Catholic vs Orthodox

[Rohzek]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Orthodoxy in North America is incredibly small so trying to say that the North American Orthodox bishops declared those who say that there are substantial dogmatic differences are in schism is laughable and only shows you don’t know anything about Orthodoxy or how it functions. I imagine that if you did actually consider Orthodoxy it was in the most facile way possible.

I’ll have you know that my forner priest was heavily involved in the ecunenical dialogues between American Catholics and American Orthodox. And he was quite clear that the dogmatic differences on the filioque are very real. And while they encouraged that people not use heated rhetoric by calling the other heretics, the dogmatic differences are real. And until those dogmatic differences are sorted out, the churches will not be communion with one another. Doctrinal differences, while tragic, are legitimate grounds for separation.

As for Orthodox disdain for Catholics, I am well aware it exists as do all forms of bigotry. That being said, your accusation that the attitude is a sort of false consciousness implanted by the Muslims is a lie by omission. Catholics have had a long history of oppressive rule over Orthodox countries and of dismantling Eastern Christian states. A good example is the Fourth Crusade, the conquest of Edessa, and the long repressive rule of Cyprus. So to just say that this whole feud is artificial is historically wrong. I agree we need to get past these past wrongs, but lying about history is not the answer to the problem.

I don’t know if I should be upset or just laugh at the idea that someone considers themselves the arbitor of who is not and who is properly Orthodox solely because they once had a passing interest in it. Tell me, are you also in the business of telling Muslims that they aren’t true Muslims?

I will readily admit that we Orthodox are more opposed to union with the Catholic Church based upon the current status of dialogues. But if you want to know why, the I suggest reading this: khanya.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/orthodox-roman-catholic-reunion-redux/

 

[Vonsalza]

Orthodoxy in North America is incredibly small so trying to say that the North American Orthodox bishops declared those who say that there are substantial dogmatic differences are in schism is laughable and only shows you don’t know anything about Orthodoxy or how it functions. I imagine that if you did actually consider Orthodoxy it was in the most facile way possible.

JonNC, if you’re reading this and open to a good example of the “poisoning the well” fallacy of logic that we discussed, look above.

I’ll have you know that my forner priest was heavily involved in the ecunenical dialogues between American Catholics and American Orthodox. And he was quite clear that the dogmatic differences on the filioque are very real.

Your former priest was a part of the following declarations?

That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

Excellent. Then he knows it’s an unacceptable basis for schism.

And while they encouraged that people not use heated rhetoric by calling the other heretics, the dogmatic differences are real.

There are differences between Maronite Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Roman Catholics and Anglican Use Catholics. I don’t think anyone is debating that there are differences both inter- and intra-communal Christianity. What we’re discussing is “what’s worthy of schism”. Filioque doesn’t make the list.

To those without clenched teeth on the matter, breaking communion over whether the Holy Spirit bears double or single procession (or if double, to what degree other two affect) is childish and stupid. Quintessentially so.

And until those dogmatic differences are sorted out, the churches will not be communion with one another. Doctrinal differences, while tragic, are legitimate grounds for separation.

Sure. And filioque isn’t one of them.

As for Orthodox disdain for Catholics, I am well aware it exists as do all forms of bigotry. That being said, your accusation that the attitude is a sort of false consciousness implanted by the Muslims is a lie by omission.

Yours here is a “lie” of reductionism. Latin-Greek rumbling began well before the dominance of Islam in previously Orthodox lands and I’ve said as much in this very thread. I’ve also agreed that the Venetian sack of Constantinople was the single most influencing event in the history of the schism.

But I will stand by my belief that some (absolutely not all, but some) of the Orthodox stance toward Rome was more pleasing to their temporal Muslim masters. The more contrarian, the better (and I don’t particularly blame them).

I don’t know if I should be upset or just laugh at the idea that someone considers themselves the arbitor of who is not and who is properly Orthodox solely because they once had a passing interest in it.

Interesting. I thought we were discussing filioque. Do you know what it means to “move the goalposts”, particularly via “red herring”?

 

[Vonsalza]

Orthodoxy in North America is incredibly small

FYI, by Orthodox population, the US is roughly 10th.

