Contemplating Orthodoxy

[Peter_J]

It’s generally a good idea not to jump to conclusions about what someone else thinks.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Hi 5Loaves. I guess it hinges on what you mean by obstacle to union. I don’t think anyone is denying that Orthodox Christians can (and do) come into union with Rome.

 

[Peter_J]

Didn’t you say you did not understand what is meant by “differences in theology?”

Well, something like that. I said:

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.

 

[Hesychios]

There is a huge problem with this pov:

Here is the problem with your response to me:

It doesn’t matter what EC think about Latin theology, as I have pointed out.

The question I addressed was " **… 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." **…

But there is a big difference between believing in the filioque and receiving permission to not recite it, and not believing in the filioque and receiving permission to not recite it.

First of all, Orthodox do not ‘need permission’ to not recite the filioque. You do.

Secondly, even if you believe in the filioque and would recite it, when worshiping in an eastern house you are ordered by Rome to restore your traditions and use the original form of the creed, and do so because you were commanded to by staffers of the Pope in Rome, not because you want to. Even by this obedience you acknowledge Papal authority to determine these things for you.

This is not an argument for unity, at least not an argument for unity with Orthodox.

Thus, from this position as an EC trying to convince Orthodox to join in, you can only say (I paraphrase) ‘we are allowed to not say what we believe’ and ‘the Supreme Pontiff can give you permission to not say it as well, although you would have to accept it anyway like us’.

So is this an obstacle? What do you think?

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

As I said, I need an explanation of how it is reconciled to our tradition. All I see in it is a biune God within the Trinity.

 

[Peter_J]

Here is the problem with your response to me:

It doesn’t matter what EC think about Latin theology, as I have pointed out.

The question I addressed was " **… 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." **…

But there is a big difference between believing in the filioque and receiving permission to not recite it, and not believing in the filioque and receiving permission to not recite it.

First of all, Orthodox do not ‘need permission’ to not recite the filioque. You do.

Secondly, even if you believe in the filioque and would recite it, when worshiping in an eastern house you are ordered by Rome to restore your traditions and use the original form of the creed, and do so because you were commanded to by staffers of the Pope in Rome, not because you want to. Even by this obedience you acknowledge Papal authority to determine these things for you.

This is not an argument for unity, at least not an argument for unity with Orthodox.

Thus, from this position as an EC trying to convince Orthodox to join in, you can only say (I paraphrase) ‘we are allowed to not say what we believe’ and ‘the Supreme Pontiff can give you permission to not say it as well, although you would have to accept it anyway like us’.

So is this an obstacle? What do you think?

Good post. I won’t comment right now; I first want to see if 5Loaves wants to clarify what she said:

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.

If she’s just saying that the filioque doesn’t keep Orthodox from swimming the Tiber, then I agree.

 

[Peter_J]

As I said, I need an explanation of how it is reconciled to our tradition.

But, again, I don’t know if that’s what she meant.

All I see in it is a biune God within the Trinity.

That’s a pretty extreme critique of the Catholic position.

 

[Nine_Two]

But, again, I don’t know if that’s what she meant.

That’s a pretty extreme critique of the Catholic position.

It isn’t a critique, it is how it sounds to me. I’ve asked for it to be explained, and all I got was a response from Mardukm saying that’s the same question heretics asked and therefore it isn’t worth answering.

Needless to say since no one has explained it to me, that continues to be my view.

 

[oldbrit2009]

After off-and-on considering Orthodoxy for roughly four years now - much longer, really, if you consider that I fell in love with the Byzantine Church as an undergrad as a result of my studies - I finally have established contact with the priest of the local Greek Orthodox Church - which is one of the two Orthodox parishes in the area, the other being pan-Orthodox.

I have no immediate plans of converting, though, as there are a number of questions which I must seek out answers to, both from a Catholic and an Orthodox perspective; among those, of course, being a question of the primacy versus supremacy of the Pope. Even as a Catholic all these years, the papal powers are not something I’ve always agreed with but never something I’ve studied or researched; rather, I’ve just ignored the position and the man holding it. My bias is with the Orthodox position; however, given that my girlfriend (and future fiance) and her family is Catholic and given the relationship I’ve formed with my Catholic parish, accepting papal authority wouldn’t be conscientiously gut-wrenching. I must also consider what the differences between the different Orthodox Churches are and why they exist; the varied Orthodox stances on Protestan/Catholic baptism; the question of contraception, divorce and remarriage.

