N
Nine_Two
Guest
I think he means we approach theology differently. For example the Western idea of “Atonement” vs. the Eastern idea of “Christ Victorious!”
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Alright, that makes sense, but I still don’t get the idea of “*just *differences in theology”. Differences in theology are what make Orthodox Orthodox, Catholics Catholics, Lutherans Lutherans, Baptists Baptists, etc.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nine_Two,
I’ll repeat it here, with some additions:
There were two forms of Pneumatomachi: (1) ones who believed that the Son was divine (such as the Tropici); (2) ones who believed the Son was not of the same substance as the Father (Arians, such as the Macedonians).
Fathers such as Pope St. Athanasius argued against the Tropici on the basis that their arguments against the full divinity of the Holy Sprit (since the Holy Spirit receives his Essence from Father and Son, he must be subordinate to them) could be just as well used to deny the full divinity of the Son (since the Son receives his Essence from the Father, he must be subordinate to the Father). But since they believed that the Son was fully divine and did not have a temporal beginning, their argument is inconsistent.
Other Fathers such as St. Basil fought against the Arian Macedonians similarly - just as the Arians cannot use the fact that the Son receives his Essence from the Father to deny the full divinity of the Son, then the Macedonians cannot use the fact that the Spirit receives his Essence from the Father and the Son (equivalently: the Father through the Son) to deny the full divinity of the Spirit.
There were other Pneumatomachi, btw, who taught versions of the heresy. For example, another sect taught that the Holy Spirit was a creature from the Son, and it is this specific heresy that St. John Damascene was preaching against when he taught that the Spirit is “not from the Son.” The Damascene never denied the Catholic teaching of filioque, that the ousia of the Spirit is from the Father THROUGH the Son.
Blessings,
Marduk
Then you should read the rest of the thread. Cavaradossi picked up where you left off and provided a non-emotional response to my point. He asked me to demonstrate how the modern EO argument is similar to the Pneumatomachian argument. And I did that.
I’ll repeat it here, with some additions:
There were two forms of Pneumatomachi: (1) ones who believed that the Son was divine (such as the Tropici); (2) ones who believed the Son was not of the same substance as the Father (Arians, such as the Macedonians).
Fathers such as Pope St. Athanasius argued against the Tropici on the basis that their arguments against the full divinity of the Holy Sprit (since the Holy Spirit receives his Essence from Father and Son, he must be subordinate to them) could be just as well used to deny the full divinity of the Son (since the Son receives his Essence from the Father, he must be subordinate to the Father). But since they believed that the Son was fully divine and did not have a temporal beginning, their argument is inconsistent.
Other Fathers such as St. Basil fought against the Arian Macedonians similarly - just as the Arians cannot use the fact that the Son receives his Essence from the Father to deny the full divinity of the Son, then the Macedonians cannot use the fact that the Spirit receives his Essence from the Father and the Son (equivalently: the Father through the Son) to deny the full divinity of the Spirit.
There were other Pneumatomachi, btw, who taught versions of the heresy. For example, another sect taught that the Holy Spirit was a creature from the Son, and it is this specific heresy that St. John Damascene was preaching against when he taught that the Spirit is “not from the Son.” The Damascene never denied the Catholic teaching of filioque, that the ousia of the Spirit is from the Father THROUGH the Son.
Blessings,
Marduk
A
Art321
Guest
Yes, this is exactly on what I was talking about. Another example would be the different views on the sin of Adam and Eve. I believe that the East believes that we did not inherit any guilt from Adam’s sin but the West believes something to that effect.
Anyway, I believe what unities us definitely outweighs what divides us. I am not denying that there are major differences between us but rather am stating that our common heritage will always outnumber any differences we have with one another.
M
mardukm
Guest
I’ll give you an example.
The Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church finally settled their differences on the matter of the Natures of Christ.
