Catholic vs Orthodox

[Wandile]

The Oriental Orthodox have a defective notion of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Church have a defective communion between each other. The former issue is more serious than the latter.

They actually don’t. They have an orthodox understanding of Christ.

HERE is a the common declaration between the Copts and the Catholic Church on the nature of Christ:

“In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity with the early three ecumenical councils, we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His substance, who for us was incarnate, assuming for Himself a real body with a rational soul, and who shared with us our humanity but without sin. We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.”

 

[Wandile]

1. Vatican I stated that papal declarations on dogma meeting infallibility are “irreformable of themselves” meaning no other office has any required (name removed by moderator)ut into them. It has also been made clear since Vatican I that the pope has no “duty” to consult other bishops although he may choose to do so, and even if the pope had such a duty, Orthodoxy views the authority of bishops as greater than that of being “consultants”.

Your depiction of the dogma here is wrong and unfair. The pope uses the infallibility of the church to speak ex cathedra. In the same way bishops who did not attend an Ecumenical council would be bound by its decisions because they are irreformable, so too when the pope exercises this same infallibility that all bishops and Catholics a bound by it even if they did not consult with him because it is the infallible authority of the church given to her by Christ which is being invoked. All Christian’s are bound to submit by religious duty. That’s the reasoning of the dogma.

1. Lateran IV said the Spirit proceeds “equally” from the Father and the Son.

That’s straight from the Latin fathers. For example :

"* “the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son,*** consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son…”

• Pope St Leo III

It’s patristic, apostolic and completely orthodox. It simply means that there is one spiration in the holy trinity, not two which would create two sources. Hence for it to be the same single spiration, they must be equal in that they are hypostatic and in it the holly spirit receives all that he is. The only difference is not the nature of the spiration but the cause in that from the father it is immediate/ultimate/principally and From the Son mediated.

 

[Lucretius]

1. Vatican I stated that papal declarations on dogma meeting infallibility are “irreformable of themselves” meaning no other office has any required (name removed by moderator)ut into them. It has also been made clear since Vatican I that the pope has no “duty” to consult other bishops although he may choose to do so, and even if the pope had such a duty, Orthodoxy views the authority of bishops as greater than that of being “consultants”.
2. Lateran IV said the Spirit proceeds “equally” from the Father and the Son.

Vatican I stated that papal declarations on dogma meeting infallibility are “irreformable of themselves” meaning no other office has any required (name removed by moderator)ut into them.

That’s true, but practically, since the council also teaches that the Pope acts with the Church in his exercise of the Church’s infalliblity, as well as acts within sacred tradition, he consults the college and theologians, even though he doesn’t have to in theory.

Orthodoxy views the authority of bishops as greater than that of being “consultants”.

And Catholics agree. Other bishops “being consultants” only refers to the circumstances surrounding the rare exercise of Papal infalliblity, not the exercise of every channel of infallibility, or the exercise of all of the authority deligated to bishops by Christ.

Lateran IV said the Spirit proceeds “equally” from the Father and the Son.

And Florence said The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit.

Either we presume that these Latin Councils are in contradiction, or through faith and charity, presume that our understanding of “equally” is a misunderstanding

Christi pax.

 

[Rohzek]

That’s straight from the Latin fathers. For example :

"* “the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son,*** consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son…”

• Pope St Leo III

It’s patristic, apostolic and completely orthodox. It simply means that there is one spiration in the holy trinity, not two which would create two sources. Hence for it to be the same single spiration, they must be equal in that they are hypostatic and in it the holly spirit receives all that he is. The only difference is not the nature of the spiration but the cause in that from the father it is immediate/ultimate/principally and From the Son mediated.

Could you provide a citation for this quotation?

 

[Rohzek]

That’s straight from the Latin fathers. For example :

"* “the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son,*** consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son…”

• Pope St Leo III

It’s patristic, apostolic and completely orthodox. It simply means that there is one spiration in the holy trinity, not two which would create two sources. Hence for it to be the same single spiration, they must be equal in that they are hypostatic and in it the holly spirit receives all that he is. The only difference is not the nature of the spiration but the cause in that from the father it is immediate/ultimate/principally and From the Son mediated.

The fundamental problem with Pope Leo III’s statement is how to understand it. You claim that the Father is the sole source. But Leo III’s statement doesn’t lend itself to that interpretation. It would be one thing to adopt Augustine’s rendition of the Filioque, which I personally find acceptable. But Leo III is either dead wrong, or asking the verb “procedentem” to carry a weight of ultimate origin, as in the Father alone, in addition to another type of non-causal eternal procession that involves both the Father and the Son. In any case, the following formulation put forth by Pope Leo III:

EPISTOLA XV. SEU SYMBOLUM ORTHOPOXAE FIDEI LEONIS PAPAE.