Plus, there’s no need to be hasty in making a decision: the holy Spirit calls me to a life of prayer first and foremost, followed by attempting to live virtuously. Of course, when my natural mode of worship has tended to approach the Eastern side of things, crossing the Bosphorus wouldn’t be entirely hasty. However, after reading about a Benedictine hermit who, at the age of 70, finally converted to Orthodoxy, I am also confident that living an Eastern spirituality within the confines of my current Franciscan parish is more than possible until it becomes more plainly evident where the holy Spirit will have me continue my journey.

Whatever my decision, I already know that leaving Catholicism will pain me as much as never converting to Orthodoxy. In truth, the schism does infect the souls of men.

Big Chris,
I don’t know if you are aware but for the first 700 years of Christianty, the Eastern Churches didn’t have a problem with the leadership of Christianty being with the Bishop of Rome.

I have always felt that the causes for the break up between the Western Church and the East had more to do with politics than theology. The seeds were sown when the capital of the empire was changed from Rome to Constantinople. Up to that point all Christians had acknowledged the authority of the Bishop of Rome, (The Chair of Peter)
There is ample evidence to show that the Bishop of Rome’s authority was accepted throughout the eastern half of Christendom until the eighth century. The first serious trouble took place in 726 A.D. when Leo the Isaurian, Emperor of the East, ordered that all images in the churches be destroyed. This destruction of sacred images (known as Iconoclasm) continued in various parts of the East for more than a hundred years. During that period the Popes made every effort to stop the practice, which increased the strained relations between the East and the West.

The next flash point came in 857 A.D. when Ignatius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, publicly refused Holy Communion to a notorious character; the uncle of Emperor Michael (the drunkard) The Emperor took this as an insult to himself and promptly deposed Ignatius and sent him into exile. In his place the Emperor appointed Photius, a courtier and friend of the Emperor.
In an attempt to get his appointment recognised by the Pope, (even he knew his appointment wasn’t valid without the Pope’s approval) he petitioned the Pope with a false claim that he had been nominated by the Emperor to take the place of Ignatius, who had resigned because of old age! The Pope, Nicholas I, wasn’t fooled and refused to give his approval.
Photius became very angry and made several wild claims ending up excommunicating the Pope and the entire Western Church in 867 A.D! This began what was known as the Greek Schism. It ended within two years when a new Emperor, Basilius, restored the breach. Photius was sent to a monastery, and Ignatius was recalled as Patriarch.
A general council was called in 869 at Constantinople and ratified these changes and the union between East and West was officially restored.

This uneasy peace between the East and West lasted for almost two hundred years until Michael Caerularius became Patriarch. He was determined to break with Rome. He resurrected all the old charges made by Photius against the Latin Church and ordered all Latin Churches in Constantinople to be closed. The then Pope, Leo IX and the Emperor of the East at the time, Constantine Monomachus, made several attempts to preserve the union. Caerularius rejected all efforts. In a final attempt to make peace Pope Leo sent special legates to Constantinople but Caerularius would not even receive them.
In the face of such resistance the legates felt they had no other alternative but to excommunicate Caerularius and his supporters.
This action, which took place on July 16, 1054, marked the final break between East and West.

 

[Peter_J]

Big Chris,
I don’t know if you are aware but for the first 700 years of Christianty, the Eastern Churches didn’t have a problem with the leadership of Christianty being with the Bishop of Rome.

I have always felt that the causes for the break up between the Western Church and the East had more to do with politics than theology. The seeds were sown when the capital of the empire was changed from Rome to Constantinople. Up to that point all Christians had acknowledged the authority of the Bishop of Rome, (The Chair of Peter)
There is ample evidence to show that the Bishop of Rome’s authority was accepted throughout the eastern half of Christendom until the eighth century. The first serious trouble took place in 726 A.D. when Leo the Isaurian, Emperor of the East, ordered that all images in the churches be destroyed. This destruction of sacred images (known as Iconoclasm) continued in various parts of the East for more than a hundred years. During that period the Popes made every effort to stop the practice, which increased the strained relations between the East and the West.

