Catholic vs Orthodox

[Expatreprocedit]

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

I don’t have an exact percentage, but I agree with the general thought. Which distinguishes the Chalcedonian schism from the East-West schism, which the OP was trying to equate.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I think it’s a very valid question. If I were to reject the primacy of Rome, who would I go to: Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy? There are two completely distinct communions both of which use the term Orthodox…both with apostolic succession.

And one of which fully and unequivocally embraces the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and one which, for the moment, does not. I fail to see your logic: “gee, choosing between the EO and the OO might be difficult, so I’ll stay with Rome”.

 

[SyroMalankara]

And one of which fully and unequivocally embraces the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and one which, for the moment, does not. I fail to see your logic: “gee, choosing between the EO and the OO might be difficult, so I’ll stay with Rome”.

Not sure that “fully and unequivocally” embracing one or the other Council is the only pre-requisite. Some might prefer the unaltered Liturgy, or the ancient-ness of the Assyrian, or the semitic nature of the Oriental Orthodox, it’s monastic ties, or Patristics, its suffering service, it’s seriousness of fasting and penance etc… etc

 

[twf]

And one of which fully and unequivocally embraces the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and one which, for the moment, does not. I fail to see your logic: “gee, choosing between the EO and the OO might be difficult, so I’ll stay with Rome”.

It is difficult as I have never been able to wrap my head around the Eastern Orthodox approach to accepting councils. Much of the Church rejected Chalcedon. In a case where there is no clear consensus, I depend upon Rome. Without Rome it becomes murky for me.

 

[Lucretius]

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.

Technically, the adverb can mean “uniformly” or “in the same matter” too: perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=aequaliter&la=la#lexicon

That said, the term refers to the Father and Son being one in principle in the procession of the Spirit. Otherwise, we could possibly say that the Son is a mere instrument of the Father in the procession of the Spirit, which is a kind of Arianism, the heresy the filioque was designed to reject.

Christi pax.

 

[pablope]

Th
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.

Huh…

What does the date of Pope Leo III’s canonization have anything to do with this issue?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Not sure that “fully and unequivocally” embracing one or the other Council is the only pre-requisite. Some might prefer the unaltered Liturgy, or the ancient-ness of the Assyrian, or the semitic nature of the Oriental Orthodox, it’s monastic ties, or Patristics, its suffering service, it’s seriousness of fasting and penance etc… etc

Certainly. I wasn’t in the least discounting those things.

 

[Rohzek]

Huh…

What does the date of Pope Leo III’s canonization have anything to do with this issue?

As I explained in my follow-up post #58, since he was canonized well after the Great Schism, the Orthodox Church doesn’t regard him as a saint. So calling him forth as some prestigious witness for the Filioque is not as compelling for an Orthodox as it is for a Catholic.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

As I explained in my follow-up post #58, since he was canonized well after the Great Schism, the Orthodox Church doesn’t regard him as a saint. So calling him forth as some prestigious witness for the Filioque is not as compelling for an Orthodox as it is for a Catholic.

I’m wondering if the OP didn’t have him confused with Leo I.

 

[Wandile]

As I explained in my follow-up post #58, since he was canonized well after the Great Schism, the Orthodox Church doesn’t regard him as a saint. So calling him forth as some prestigious witness for the Filioque is not as compelling for an Orthodox as it is for a Catholic.

He was major bishop (in fact the highest ranking cleric) in the united church, his testimony should matter. Unless for EO only canonized saints are a witness to the faith?

I mean I find no such distinction made about his sanctity when EO love to bring him up about his two silver plates of the creed without the filioque placed in St Peters (although he did this for preservation of unity, not rejection of the dogma). To me it seems a bit disingenuous

 

[Rohzek]

He was major bishop (in fact the highest ranking cleric) in the united church, his testimony should matter. Unless for EO only canonized saints are a witness to the faith?