Leo episcopus, servus servorum Dei, omnibus orientalibus Ecclesiis.
Hoc symbolum orthodoxae fidei vobis mittimus, ut tam vos quam omnis mundus secundum Romanam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam rectam et inviolatam teneatis fidem. Credimus sanctam Trinitatem, id est, Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, unum Deum omnipotentem, unius substantiae, [Col.1031A] unius essentiae, unius potestatis, creatorem omnium creaturarum, a quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia: Patrem a seipso, non ab alio; Filium a Patre genitum, Deum verum de Deo vero, lumen verum de lumine vero, non tamen duo lumina, sed unum lumen; Spiritum sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens. Non tamen tres Deos dicimus, sed unum Deum omnipotentem, aeternum, invisibilem, iucommutabilem, qui totus est ubique praesens, non per partes divisus, sed totus in omnibus, non localiter, sed personaliter, qui sine commutatione sui mutabilia creavit et creata gubernat, [Col.1031B] semper manens id quod est, cui nihil accidens esse poterit, quia simplici divinitatis naturae nihil addi vel minui potest, quia semper quod est, cui semper primum est, cui sempiternum est, cui idem est esse, vivere, et intelligere. Et haec tria unus Deus. Haec tria idem Deus et Dominus, vera et sempiterna trinitas in personis, vera et sempiterna unitas in substantia, quia una est substantia Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Haec vero sancta Trinitas nihil est in tribus personis simul nominatis quam in una qualibet persona semel dicta, quoniam unaquaeque persona plena est substantia in se, non tamen tres substantiae, sed unus Deus, una substantia, una essentia, una aeternitas, una magnitudo, una bonitas, Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Nec aliud est Pater [Col.1031C] in natura quam Filius vel Spiritus sanctus, nec aliud Filius et Spiritus sanctus quam Pater in natura, quibus est una natura. Sed alius est Pater in persona, alius Filius in persona, alius Spiritus sanctus in persona. In Patre aeternitas, in Filio aequalitas, in Spiritu sancto aeternitatis aequalitatisque connexio. Unum omnes in substantia et essentia, omnipotentia, et divinitate. Sicut enim eadem sancta Trinitas inseparabilis est in substantia, ita inseparabilis est in operibus, quamvis opera Dei quibusdam personis specialiter conveniant, sicut Patri vox illa quae de coelo sonuit super Christum baptizatum, et ad Filii personam humanitatis tantummodo pertinet susceptio, et Spiritus sancti personae proprie congruit illa columba, in cujus specie [Col.1031D] idem Spiritus sanctus descendit super eumdem Filium secundum hominem baptizatum. Tamen absque omni dubitatione illam vocem et illam columbam in Christi humanitatem tota sancta Trinitas operata est, cujus opera inseparabilia sunt. Credimus eumdem Filium Dei Verbum aeternaliter natum de Patre, consubstantialem Patri per omnia, temporaliter natum de Spiritu sancto et Maria Virgine, duas habentem nativitates, unam ex Patre aeternam, alteram ex matre temporalem; qui etiam Filius Dei, suae carnis conceptione conceptus est et suae carnis nativitate natus.

Patrologia Latina 102: 1030B - 1032B

I will have to include the rest of the letter in a follow-up post due to character limit.

The formulation put forth in the bolded red, particularly the term “aequaliter,” is something that is quite rare in the Latin Fathers from the first millennium. Pope Leo III is the ONLY Latin theologian I know of who has said something such as this along these lines. Not even the Frankish Church, which was at the forefront for arguing the Filioque, worded the procession as such. Furthermore, I should point out that Pope Leo III was not canonized until the seventeenth century.

 

[twf]

The Oriental Orthodox have a defective notion of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Church have a defective communion between each other. The former issue is more serious than the latter.

This is no longer the Church’s position. Are you not aware of the common declaration of faith on Christology signed by Pope St John Paul II and the Coptic Pope back in the 1990s? The Oriental Orthodox have valid sacraments and are free, if properly disposed, to receive communion at Catholic Masses.

