Do Orthodox Christians think that Catholics are heresy?

[Jesusissacred]

They don’t believe in Papal Primacy which is something that is really a thorn in the ecumenical movement. However, the RCC really has come along way in the ecumenical movement. Now, we allow them to keep their own liturgies, etc. It’s absolutely fantastic. Through this we can preserve the beautiful kaleidoscope of beliefs in the east while having unity. I tend to feel that if they joined the RCC they would be better protected and have more security. The only issue is Papal Primacy but… maybe they’ll change their mind.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They don’t believe in Papal Primacy which is something that is really a thorn in the ecumenical movement. However, the RCC really has come along way in the ecumenical movement. Now, we allow them to keep their own liturgies, etc. It’s absolutely fantastic. Through this we can preserve the beautiful kaleidoscope of beliefs in the east while having unity. I tend to feel that if they joined the RCC they would be better protected and have more security. The only issue is Papal Primacy but… maybe they’ll change their mind.

Unity is about belief, not protection and security. Although in the past it did factor in several times. But even as a Catholic, I wouldn’t agree to the Church reuniting with another for reasons of security and protection at the cost of authentic belief.

 

[Jesusissacred]

The RCC has accepted that the Orthodox Church has authentic beliefs. The only issue is Papal Primacy. However, reuniting with the Protestants would be much more difficult as they have so many different beliefs. The RCC did say though that the Orthodox have authentic beliefs and are a true church. It’s mainly political why we aren’t united.

 

[josie_L]

When you confess the filioque, you must believe de fide that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle, making the Son both cause and principle of the Spirit’s existence. That is what we disagree about. Your argument by semantics falls short because it isn’t the actual teaching of your Church.

Our church has never taught that the Son is the cause (only the Father is) of the Spirit’s existence, and in essence the disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics (on the filioque) is a matter of semantics.

“The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences. (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43)”

If you’re interested in understanding how We Catholics define the filioque, as opposed to defining it for us, please read this article (here is a tidbit):

" Rather, all that the West ever intended to do was to elaborate on what the Latin term “procedit” referred to, or could refer to, in orthodox Western understanding. And given that the Latin “procedit” carries a different implication than the Greek “ekporeusis”, what this means is that it was possible (for the West) to stress a different, equally-orthodox truth about the procession of the Holy Spirit than what the fathers at Constantinople I originally intended to refer to."

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx

p.s. It is an excellent article.

 

[RyanBlack]

Our church has never taught that the Son is the cause (only the Father is) of the Spirit’s existence, and in essence the disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics (on the filioque) is a matter of semantics.

Well, consider this from the CCC.

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Cavaradossi would understand Catholic dogmatic teaching as he has articulated it, since the Council of Florence clearly taught that the Holy Spirit “has his nature and subsistence at once from the Father and the Son,” and that “He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration.”

 

[josie_L]

Well, consider this from the CCC.

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son;** (he participates in the procession, but is not the cause of the Holy Spirit, i.e., one spiration) ** He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds (which does not mean “ekpouresis” as understood in the Constantinopolitan creed) eternally from both as from one principle** (which is the Father but with whom the Son participates)** and through one spiration (not the double spiration of which we are accused of) . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Cavaradossi would understand Catholic dogmatic teaching as he has articulated it, since the Council of Florence clearly taught that the Holy Spirit “has his nature and subsistence at once from the Father and the Son,” and that “He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration.”

It is his understanding of the word “proceeds” (which I mentioned to a degree in my original post), hence the reason I asked him to read the article. It clarifies in greater detail what is meant by the filioque.

 

[Lucky7]

It is his understanding of the word “proceeds” (which I mentioned to a degree in my original post), hence the reason I asked him to read the article. It clarifies in greater detail what is meant by the filioque.

I also tend to think that, in the end, this is more about semantics and the Orhtodox Church digging in its heels. I really think that if one looks at what it being said in Catholic teaching one would see that it makes complete sense and is not saying anything false. Also, said beliefs were held hundreds of years prior to the Great Schism…apparently as far back as the 400’s. So, if this belief/teaching was heresy, then I guess the whole Church (including the Orthodox Christians) believed in heresy. Just as with other moments in Church history sometimes teachings must be clarified. I think this was one of those moments.

The bigger issue will be (and continue to be) the Pope. But again, if the whole Church accepted the Pope in Rome to have supremacy for a thousand years, why is it suddenly an issue? Why did it take until 1054 to say, “Wait a minute that teaching is heresy!”?