The next flash point came in 857 A.D. when Ignatius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, publicly refused Holy Communion to a notorious character; the uncle of Emperor Michael (the drunkard) The Emperor took this as an insult to himself and promptly deposed Ignatius and sent him into exile. In his place the Emperor appointed Photius, a courtier and friend of the Emperor.
In an attempt to get his appointment recognised by the Pope, (even he knew his appointment wasn’t valid without the Pope’s approval) he petitioned the Pope with a false claim that he had been nominated by the Emperor to take the place of Ignatius, who had resigned because of old age! The Pope, Nicholas I, wasn’t fooled and refused to give his approval.
Photius became very angry and made several wild claims ending up excommunicating the Pope and the entire Western Church in 867 A.D! This began what was known as the Greek Schism. It ended within two years when a new Emperor, Basilius, restored the breach. Photius was sent to a monastery, and Ignatius was recalled as Patriarch.
A general council was called in 869 at Constantinople and ratified these changes and the union between East and West was officially restored.

This uneasy peace between the East and West lasted for almost two hundred years until Michael Caerularius became Patriarch. He was determined to break with Rome. He resurrected all the old charges made by Photius against the Latin Church and ordered all Latin Churches in Constantinople to be closed. The then Pope, Leo IX and the Emperor of the East at the time, Constantine Monomachus, made several attempts to preserve the union. Caerularius rejected all efforts. In a final attempt to make peace Pope Leo sent special legates to Constantinople but Caerularius would not even receive them.
In the face of such resistance the legates felt they had no other alternative but to excommunicate Caerularius and his supporters.
This action, which took place on July 16, 1054, marked the final break between East and West.

Both sides are quite capable of spinning things to makes themselves look good. It gets rather old.

 

[Peter_J]

It isn’t a critique, it is how it sounds to me. I’ve asked for it to be explained, and all I got was a response from Mardukm saying that’s the same question heretics asked and therefore it isn’t worth answering.

Needless to say since no one has explained it to me, that continues to be my view.

Distinction duly noted, but I still think it’s pretty extreme. Only the most “unecumenical” of Orthodox would claim that the filioque amounts to believing in a “biune God within the Trinity”.

 

[Peter_J]

It isn’t a critique, it is how it sounds to me. **I’ve asked for it to be explained, and all I got was a response from Mardukm saying that’s the same question heretics asked and therefore it isn’t worth answering.

Needless to say since no one has explained it to me, that continues to be my view.**

You shouldn’t put so much stock in an internet discussion forum.

 

[Pork_Roll]

If the EO permit changing the moral teaching on contraception and marriage, what makes anyone think they wouldn’t change doctrine as well? Contraception is a very recent change which to me shows that EO teachings are more affected by changes in culture and society than Catholic teachings in terms of faith and morals. I think history proves this with the amount of heresies that affected Constantinople.

Also, EO parishes made up of evangelical converts can be very anti-catholic and cultish.

 

[mardukm]

Here is the problem with your response to me:

It doesn’t matter what EC think about Latin theology, as I have pointed out.

The question I addressed was " **… 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." **…

But there is a big difference between believing in the filioque and receiving permission to not recite it, and not believing in the filioque and receiving permission to not recite it.

First of all, Orthodox do not ‘need permission’ to not recite the filioque. You do.

Secondly, even if you believe in the filioque and would recite it, when worshiping in an eastern house you are ordered by Rome to restore your traditions and use the original form of the creed, and do so because you were commanded to by staffers of the Pope in Rome, not because you want to. Even by this obedience you acknowledge Papal authority to determine these things for you.

This is not an argument for unity, at least not an argument for unity with Orthodox.

Thus, from this position as an EC trying to convince Orthodox to join in, you can only say (I paraphrase) ‘we are allowed to not say what we believe’ and ‘the Supreme Pontiff can give you permission to not say it as well, although you would have to accept it anyway like us’.