I mean I find no such distinction made about his sanctity when EO love to bring him up about his two silver plates of the creed without the filioque placed in St Peters (although he did this for preservation of unity, not rejection of the dogma). To me it seems a bit disingenuous

No, I have no problem of you bringing him up and promoting him. In fact, I think it is brilliant that you have. I just want to make clear that even still, Orthodox don’t find it as compelling as you do. The reason Orthodox bring him up is because he refused to include the Filioque in the public liturgy. That’s a point of wisdom. And I’ve read Orthodox who do acknowledge this letter you have cited, and just say that he was either inconsistent, or that he faced pressure from Charlemagne. I don’t find either explanation compelling. Even so, Leo’s statement is of questionable orthodoxy in my book. As I said before, his specific phrasing and claim stands alone in the first millennium. This is hardly the first time we’ve disagreed with popes.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I mean I find no such distinction made about his sanctity when EO love to bring him up about his two silver plates of the creed without the filioque placed in St Peters (although he did this for preservation of unity, not rejection of the dogma). To me it seems a bit disingenuous

I don’t see the relevance of Leo III’s sanctity or lack thereof, but the question I would ask is if Leo III, whether or not he thought the Filioque Clause was orthodox, thought it not appropriate to impose Filioquist theology on the whole Church including the East, how do you justify Rome’s decision to impose it starting in the 11th century and continuing to this day?

 

[Vonsalza]

I think it’s largely a non-issue in the broader Church. There are a handful of inter-communal declarations to that effect.

As such, any Catholic or Orthodox that would like to object “But filioque!!!” is probably infected with a schismatic spirit that has been thoroughly and publicly denounced by both Churches at the Patriarchal and Papal levels.

The first line from the American Joint Declaration in 2002:

“That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.”

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I think it’s largely a non-issue in the broader Church. There are a handful of inter-communal declarations to that effect.

As such, any Catholic or Orthodox that would like to object “But filioque!!!” is probably infected with a schismatic spirit that has been thoroughly and publicly denounced by both Churches at the Patriarchal and Papal levels.

The first line from the American Joint Declaration in 2002:

“That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.”

It is precisely the Orthodox that stick to what Christ reveals to us about the “inner life of the Trinity”. “The Spirit of Truth who proceeds (eternally) from the Father”. We don’t presume to speculate beyond those words, much less dogmatize the speculations.

Stick with what the patristic Church unanimously proclaimed, and there is no problem. Very simple.

 

[Vonsalza]

It is precisely the Orthodox that stick to what Christ reveals to us about the “inner life of the Trinity”. “The Spirit of Truth who proceeds (eternally) from the Father”. We don’t presume to speculate beyond those words, much less dogmatize the speculations.

Stick with what the patristic Church unanimously proclaimed, and there is no problem. Very simple.

This is a perfect example of a stiff, hardened Orthodox perspective on the matter that, interestingly, the Orthodox clergy at these joint meetings were highly critical of.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

This is a perfect example of a stiff, hardened Orthodox perspective on the matter that, interestingly, the Orthodox clergy at these joint meetings were highly critical of.

You just condemned presuming to speculate about the inner life of the Trinity, and now you condemn a refusal to do just that as “stiff, hardened”. It’s hard not to see such a method of argument as tendentious and frivolous.

 

[Rohzek]

I think it’s largely a non-issue in the broader Church. There are a handful of inter-communal declarations to that effect.

As such, any Catholic or Orthodox that would like to object “But filioque!!!” is probably infected with a schismatic spirit that has been thoroughly and publicly denounced by both Churches at the Patriarchal and Papal levels.

The first line from the American Joint Declaration in 2002:

“That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.”

While there are numerous Orthodox positions on the Filioque clause, the idea that we’ve rejected the long held hardline stance in any official capacity is unfounded. Furthermore, I think you should apologize to Expatreprocedit for your patronizing attitude. Us Orthodox here don’t presume to judge whether any Catholic here is illegitimate in the representation of their faith.

 

[Rohzek]

I think it’s largely a non-issue in the broader Church. There are a handful of inter-communal declarations to that effect.

As such, any Catholic or Orthodox that would like to object “But filioque!!!” is probably infected with a schismatic spirit that has been thoroughly and publicly denounced by both Churches at the Patriarchal and Papal levels.

The first line from the American Joint Declaration in 2002:

“That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.”

