Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[dzheremi]

I Agree everybody will have to Agree with the Roman Church When there is Full Unity.
I have not yet fully made up my mind which way to Go. I wished there was full unity.
At the moment i am leaning towards Eastern Orthodoxy. where i live its 1hour and 20 minutes by train to get to church. I am a 5 minute walk from a Roman catholic Church.

It’s a good thing that the Orthodox do not embrace this idea of “holy days of obligation”, then!

But really if it were just a matter of what is geographically closest then the RC church would win out in most western countries, or maybe Protestantism before them. So good for you for not letting that decide for you. I am about 3 miles from an RC church, but only about 3 yards from a Protestant one (it’s right across the street). I’ve never, ever felt any desire to go to the Protestant one.

It’s always best to go a long distance for the truth. It may give you some extra time to prepare for the mysteries, if you think of it that way.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

We can’t do that for them. Florence is a binding Council in our tradition.

I had no problem agreeing with you fully until here sir!

Not that I disagree, but your point makes for interesting discussion.

Cannot Rome drop the Filioque from the Nicene Creed today to return to the way the universal Catholic Church once recited the Creed?

And if Florence is binding as a Council - why weren’t the earlier Councils that defined the Creed not binding on Rome when Rome decided to insert the Filioque into the Creed. And then there’s the case of that Pope who made the tablets in Greek and Latin without the Filioque in the time of Charlemagne.

If the early Councils defined the Creed without the Filioque and said that no change can be made to it, why did Rome overrule this?

And why cannot Rome overrule things again and return to the original Creed?

I would say it can return to the original Creed while keeping to its theology of the Filioque.

And nothing more needs to be asked of Rome on the subject of Triadology.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

It was not Just the issue of the Filioque. It was also changing from preeminence Authority of the Pope from being first Amongst Equals to Supremacy.

You are, of course, quite correct - it wasn’t just the Filioque.

But as late as the Council of Florence in 1439, the Orthodox Greeks approached the Latins (and yes, they needed Western military aid against the Turks - aid that never came) and affirmed they would be willing to agree to all else in Latin theology and doctrinal teaching, if ONLY the Latins would remove the Filioque from the Creed.

It wasn’t even a creedal issue but a canonical one involving the Creed.

Never had church unity been so close after 1054 (some say after the 13th century) and never was it to be had so readily - only to be lost until our day.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I don’t really discuss unity with the Orthodox: that’s up to the bishops. Even if you and I agreed to unify, it would mean nothing. The conversations that take place on these forums are academic exercises, or something less than that for some. So, I’m sure the Catholic Church speaks with one voice where the talks between the Catholics and the Orthodox are taking place. As for me, I just give my opinion here. I don’t speak for the Church, nor do any of the other posters.

Honestly, I get a sense, and I could be wrong about this, that, outside of Russia, Orthodox bishops are nowhere near as strident in opposing reunification as the Orthodox who post here. If they are, reunification isn’t going to happen.

I know the Filioque isn’t heresy, because it was upheld at the Council of Florence. But I am informed that there is no way to talk about the Spirit proceeding from the Son in Greek without also implying a double procession, which would in itself be wrong. In any event, Eastern Catholics don’t use it, and that is acceptable from a Catholic perspective. You see that as a contradiction. We don’t.

On the other hand, we have a hard time understanding how an apostolic church can be comfortable being separated from the rock of Peter on which the Church is built. From my standpoint, I’m not smart enough to figure out whether or not the Filioque is correct. Some say this, some say that. So I have to go to the Church. But where’s the Church? Both Catholic and Orthodox claim to be the Church. How am I supposed to decide from their arguments? I can’t. Even if I decide I agree with one side or the other, how can I be certain that I have considered everything? My mind is capable of mistakes on much less weighty matters. I can pray about it, sure. But self-will can be subtle. How do I know that I’m not deceiving myself about what God is telling me? But then I take notice that the Church is built on the rock that is Peter, and only one Church can really make that claim. And so I go to that Church and believe what she teaches me.

Your first sentences here are bang on sir! Ultimately, unity will be achieved if both Churches agree to meet in a Union Council (holding in abeyance whether that would be classified as “Ecumenical” or not ).

Personally, as a Catholic, I see the Orthodox as being “almost completely full.” If I were Orthodox, I would see Latin Catholicism as being “almost completely full” as well.

Ultimately, both Churches are somehow less for being out of communion with one another for the various historic reasons.