So is this an obstacle? What do you think?

No it’s not an obstacle, because it was not papal authority that caused filioque to be inserted into the Creeds in the first place. It was LOCAL Latin authorities, both secular and ecclesiastical, and the forced perception such pressure imposed on our hierarchs that to be accepted - given our minority status - we needed to be like the Latins. So the instruction to remove filioque is a sign of a good head bishop who is concerned about restoring and preserving our patrimony. Even when the Pope does something good, someone will inevitably twist it to unimaginable lengths to make it seem the Pope is doing something bad.

There was an incident in the early 20th century when a Byzantine bishop approached the Pope about problems in his diocese because of issues with the local Latin hierarchs. The response of the Pope was simply, “exercise your rights.” That’s what is happening now. It’s sad that you see a fatherly instruction of the bishop of Rome for us to exercise our rights as some sort of pretext to maintain disunity.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

You shouldn’t put so much stock in an internet discussion forum.

I do my best not to.

However the point stands, if someone wants to claim the positions can be reconciled, they need to be willing to explain how.

 

[mardukm]

If the EO permit changing the moral teaching on contraception and marriage, what makes anyone think they wouldn’t change doctrine as well? Contraception is a very recent change which to me shows that EO teachings are more affected by changes in culture and society than Catholic teachings in terms of faith and morals. I think history proves this with the amount of heresies that affected Constantinople.

Well, you know EO make the same charge against Latin Catholics, stating that the cultural popularity of pagan Aristotelianism infected the Latin Church. I know that charge is senseless, but I wanted you to know that because certain EO use this tu quoque rationale, your own rhetoric may not really strike a chord in their hearts.

Also, EO parishes made up of evangelical converts can be very anti-catholic and cultish.

Well, that has really nothing to do with the EO. The Evangelicals were anti-Catholic to begin with.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It isn’t a critique, it is how it sounds to me. I’ve asked for it to be explained, and all I got was a response from Mardukm saying that’s the same question heretics asked and therefore it isn’t worth answering.

That’s not what I said. That was only your own interpretation. What I said was that the Fathers answered this charge already when the Pneumatomachians tried to use it, so it doesn’t need to be rehashed by Catholics today. Then you went off in a huff claiming I accused you of heresy.

Needless to say since no one has explained it to me, that continues to be my view.

Or maybe it was explained, but you didn’t bother to read it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

If the EO permit changing the moral teaching on contraception and marriage, what makes anyone think they wouldn’t change doctrine as well? Contraception is a very recent change which to me shows that EO teachings are more affected by changes in culture and society than Catholic teachings in terms of faith and morals. I think history proves this with the amount of heresies that affected Constantinople.

I seem to recall a thread where it was shown that the Catholic teaching on birth control has itself changed. At one point, it seems, NFP was also forbidden. Personally I don’t know much about it.

Past heresies don’t mean anything when you’re talking about keeping the faith. Heresy has befallen the Roman Church as well. For example Pope Benedict IX who was deposed for simony (he sold the Papal office itself, then used an army to take it back).

Also, EO parishes made up of evangelical converts can be very anti-catholic and cultish.

Do you know this first hand, or did you just hear it from somewhere?
I’ve never been in an Orthodox parish where people give much thought to Roman Catholics. Whether mostly cradle, or mostly convert.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What I have learned so far: I am an anti-catholic Pneumatomachos (a nice way of saying that I am a heretic), who does not really believe what I have been taught (so I guess that makes me only appear to be a heretic, since what I really believe is different), and that my parish is likely made up of a bunch of ex-evangelicals who are all the same way, so that together, we form a cult-like atmosphere.

 

[Nine_Two]

What I have learned so far: I am an anti-catholic Pneumatomachos (a nice way of saying that I am a heretic), who does not really believe what I have been taught (so I guess that makes me only appear to be a heretic, since what I really believe is different), and that my parish is likely made up of a bunch of ex-evangelicals who are all the same way, so that together, we form a cult-like atmosphere.

I’m all that plus a polemiscist. Are you a polemiscist?