Both Churches, in humility, without asking the other to give up their theology (i.e., their respective expressions of the common Faith), proferred the question: “What are we trying to teach by our different expressions of Faith?” First you must understand that the stark difference between the Oriental Orthodox expression of Faith (i.e., theology) and the Catholic expression of Faith (i.e. theology) is:
- Oriental Orthodox teach and believe that Jesus Christ is OF two natures.
- Catholics teach and believe that Jesus Christ is IN two natures.
On the other hand, the Catholics traditionally believed that the OO were denying the hypostatic union because the statement “OF two natures” implies that when the union occurs, one of the natures is completely subsumed in or demolished by the other Nature (there was an actual heresy that taught this - Eutychianism - but it was not what the OO teach/believe)…
It has taken 1500 years to understand that neither the OO nor the Catholics teach and believe what one THOUGHT the other taught and believed just because of the mere implications of the respective theological languages.
So the OO and the Catholic Churches have come out with joint declarations affirming the common Faith of both Churches that the Son is fully human and fully divine, and that the two natures are united without confusion, diminution, etc. of the two natures. And this was done without either Church having to let go of their respective theologies (i.e., expressions of the Faith).
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I see you still live in a fantasy world where you equate the “modern EO argument” with the Photian argument, clearly ignoring that the modern eastern Orthodox position draws also from Gregory Palamas and Blachernae.
These of course are not the arguments put forth by St. Photius. I would like to see some actual proof of your position. Maybe a passage from St. Basil enumerating what the arguments of the Pneumatomachoi are, and then a passage from Photius’ Mystagogy on the Holy Spirit with a similar argument would be helpful. Otherwise your arguments are simply vague and unsubstantiated.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Why are you telling me this?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The failure of ignore, I’m still forced to catch glances through quotes.
I can see Mardukm’s posts are as arrogant and polemical as ever.
In polite society we don’t open conversations with insults.
Good day Mardukm.
I can see Mardukm’s posts are as arrogant and polemical as ever.
In polite society we don’t open conversations with insults.
Good day Mardukm.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Ah, the ignore feature. I haven’t used it in a while, but I remember it from yesteryear. It’s a curious little feature really.
M
mardukm
Guest
Didn’t you say you did not understand what is meant by “differences in theology?”
I wanted to show you that there can be legitimate differences in theology yet still be united in the Faith that underlies that theology (i.e., expressions of Faith).Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Where did I mention St. Photius?
Where did I mention St. Photius? Straw man, anyone?
Can you ask this question in the original FIlioque thread. Don’t want to derail the thread further. Thanks.
What does Photius have to do with it?
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I’m sorry, apparently you are not familiar with Photius. Basically every argument you attack the “modern EO” of using, are arguments which Photius used in some form or manner.Where did I mention St. Photius?
Where did I mention St. Photius? Straw man, anyone?
Can you ask this question in the original FIlioque thread. Don’t want to derail the thread further. Thanks.
What does Photius have to do with it?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
If you know they are arguments made by St. Photius, why are you asking me to quote him?
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Because I cannot prove a negative (that is, I cannot show what the Pneumatomachoi did not teach). Therefore, it is reasonable that I ask that you find arguments made by the pneumatomachoi and then find St. Photius (or to even make it easier, “modern EO” polemicists) making the exact same argument. Your statement is otherwise unfalsifiable.If you know they are arguments made by St. Photius, why are you asking me to quote him?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
I did not claim they came from St. Photius. These are arguments that EO often make, and I’m addressing the aguments made by those EO individuals. I still don’t understand what St. Photius has to do with this. If you know St. Photius made those same arguments, then I ask you again, why should I bother to come up with any quotes from him?