 

[Rohzek]

JonNC, if you’re reading this and open to a good example of the “poisoning the well” fallacy of logic that we discussed, look above.

Listen, you poisoned the well by barging into this thread judging that someone who is Orthodox, isn’t properly Orthodox. And then you waved your “credentials” of having once read about Orthodoxy.

Excellent. Then he knows it’s an unacceptable basis for schism.

Nothing from which you have cited says that.

There are differences between Maronite Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Roman Catholics and Anglican Use Catholics. I don’t think anyone is debating that there are differences both inter- and intra-communal Christianity. What we’re discussing is “what’s worthy of schism”. Filioque doesn’t make the list.

Let’s not play coy here. Orthodox governmental structures are quite different. Just because one segment of the Orthodox Church might find this meeting acceptable (which I largely do), it does not therefore mean that the rest of Orthodoxy is bound to it. Furthermore, this council isn’t even accepted at the broader level of the Catholic Church here in the United States:

That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
**That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
**That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.

I attend Catholic services still when with family. I know for a fact that the Creed in the Catholic Church still includes the Filioque. You’re giving this joint meeting between Catholics and Orthodox far too much authority unto which it doesn’t have. Again, nothing in the statements you have quoted say the Filioque isn’t a serious issue unworthy of schism. It only asks for more diplomatic language in ecumenical talks. I am fully supportive of such initiatives. Besides, this isn’t even a proper synod. So from where does it derive its authority? Don’t get me wrong, it is a good gesture. But its lack of authority shows by the very fact that the Filioque remains in the Catholic version of the Creed. And again, it doesn’t say anywhere in it that the Filioque is no longer a serious issue.

To those without clenched teeth on the matter, breaking communion over whether the Holy Spirit bears double or single procession (or if double, to what degree other two affect) is childish and stupid. Quintessentially so.

Yes, having the gall to defend correct doctrine is childish.

Sure. And filioque isn’t one of them.

You keep saying this, patronizingly so, and yet haven’t backed it up whatsoever.

Yours here is a “lie” of reductionism. Latin-Greek rumbling began well before the dominance of Islam in previously Orthodox lands and I’ve said as much in this very thread. I’ve also agreed that the Venetian sack of Constantinople was the single most influencing event in the history of the schism.

I’ve never reduced anything. In fact, I explicitly added to the picture you described. You tried to say that Orthodox only oppose Catholics as strongly as they do because the Muslims told them so for hundreds of years. All I did was say that you are leaving a lot out, and clearly as a means to marginalize the very few active Orthodox posters remaining on these boards. You don’t even want to admit that there are legitimate differences that have to be worked out. It seems to me that you’d rather we all shut up, so you can speak for us.

But I will stand by my belief that some (absolutely not all, but some) of the Orthodox stance toward Rome was more pleasing to their temporal Muslim masters. The more contrarian, the better (and I don’t particularly blame them).

I’ve never questioned this.

Interesting. I thought we were discussing filioque. Do you know what it means to “move the goalposts”, particularly via “red herring”?

We are. I’m merely questioning the principles on which you justify telling people of other faiths if they are true believers of their own religion or not. I find that to be an ugly attitude, and you ought to be ashamed.

 

[user1234]

Ok guys, this thread is not about who is being childish and who is not, or even over the theological differences between Catholism and Orthodoxy, but on which one is the continuation of the one true Church, because if we answer that, then we can know definitively which doctrine is correct and which one isn’t. Problem solved. So, please be respectful to our Orthodox friends so they don’t have to be defensive in every single post.

Thank you

 

[Vonsalza]

Listen, you poisoned the well by barging into this thread judging that someone who is Orthodox, isn’t properly Orthodox. And then you waved your “credentials” of having once read about Orthodoxy.

Wow. I diligently and searchingly attended a Greek church for two years. Wonderful people, if not particularly Greek (alas, the “American Problem”). I’m not going to bother pointing out the logical faults in the above statement…

Nothing from which you have cited says that.

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

Let’s not play coy here. Orthodox governmental structures are quite different.

No one has claimed otherwise thus far.

I attend Catholic services still when with family. I know for a fact that the Creed in the Catholic Church still includes the Filioque.