This is a perfect example of a stiff, hardened Orthodox perspective on the matter that, interestingly, the Orthodox clergy at these joint meetings were highly critical of.

While there are numerous Orthodox positions on the Filioque clause, the idea that we’ve rejected the long held hardline stance in any official capacity is unfounded. Furthermore, I think you should apologize to Expatreprocedit for your patronizing attitude. Us Orthodox here don’t presume to judge whether any Catholic here is illegitimate in the representation of their faith. I don’t see why you should presume to break decorum by saying he is a “stiff.”

Additionally, the synod you cite is only a local council. There are plenty of other autocephalous churches within the Orthodox Church that would be more emphatic on the very real differences in doctrine on this point. Us Orthodox don’t decide on theological positions in consultation with those outside the Church. We decide among ourselves, just as Catholics decide their dogmatic positions among themselves.

While there has been much progress on the issue, there remains fundamental theological difficulties between Catholics and Orthodox on the issue. Here is just one example: agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Technically, the adverb can mean “uniformly” or “in the same matter” too: perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=aequaliter&la=la#lexicon

That said, the term refers to the Father and Son being one in principle in the procession of the Spirit. Otherwise, we could possibly say that the Son is a mere instrument of the Father in the procession of the Spirit, which is a kind of Arianism, the heresy the filioque was designed to reject.

Christi pax.

While Orthodox can appreciate the zeal to safeguard the full deity of the Son against Arianism, it is not necessary or desirable for this purpose to attribute characteristics that properly belong to the Father to the Son also. Doing so results in a subordinationism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Vonsalza]

You just condemned presuming to speculate about the inner life of the Trinity, and now you condemn a refusal to do just that as “stiff, hardened”. It’s hard not to see such a method of argument as tendentious and frivolous.

That’s an obvious misdirect. I’m not advocating against speculation. I’m advocating against schism on the basis of conclusions drawn from that speculation.

While there are numerous Orthodox positions on the Filioque clause, the idea that we’ve rejected the long held hardline stance in any official capacity is unfounded.

The idea proposed was that any who think the filioque is a substantial basis for dividing Christ’s Church is a schismatic that receives disdain from the episcopal leadership of both camps.

As to “official Orthodox positions”, I’m still unaware of any council that even specifically identifies the Catholic Church as being outside the Church. Additionally, it is noted that the Orthodox have not reciprocated Rome’s recognition of their sacraments. But I’m unaware of any Orthodox council that withdrew recognition of Catholic sacraments in the first place.

As someone who very seriously considered Orthodoxy before going Catholic, Orthodox unity can be a little hard to come by when the issue discussed isn’t about Rome looks at the “American problem”.

I genuinely believe anti-Roman attitude has been a critical locus that prevented much of the decay of Orthodox unity that one can observe in the non-Chalcedonian communion since the 5th century. Let us not forget that by the time everyone knew we were separate Churches in the 13th-14th centuries, the only Orthodox regions not under Muslim tutelage laid largely between Athens and Novgorod. The expansion of the Caliphate into Christendom stopped when it encountered Catholic Hispania/Francia and Austria. As such, Catholic disdain was institutionally encouraged by Muslim leadership for anyone under their yoke - Christians included.

Furthermore, I think you should apologize to Expatreprocedit for your patronizing attitude. Us Orthodox here don’t presume to judge whether any Catholic here is illegitimate in the representation of their faith. I don’t see why you should presume to break decorum by saying he is a “stiff.”

Ill repeat: Any Orthodox that thinks filioque is a worthy basis for splitting Christ’s Church is a schismatic. My description of Expat is contingent upon that.

Additionally, the synod you cite is only a local council.

I touched somewhat on the theological unity of the Orthodox above. You’re right. Many groups within the EO hold conflicting views on the matter. Same goes with the Catholics.

While there has been much progress on the issue, there remains fundamental theological difficulties between Catholics and Orthodox on the issue.

And whenever we formally get together, there is almost universal agreement that filioque is not an issue worthy of schism. While we agree that there is diversity within both camps on the issue, most of the obstinance I’ve observed has been Orthodox. On several instances, our Popes have been happy to recite the creed without it.