considered when discussing the whole conflict over St. Photius.
Because the dispute took place at a time when representatives of Rome were in Constantinople both sides asked the papal legates to act as unbiased judges. The papal legates ruled in favor of St. Photius. The Pope then intervened although he had not been asked to intervene and had no right to intervene and overrode the decision of the papal legates who had been asked to help resolve the problem because they were neutral parties. The anti-Photian council of 869 recognized the deposition of St. Photius, but it rejected Rome’s claims to universal jurisdiction and affirmed the historical rights to independence of the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
The the Council of 879 overruled the deposition of St. Photius in 869. It also forbade adding anything including the filioque to the Creed. St. Photius wrote against the filioque. He did not anathematize the Bishop of Rome because at that time the Pope, John VIII agreed with St. Photius that the filioque was an illegal addition to the Creed. Rome did not add the filioque to the Creed until much later in 1014. Pope John VIII also recognized the reinstatement of St. Photius. Thus St. Photius has been unfairly villianized by some Western polemicists.

Archpriest John W. Morris
 
frjohnmorris said:
That is quite possible. If it what you say is true, just because St. Photius may not have understood what the Latins meant does not compromise the theological points that he made on the procession of the Holy Spirit. It also still does not justify adding the filioque to the Creed by the West.
Calvinists do teach the doctrine of double procession with the Holy Spirit originating in the Father and the Son.

Archpriest John W. Morris
Click to expand...
St Photius theological points were valid, but he was grossly misinformed, and was anti-latin to begin with; it isn’t impossible that he willfully chose to mistranslate procedit as ekorousis instead of proenai.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top