Go to a Byzantine Catholic service. It isn’t there. They’re just as Catholic as I am.

As I said earlier, for virtually every Catholic (read: non-schismatics) it’s a non-issue.

You’re giving this joint meeting between Catholics and Orthodox far too much authority…

Whoa. I said it’s just one example of many. We just dove into it a little harder because you said your former priest attended and apparently left feeling that schism in Christ’s Church over the issue was still a proper response.

And again, it doesn’t say anywhere in it that the Filioque is no longer a serious issue.

I don’t think the Byzantine Catholics are the only Catholic rite that leave it out, either.

It’s not nearly the issue for Catholics as apparently some feel it needs to be.

I’ve never reduced anything. In fact, I explicitly added to the picture you described.

Another unsound practice, I’m sure you’d otherwise agree.

You tried to say that Orthodox only oppose Catholics as strongly as they do because the Muslims told them so for hundreds of years.

Factually incorrect. I also mentioned that Latin-Greek rivalry goes as far back as the 6th century and that the Venetian sack of Constantinople was the single most influential event in the history of Catholic-Orthodox relations.

I mentioned that that the Muslim suzerainty which was firmly frustrated by Catholic obstinance readily used inter-faith division as yet another weapon against the Catholic west. While not nearly as influential as the creation of the destined-to-fail Latin Empire, it is still worthy of mention. Ergo, please cease the deliberate misrepresentation of my posts.

All I did was say that you are leaving a lot out…

And all I’m saying is that my posts are by no means exhaustive on any pertinent issue. Please do not interpret them as such.

You don’t even want to admit that there are legitimate differences that have to be worked out. It seems to me that you’d rather we all shut up, so you can speak for us.

Again, factually incorrect. All I’ve discussed is filioque. Whether the Holy Spirit had single or dual procession is not a sufficient reason for schism. Full-stop.

I find that to be an ugly attitude, and you ought to be ashamed.

In light of your many personal attacks, I’m interested that you think so.

Ok guys, this thread is not about who is being childish and who is not, or even over the theological differences between Catholism and Orthodoxy…

I agree, that scope is not what this is about.

This is about filioque being an insufficient reason for schism. Virtually every inter-faith “get-together” we’ve held since the fall of the soviets has more-or-less concluded such.

 

[prodromos]

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.

The findings of the Orthodox clergy at these joint meetings has been politely ignored by the vast majority of Orthodox clergy.

 

[prodromos]

This is about filioque being an insufficient reason for schism. Virtually every inter-faith “get-together” we’ve held since the fall of the soviets has more-or-less concluded such.

Are the same people involved in these inter-faith “get-togethers”?
How many of these inter-faith “get-togethers” have there been?
Where are the statements on which you base your conclusions?

 

[Rohzek]

Wow. I diligently and searchingly attended a Greek church for two years. Wonderful people, if not particularly Greek (alas, the “American Problem”). I’m not going to bother pointing out the logical faults in the above statement…

I still stand by my point, you being a former catechumen hardly gives you either the authority to tell Orthodox that they aren’t properly Orthodox or the sufficient knowledge to do so.

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

What do you think the Filioque does? It’s an additional statement that is made a required core belief within the Catholic Church. It is at best a theologoumenon.

Go to a Byzantine Catholic service. It isn’t there. They’re just as Catholic as I am.

As I said earlier, for virtually every Catholic (read: non-schismatics) it’s a non-issue.

It really isn’t as significant as you think that Byzantine Catholic services don’t include the Filioque in the liturgy. It is at the same time they are still taught that it is dogma. Never mind the fact that the example you cite is something that has been around for far longer than the joint meeting you cite.

If the Filioque for Catholics is such a non-issue, then the Catholic Church should put its money where its mouth is and drop it from catechetical use in Byzantine Catholic churches. Don’t require them to adhere to the doctrine to be in communion with Rome, even though they don’t have to say it. And most importantly, drop it from the Creed from the Latin Church.

Whoa. I said it’s just one example of many. We just dove into it a little harder because you said your former priest attended and apparently left feeling that schism in Christ’s Church over the issue was still a proper response.