 

[Rohzek]

I had to cut Leo’s letter short due to character limit. Here is the end of it:

Deum verum confitemur conceptum et Deum verum natum, eumdem verum Deum verum hominem unam Christum Filium Dei unigenitum, per primum et [Col.1032A] perfectum in duabus naturis in unius personae singularitate impassibilem et passibilem, mortalem atque immortalem, crucifixum in infirmitate nostra, eumdemque semper viventem in virtute sua, qui mortuus est carnis suae morte et sepultus, atque ab inferis, damnato et spoliato principe totius iniquitatis, rediens tertia die resurrexit, atque cum triumpho gloriae videntibus discipulis coelum ascendit, sedens in dextera Patris, id est, majestate divinitatis, inde jam venturus judicare vivos et mortuos, quem impii judicantem videbunt in ea forma qua crucifixus est, non in ea humilitate qua injuste judicatus est, sed in ea claritate qua juste judicaturus est mundum; cujus majestatis visio aeterna est omnium sanctorum beatitudo. Qui secundum hanc fidem rectam non crediderit, [Col.1032B] hunc damnat sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia, quae fundata est ab ipso Jesu Christo Domino nostro, cui est gloria in saecula. Amen.

Patrologia Latina 102: 1030B - 1032B

 

[Augustine]

… how can they equally go and say Chalcedon is Ecumenical when it wasn’t accepted by the whole church either?

As a Latin Catholic, you’re just being legalistically. For, if the Council of Chalcedon has condemned a doctrine and some bishops refuse to accept the council because they insist on their belief in said doctrine, that makes them heretics, legally speaking. Therefore, they put themselves outside the Church. Therefore, the council was accepted by the whole Church.

Now stop playing word games and go pray at the footstool of God and His Mother, if you can step off the Roman soapbox.

 

[Augustine]

They actually don’t. They have an orthodox understanding of Christ.

HERE is a the common declaration between the Copts and the Catholic Church on the nature of Christ:

The Copts are not the only Oriental Orthodox Church. You know that, don’t you?

 

[twf]

As a Latin Catholic, you’re just being legalistically. For, if the Council of Chalcedon has condemned a doctrine and some bishops refuse to accept the council because they insist on their belief in said doctrine, that makes them heretics, legally speaking. Therefore, they put themselves outside the Church. Therefore, the council was accepted by the whole Church.

Now stop playing word games and go pray at the footstool of God and His Mother, if you can step off the Roman soapbox.

You’re choosing to ignore the mutual agreement between the Catholic and Coptic Popes then? In your personal opinion, contrary to the teaching of the Church, the Orientals are heretics?

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Oriental Orthodox have a defective notion of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Church have a defective communion between each other. The former issue is more serious than the latter.

Absolutely untrue. Oriental Orthodox theology of Christ is acceptable within the Catholic Church, MIAPHYSITISM is an orthodox theological expression of the Catholic Faith, as is the Chalcedonian position. MONOPHYSITISM is condemned by all Apostolic Churches.

 

[SyroMalankara]

As a Latin Catholic, you’re just being legalistically. For, if the Council of Chalcedon has condemned a doctrine and some bishops refuse to accept the council because they insist on their belief in said doctrine, that makes them heretics, legally speaking. Therefore, they put themselves outside the Church. Therefore, the council was accepted by the whole Church.

Now stop playing word games and go pray at the footstool of God and His Mother, if you can step off the Roman soapbox.

The Oriental position is not exactly a repudiation of teachings of Chalcedon – although there is a linguistic issue there. It’s more about the proceedings and how it was conducted, seemingly in a manner to subjugate the Oriental Churches under imperial rule.

 

[Wandile]

The fundamental problem with Pope Leo III’s statement is how to understand it. **You claim that the Father is the sole source. **

No the Catholic Church claims this and any Christian who believes in the trinity believes this.

But Leo III’s statement doesn’t lend itself to that interpretation.

It absolutely does.

It would be one thing to adopt Augustine’s rendition of the Filioque, which I personally find acceptable.

Augustine only stated what was common tradition of the Latin church. People need to stop associating ideas with one person especially dogmatic ones. For example augustines understanding of the trinity was learnt from St Ambrose and Ambrose learnt from someone else. In truth it’s just the Latin tradition.

But Leo III is either dead wrong, or asking the verb “procedentem” to carry a weight of ultimate origin, as in the Father alone,

The Latin and English are the same. English proceeds is derived entirely from Latin. The usage of the words lends no credence to origin but speaks of nature of the procession. It’s is not like Greek. Hence equally means in relation to the nature of the mode of procession not the source of procession. The Lateran decree and that of Florence make that entirely clear and those are pretty much the summation of the Latin patristic tradition. St Thomas is another piece of evidence to this. The issue is you treat the Latin like it should read like Greek in the theological context.

in addition to another type of non-causal eternal procession that involves both the Father and the Son. In any case, the following formulation put forth by Pope Leo III:l.

I will have to include the rest of the letter in a follow-up post due to character limit.

The formulation put forth in the bolded red, particularly the term “aequaliter,” is something that is quite rare in the Latin Fathers from the first millennium. Pope Leo III is the ONLY Latin theologian I know of who has said something such as this along these lines.

You familiar with the mansi collection?