When there is a will to achieve unity on both sides, and the necessary pragmatic steps are taken, re-union will be achieved.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

No, there are a few differences between the constitution of the Church and the U.S. Constitution. And as an Orthodox Christian I’m sure you’re aware that Andrew and John were actually the first disciples.

Irenaeus is making the statement that everyone has to agree with the Roman church. You can agree with him, or disagree, but that’s what he says. I agree with him.

The only question that remains to be answered is if this was an absolute for St Irenaeus. Rome was Orthodox/orthodox in his day not only because of the Petrine Primacy, but also because Rome taught orthodox Christianity.

St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine did teach that if a pope espoused heresy, he would cease to be pope. From the Orthodox POV, this did happen in Rome.

In fact, the Orthodox primatial See which took over from Old Rome is none other than the “New Rome” or the City of Constantine. The Orthodox have never given up the title of “Romans” for themselves and the Turks, for example, always referred to the Ecumenical Patriarch as the “Roman Patriarch.”

The Orthodox never said Rome shouldn’t be the primatial See of Christianity. The points of doctrinal disagreement are what rob Rome of that primacy, from the Orthodox point of view.

And I also here this same argument, in various forms, coming from Traditionalist Catholics with respect to the popes of recent times . . .

Traditionalist Catholics like pre-Vatican II and Orthodox like pre-1054 . . .

But I am strongly inclined to agree with your well thought-out and scholarly analyses, sir.

Alex

 

[shaky]

Would you agree that the Pope is the focal point of unity in the Church? Isn’t that the most reasonable interpretation of “on this rock I will build my Church?”

The First church that Peter set up was in Jerusalem then Antioch etc. Eventually Peter settled In Rome. There where 5 Popes=Patriarchs in the beginning. They were all Equal with each other. with the Pope=patriarch of Rome being preeminent=Primacy=First Amongst equals.

Unity was lost in 1054 AD when Rome decided that there Pope=Patriarch was elevating His position From Primacy ‘‘with’’ the rest of the Popes=Patriarchs to Supremacy ‘‘over’’ the rest of the Popes=Patriarchs
The rest of the Popes=Patriarchs did not Agree with this decision of Rome at the time.

At present Patriarch bartholomew of Constantinople is holding the:: preeminent=Primacy=First amongst Equals Position with the Eastern churches.

Untill Rome decides to reverse the decision made in 1054 unity will not take place.
If Rome does decide to reverse this decision the East will Accept and the Pope of the Roman catholic church will be the Primary Pope.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

But what was the decision in 1054? What happened then involved two churchmen hurling excommunications at each other in Constantinople. In fact, neither side understood this to mean that there was, at that point, a state of ecclesial alienation between them.

This actually occurred with the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 when the behaviour of the Crusaders demonstrated to the Orthodox that the West no longer believed them to be in communion with them.

Alex

 

[Frank_J]

Hello,

Question

(1. Orthodox Churches interested in union with the Catholic Church must accept all essential Catholic teaching and beliefs, such as papal infallibility, universal papal supremacy, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, and Purgatory)

Answer

(Not now or ever)

Have a good day

 

[JackQ]

I Agree everybody will have to Agree with the Roman Church When there is Full Unity.
I have not yet fully made up my mind which way to Go. I wished there was full unity.
At the moment i am leaning towards Eastern Orthodoxy. where i live its 1hour and 20 minutes by train to get to church. I am a 5 minute walk from a Roman catholic Church.

So, everyone will have to agree with the Roman Church when everyone has to agree with the Roman Church (and not a minute before). I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Irenaeus didn’t say that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church unless and until there is a split between the eastern and western Church.

 

[JackQ]

I would disagree. The Faith itself is the focal point of unity.

So do the Orthodox say that Jesus was talking about Peter’s faith when he said “on this rock I will build my Church”? If so, I must say I find that reading quite counterintuitive.

 

[lampstand]

The mutual excommunications were rescinded in 1965.

I think there are some people who just want to stay estranged, and would not sign another declaration with the other side if they had the cure for cancer.

It’s been 957 years. What else is anyone waiting for?

A continuing division between the two oldest parties in the body of Christ causes me great sadness. (Between anyone, really, but this has been a shame for nearly 1,000 years. Older, already, than most political empires in the history of the world.)

Sts. Peter and Paul may have had their differences, but they kept the Church together. Why can’t we do that today?