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is his understanding of the word “proceeds” (which I mentioned to a degree in my original post), hence the reason I asked him to read the article. It clarifies in greater detail what is meant by the filioque.

No it is not my understanding of the term proceeds. The union decree of Florence (Laetentur Coeli) clearly attributes causality to the Son, regardless of how the latin term procedere should be understood: The Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just as the Father.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The RCC has accepted that the Orthodox Church has authentic beliefs. The only issue is Papal Primacy. However, reuniting with the Protestants would be much more difficult as they have so many different beliefs. The RCC did say though that the Orthodox have authentic beliefs and are a true church. It’s mainly political why we aren’t united.

It is not political given that the belief in the papacy has been dogmatized. It has become doctrinal or dogmatic (I get confused with those two).

 

[josie_L]

No it is not my understanding of the term proceeds. The union decree of Florence (Laetentur Coeli) clearly attributes causality to the Son, regardless of how the latin term procedere should be understood: The Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just as the Father.

Yes, it is your (Byzantine) understanding of the term “proceeds” which is not allowing you to see what is meant by the word “proceeds” in this context. Moreover, the quote which you just posted (from the Florence council) is delineated in the article I asked you to read (but I guess you’re not interested in learning orthodox Catholic theology):

“What’s more, the author of The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy (quoted by Mr. Quattrone above) is simply wrong when he claims that John of Montenegro (and thus the Western Church) saw the Son as a “cause” of the Spirit in the sense of an “aition”. This is specifically what John of Montenegro was denying when he proclaimed that Rome recognizes only one Cause (Aition) of the Spirit – namely, the Father. It is only when one twists and misrepresents the Western view (force-fitting it into a Byzantine preconception) that a ‘contradiction’ is created. The Roman position has never changed: The Father is the sole Cause (Aition / Principium) of the Spirit; but, with that taken for granted, one may also validly speak of the Spirit proceeding from both Father and Son in a collective sense – that is, with the Father acting as Cause (Aition / Principium) and the Son acting as eternal, essential Participant in the Father’s spirating of the Spirit – the Spirit of Sonship, which of course requires the Personal existence and participation of a Son.”

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx

“At this point, it may be very helpful for us to distinguish between two important Greek words. Above, we discussed the semantic differences between the Greek term “ekporeusis” (i.e., to proceed from a sole Source, Principal, or Cause) and the unequivalent Latin term “procedit” – the term unwittingly used by the West to translate Constantinople I’s “ekporeusis”, and so the root of the semantic confusion. However, there is yet another Greek term for “proceeds”, which is “proienai”, and this term, which is equivalent to the Latin term “procedit”, is used quite often among Eastern (especially Alexandrian) fathers to refer to the Spirit’s procession from both Father and Son. For, when the Greek fathers use “proienai”, they are not referring to the Father’s monarchy at all, but to the same, collective sense of the Spirit’s procession (involving both Father and Son) as expressed in the Western tradition. We will explore this aspect of the Eastern fathers’ theology below.”

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheChurch/Articles/Filioque.aspx

If you truly wish to discuss this matter of the filioque (in its Catholic context), then I ask you again to please read the article (it is rather long).

God bless.

 

[dvdjs]

When you confess the filioque, you must believe de fide that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle, making the Son both cause and principle of the Spirit’s existence.

The bolded phrase is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[josie_L]

The bolded phrase is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I’m glad you’re here.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The bolded phrase is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Except for the part where the Council of Florence states that the Son is the cause and principle of the Holy Spirit’s subsistence (hyparxeos), sure. I am glad then, that your Church has quit teaching that particular doctrine of the Council of Florence.

 

[josie_L]

Except for the part where the Council of Florence states that the Son is the cause and principle of the Holy Spirit’s subsistence (hyparxeos), sure. I am glad then, that your Church has quit teaching that particular doctrine of the Council of Florence.

:tsktsk: The Catholic Church has never taught this, in fact, Saint Augustine who is much maligned by some Orthodox for fueling this supposed Catholic teaching (and who is a doctor of the Catholic Church), had this to say:

For the Father alone is not from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten, not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can on so great a subject. And the Son is begotten of the Father;** and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally**, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from Both [Father Son]. But He [the Spirit] would be called the Son of the Father and of the Son, if –** a thing abhorrent to the feeling of all sound minds** – Both had begotten Him. Therefore the Spirit of Both is not begotten of Both, but proceeds (as in proienai not ekporeusis) from Both. (On the Trinity, xv; 26)

He is using the word “begotten” to mean spirates (cause).