If you read enough Latin fathers you will see how many either insinuate the idea of equality through their description of the trinity or outright say it like St Leo III. Lastly st Leo III was no fan of innovation (we know that well) and he was just teaching what was common knowledge to him about the trinity. Lastly nobody rebuked him for this understanding either because it is orthodox and consistent with the testimony of all the Latin fathers. Equality speaks to the fact that the procession is one and the same and that as the spirt received his being from the Father, so too he does from the son otherwise the procession from the son would be a different procession which is heresy.

This confirms what St Athanasius of Alexandria said in his letter to Serapion :

"The Spirit has to the Son the same proper relationship as we have known the Son to have to the Father. And as the Son says, ‘All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine’ [Jn 16:15] so we shall find that through the Son all these things are in the Spirit also."

And in his “Orations Against the Arians” :

*** “For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word” ***
Greek: “Αὐτὸς γἀρ, ὥσπερ εἵρηται, τῷ Πνεύματι δίδωσι, καὶ ὄσα ἓχει τὸ Πνεῦμα παρἀ τοῦ Λόγου ὲχει.”

Not even the Frankish Church, which was at the forefront for arguing the Filioque, worded the procession as such. Furthermore, I should point out that Pope Leo III was not canonized until the seventeenth century.

Okay? do you believe saints are only saint once declared by the church?

 

[Wandile]

The Copts are not the only Oriental Orthodox Church. You know that, don’t you?

Oriental orthodox all hold the same faith

 

[SyroMalankara]

Not in the same manner, no. Chalcedon anathematized Nestorius, who, with a group of supporters, relocated to Persia, which, a century or so later, formed the Churches now known as Oriental Orthodox. In other words, it was a heretical group already away from the Church, whose reception of the council was never expected.

You might be confusing the OO with the Church of the East (Assyrian). Nestorianism was first condemned at Ephesus in 431, and Nestorianism is rejected by the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.

 

[Vonsalza]

You might be confusing the OO with the Church of the East (Assyrian). Nestorianism was first condemned at Ephesus in 431, and Nestorianism is rejected by the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.

I genuinely held the understanding that most OO where non-Chalcedonian. I am incorrect in this?

 

[Wandile]

I genuinely held the understanding that most OO where non-Chalcedonian. I am incorrect in this?

No you are correct

 

[SyroMalankara]

I genuinely held the understanding that most OO where non-Chalcedonian. I am incorrect in this?

They prefer PRE-Chalcedonian, they aren’t per se against it’s doctrines.

 

[Rohzek]

The Latin and English are the same. English proceeds is derived entirely from Latin. The usage of the words lends no credence to origin but speaks of nature of the procession. It’s is not like Greek. Hence equally means in relation to the nature of the mode of procession not the source of procession. The Lateran decree and that of Florence make that entirely clear and those are pretty much the summation of the Latin patristic tradition. St Thomas is another piece of evidence to this. The issue is you treat the Latin like it should read like Greek in the theological context.

There is no issue with me. I’m well aware that the appropriate Greek verb in the Creed is more restrictive than the Latin verb. You’re misunderstanding me. What I’m getting at is what does the Latin verb mean in this particular letter. Is it serving a double meaning, or a restricted meaning? And if it is restricted, in what sense is it restricted? I don’t care about the English language.

You familiar with the mansi collection?

Yes, I’m well aware of it, and have used it in my own work.

If you read enough Latin fathers you will see how many either insinuate the idea of equality through their description of the trinity or outright say it like St Leo III. Lastly st Leo III was no fan of innovation (we know that well) and he was just teaching what was common knowledge to him about the trinity. Lastly nobody rebuked him for this understanding either because it is orthodox and consistent with the testimony of all the Latin fathers. Equality speaks to the fact that the procession is one and the same and that as the spirt received his being from the Father, so too he does from the son otherwise the procession from the son would be a different procession which is heresy.

No, actually Leo’s statement stands alone in its peculiarity. Find an exact quote using the same phrasing before the schism as Leo from Mansi or another edition. I’m fairly certain you won’t find it, although I’m willing to be proven wrong.

Okay? do you believe saints are only saint once declared by the church?

No, I’m saying that the Orthodox Church cares very little for saintly statuses made well after the first millennium. We don’t recognize Pope Leo III as a saint.

 

[Vonsalza]

This is no longer the Church’s position. Are you not aware of the common declaration of faith on Christology signed by Pope St John Paul II and the Coptic Pope back in the 1990s? The Oriental Orthodox have valid sacraments and are free, if properly disposed, to receive communion at Catholic Masses.

If that’s true, then I think that’s wonderful.

I’m one of those weirdos that thinks the tragic Chalcedonian schism was 95% cultural misunderstanding of the technical language involved.