The example you cite doesn’t even say what you think it says. Furthermore, where are these other examples? Maybe they fit the bill better for you. Differences in core dogma necessarily lead to divisions. We aren’t the ones who went into schism. We aren’t the ones who unilaterally changed the core beliefs of the faith.

I don’t think the Byzantine Catholics are the only Catholic rite that leave it out, either.

It’s not nearly the issue for Catholics as apparently some feel it needs to be.

Then why does the vast majority of the Catholic Church feel the need to keep it in the Creed?

Factually incorrect. I also mentioned that Latin-Greek rivalry goes as far back as the 6th century and that the Venetian sack of Constantinople was the single most influential event in the history of Catholic-Orthodox relations.

I mentioned that that the Muslim suzerainty which was firmly frustrated by Catholic obstinance readily used inter-faith division as yet another weapon against the Catholic west. While not nearly as influential as the creation of the destined-to-fail Latin Empire, it is still worthy of mention. Ergo, please cease the deliberate misrepresentation of my posts.

I must have missed that from earlier in the thread. My apologies.

Again, factually incorrect. All I’ve discussed is filioque. Whether the Holy Spirit had single or dual procession is not a sufficient reason for schism. Full-stop.

Which the Orthodox Church has yet to declare. So again, don’t tell other Orthodox on these boards that they aren’t properly Orthodox.

In light of your many personal attacks, I’m interested that you think so.

I’ve apologized for my missing your other posts and misunderstanding you. Now it’s time for you to apologize for telling people of other denominations that they aren’t properly adhering to their faith.

This is about filioque being an insufficient reason for schism. Virtually every inter-faith “get-together” we’ve held since the fall of the soviets has more-or-less concluded such.

Which you’ve given zero evidence for.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

As I said earlier, for virtually every Catholic (read: non-schismatics) it’s a non-issue.

.

As the late great Melkite Catholic bishop Zoghby titled his book, “We Are All Schismatics”.

As to the Filioque being a non-issue, I am fully behind sifting out merely semantical and historical issues from truly theological ones, as on all issues that divide us. But to simply cavalierly dismiss Orthodox concerns about the post-schism western dogmas concerning the procession, which go beyond the Clause itself, as you do, is disrespectful and, in my opinion, shows a somewhat jaded attitude. At least one modern renowned Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Lossky, puts the procession issue as central to the continuance of the schism. You may disagree, but a theologian of his stature can’t be summarily dismissed. Btw, his discussion of the issue in his In the Image and Likeness of God is in my opinion perhaps the best presentation of the Orthodox concerns, and I highly advise reading it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Which the Orthodox Church has yet to declare. So again, don’t tell other Orthodox on these boards that they aren’t properly Orthodox.

I’m not telling the Orthodox on these boards or anywhere else that they aren’t “properly Orthodox”. I wouldn’t dream of doing so.

I’m telling them that a gripe over whether the Holy Spirit has single or dual procession is an insufficient reason to divide the bosom of Christ.

I’ve apologized for my missing your other posts and misunderstanding you. Now it’s time for you to apologize for telling people of other denominations that they aren’t properly adhering to their faith.

As I genuinely believe I haven’t done what you claim, I’ll not apologize for telling an Orthodox that he isn’t “Orthodox enough”.

But if I’ve been unpleasantly terse, I will apologize for that. The “gentleness” of my polemics are often not as considered as they perhaps should be. But I always prefer clarity and honesty over gentleness, even as it may be a fault.

Which you’ve given zero evidence for.

Pick practically any of them. Thus far, I’ve referenced two.

Again, a gripe over whether the Holy Spirit has single or dual procession is an insufficient reason to divide the bosom of Christ.

Do the Orthodox have complaints worthy of address? Absolutely.

The role of Peter’s heir in his side of the Church has unambiguously experienced development over the two millennia since Christ himself established Petrine headship. But in deference to my Catholic brothers, I would also state that he was never a mere mouthpiece. He enjoyed an authority not shared by the other original 10 + Mattias + Paul.

Still, where it is Peter’s heir should exist on the continuum between absolute equality and total supremacy relative to his other bishops is a pertinent question. At present, the only thing we can come close to agreeing on is that it shouldn’t be either pole.