 

[Cavaradossi]

:tsktsk: The Catholic Church has never taught this, in fact, Saint Augustine who is much maligned by some Orthodox for fueling this supposed Catholic teaching (and who is a doctor of the Catholic Church), had this to say:

But then the Council of Florence decrees that the Son should be signified as Cause and Principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. They, of course, were just following the lead of Aquinas who similarly wrote that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit, interpreting the Patristic formulation ‘through the Son’ to mean that the Son has some agency in the procession of the Spirit and can therefore be signified as Cause. Perhaps if I had said something entirely crazy like, “the Catholic Church teaches that the Son is the sole Cause of the Spirit,” or, “the Catholic Church teaches that the Son is a second Cause of the Spirit,” then you would have a case against me here. But I am doing nothing more than restating conclusions drawn up by the conciliar decisions of your Church: because the Father and Son spirate the Spirit as one Principle, the Son can be signified as Cause and Principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Khalid]

I also tend to think that, in the end, this is more about semantics and the Orhtodox Church digging in its heels. I really think that if one looks at what it being said in Catholic teaching one would see that it makes complete sense and is not saying anything false. Also, said beliefs were held hundreds of years prior to the Great Schism…apparently as far back as the 400’s. So, if this belief/teaching was heresy, then I guess the whole Church (including the Orthodox Christians) believed in heresy. Just as with other moments in Church history sometimes teachings must be clarified. I think this was one of those moments.

The bigger issue will be (and continue to be) the Pope. But again, if the whole Church accepted the Pope in Rome to have supremacy for a thousand years, why is it suddenly an issue? Why did it take until 1054 to say, “Wait a minute that teaching is heresy!”?

As I’ve mentioned in my former posts, the controversy over the Filioque comes in large part from the different methods of thinking about the Trinity in the West (which is Augustinian) and in the East (which is greatly indebted to Origen, but just as importantly, reached its point of synthesis with philosophy more quickly). As far as I see, both Cavaradossi and most others are interpreting double procession correctly: the confusion mounts when it can not be understood why some view as orthodox, and some do not.

I’ll start posting straight paragraphs out of books I own on the matter if only to keep what seemed to be a promising thread from further degenerating in to ninth-century, “the Filioque is orthodox”…“no, it’s not” back and forth, the only difference being Latin and Greek can both plug in to the internet now.

At least write post-length treatises on why there can be only one principle, or why there can be two, or why what the Orthodox view as having to do with the indivisible and simple ousia, actually must do with two hypostases which partake of it? or why the entire framework is misunderstood!

 

[Cavaradossi]

As I’ve mentioned in my former posts, the controversy over the Filioque comes in large part from the different methods of thinking about the Trinity in the West (which is Augustinian) and in the East (which is greatly indebted to Origen, but just as importantly, reached its point of synthesis with philosophy more quickly).

I’ll start posting straight paragraphs out of books I own on the matter if only to keep what seemed to be a promising thread from further degenerating in to ninth-century, “the Filioque is orthodox”…“no, it’s not” back and forth, the only difference being Latin and Greek can both plug in to the internet now.

At least write post-length treatises on why there can be only one principle, or why there can be two, or why what the Orthodox view as having to do with the indivisible and simple ousia, actually must do with two hypostases which partake of it? or why the entire framework is misunderstood!

The last option, that the entire framework is misunderstood, is probably the most interesting one.

 

[dvdjs]

Except for the part where the Council of Florence states that the Son is the cause and principle of the Holy Spirit’s subsistence (hyparxeos), sure. I am glad then, that your Church has quit teaching that particular doctrine of the Council of Florence.

Can you give me a quote. My recollection was that the Latins talked of principle and the Greeks talked of cause.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Can you give me a quote. My recollection was that the Latins talked of principle and the Greeks talked of cause.

I posted it earlier. They decreed that what the Latins meant by principle, the Greeks meant by cause (Aition), and that these terms should signify the Son (just as they signify the Father).

 

[dvdjs]

I posted it earlier. They decreed that what the Latins meant by principle, the Greeks meant by cause (Aition), and that these terms should signify the Son (just as they signify the Father).

I missed it and don;t see it on a search of your posts. But what you write here is closer to what I remember. In the bilateral statement, it was the Greeks that were stating cause and the Latins principle.