Your request is just not making any sense.Blessings,
Marduk
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Ok, fine. Take any statement from a “modern EO” polemicist, and by that I do not mean some poster on the internet, but an actual Eastern Orthodox polemicist who is knowledgeable about the faith (I’m thinking somebody like Romanides or Lossky), and then find a writing on the Pneumatomachoi where it is claimed that they make the exact same argument. Otherwise, your statement is unfalsifiable, because nobody can show conclusively what the modern EO do not teach or what the Pneumatomachoi did not teach. The burden of proof therefore falls on you to substantiate your claim.I did not claim they came from St. Photius. These are arguments that EO often make, and I’m addressing the aguments made by those EO individuals. I still don’t understand what St. Photius has to do with this. If you know St. Photius made those same arguments, then I ask you again, why should I bother to come up with any quotes from him?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Why? I’m not responding to Romanides or Lossky, but an individual EO who made the claim.
Your method of rhetoric is…strange.Ask this in the original Filioque thread.
Blessings,
Marduk
5
5Loaves
Guest
We Eastern Catholic Churches are fully Catholic and we do not recite the filioque which is basically why I don’t get why it’s seen as any obstacle to union–we’re in union with Rome.
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is not supposed to be an attack, it is just a reflection and I hope you will recognize that…
The problem is you have no right to object to the filioque, and for you to deny it would be a sin. As an Eastern Catholic under the Pope you have to accept it (and if you know about it defend it) because it is certainly a dogma of the church, even if it’s explanation has been evolving over the recent years. Not having to recite it is a concession or exception (not a right) granted by the Supreme Pontiff but that seems a rather hollow gesture to me.
To put some perspective on this Latin Catholics are not required to mutually accept what you believe, they are free to not believe and also attack your ideas of Theosis as Salvation for example, and are free to disparage your revered saints that do not appear on their own calendar. They will also attack you with alacrity if you do not believe or at least assent to any Latin dogma that has no Orthodox counterpart and you will be anathema because of it.
It is not a mutual arrangement, it is certainly not mutual respect.
From my experience most EC have personally absorbed enough Latin theology not to mind this arrangement at all, the lessons from the Baltimore catechism are still recollected by many alive today, but it is quite another thing for someone who believes only Orthodox theology to look at this situation and ponder it.
I hope that helps.
M
mardukm
Guest
There is a huge problem with this pov:
It presumes EC’s don’t believe in their heart that filioque is not heretical and are simply forced to claim it is not heretical. Since all that the doctrine of filioque teaches is that the Son is the principle of “through” in the Godhead, not the principle of “from,” there is no heresy involved. The unity Eastern Catholics have with their Latin brethren is based on genuine understanding, not the forced indoctrination you pretend that it is. Brother Hesychios, your pov is really rather insulting to EC’s, as if EC’s are just mindless automatons who can’t figure it out for themselves.
Further, your pov is hugely inconsistent. I have asked many EO before if the Essence/Energies distinction is a dogma in the EO Church and that if one does not believe in it, then one can no longer be EO. There have been two consistent responses:
(1) It is not dogma since no Ecumenical Council proclaimed it as such, which would indicate (consistent with the oft-claimed apophatism of EO’xy) that no EO is forced to believe in it and that one can still be EO if one does not adhere to it or does not believe it on the terms that many modern EO claim (i.e., an actual distinction within the Godhead). These EO have a more ecumenistic (i.e., ecumenism based on mutual understanding, not the indifferentism or uniatism that opponents of ecumenism pretend it is) attitude towards Catholics and are very similar to EC’s in this regard. Also, in this paradigm, EC’s who follow the teachings of EO’xy very closely find no dogmatic grounds to claim filioque is heresy and have not abandoned communion with Rome.
(2) Silence. This response always comes from those who claim filioque is a heresy. I guess these particular EO are aware that if they say it is dogma, then their oft-claimed charge that only an Ecum Council can pronounce dogma will be demolished because it is a plain fact that no Ecum Council has ever dogmatized the Essence/Energies distinction. Yet they are then plagued with the inconsistency of their position - if no Ecum Council has dogmatized it, how can we charge the Westerns with heresy?
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status