I despair sometimes that even if the two groups sat down and agreed to do what the other wants, change what they want them to change or keep what they want to keep, somebody, somewhere would still insist on not being satisfied. Think about it. Whichever ‘side’ you’re on, what would you do if you woke up tomorrow, and you got the news that the other part in this conflict had agreed to do everything your side were asking for? Would you accept it?

No one has a time machine and no one can take away what has already happened. To get anything done, we’re just going to have to forgive one another.

Or, we can waste time talking about each other as if we were all villains in some bad suspense novel . I am very, very, very far from the ‘best’ Christian, but I can’t be the only person who reads history books and it drives them nuts. Things aren’t supposed to be this way. How do we know? Because it wasn’t that way when Our Lord walked the Earth.

How long are we going to slap ourselves on the foreheads and ‘reflect’ on how ‘it really would have been nice to try’ to solve the issue? There may indeed be a long way to go. But let’s go.

Please forgive me. Thanks.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The only question that remains to be answered is if this was an absolute for St Irenaeus. Rome was Orthodox/orthodox in his day not only because of the Petrine Primacy, but also because Rome taught orthodox Christianity.

And that is the crux of our issue with the Roman Catholic apologetics. Rome was respected because it was orthodox. Rome did not define orthodoxy simply because it was Rome. From the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.

For not from his Apostolic Confession does he (the pope) glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.

Every patristic quote has to be seen through this light. Rome, for the most part, was a bastion of orthodoxy. When Rome ceased to proclaim the orthodox faith, it lost any claim to primacy.

 

[Nine_Two]

So do the Orthodox say that Jesus was talking about Peter’s faith when he said “on this rock I will build my Church”? If so, I must say I find that reading quite counterintuitive.

Whether Christ was talking about Peter’s faith, or Peter himself is irrelevent to what the focal point of unity in the Church is. If you wish it to be a man, then it is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Additionally while I would agree that Rome held a primacy (that is a leadership role among the Churches), that certainly is not expressed in the verse calling Peter “Rock”. Rome and Peter are not the same thing. Whether or not Rome inherited Peter’s place of leadership is not the same as inheriting his place as cornerstone.

 

[JackQ]

I had no problem agreeing with you fully until here sir!

Not that I disagree, but your point makes for interesting discussion.

Cannot Rome drop the Filioque from the Nicene Creed today to return to the way the universal Catholic Church once recited the Creed?

And if Florence is binding as a Council - why weren’t the earlier Councils that defined the Creed not binding on Rome when Rome decided to insert the Filioque into the Creed. And then there’s the case of that Pope who made the tablets in Greek and Latin without the Filioque in the time of Charlemagne.

If the early Councils defined the Creed without the Filioque and said that no change can be made to it, why did Rome overrule this?

And why cannot Rome overrule things again and return to the original Creed?

I would say it can return to the original Creed while keeping to its theology of the Filioque.

And nothing more needs to be asked of Rome on the subject of Triadology.

Alex

I will adopt what the Catechism says:

“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.”
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. the use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). the introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.”

I’ve always taken this to mean that both ways of stating the procession of the Holy Spirit are legitimate provided that those doing the stating have the foregoing in view. I suppose that means that the Latin Church could drop the Filioque, but I honestly don’t think that the Orthodox would want to reunify with us just because we did that. If we did drop it, I would approach the Eastern Catholic section of these forums with some trepidation since I would bet you dinner that the next argument we’d hear from the Orthodox posters would be that we had admitted error and, thus, cannot be the true Church. So, without more, the primary effect of dropping the Filioque from the Creed would be to provide a polemical aid for the Orthodox on Catholic Answers Forums.

To answer what I think is the point of one of your questions, the addition of the Filioque was specifically condemned in the Orthodox version of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. That Council, of course, was never accepted by the Western Church. So Rome didn’t exactly overrule the Council on that one point. Rome never accepted the legitimacy of the Council at all. (The Orthodox bishops did, however, agree with the Council of Florence, at least until they got home.)

Now if you want my honest, frank, and psychologically nude opinion about all this, I don’t think the Filioque wars have in any way assisted in the effort to let our light shine before men, but rather has given the appearance before men of an obsessive compulsive disorder projected beyond the borders of the cosmos. So, absolutely, I’m willing to stop saying the Filioque in the Creed, and given my power to effect change in the practices of the Catholic Church, you can expect that willingness to result in nothing whatsoever.

 

[JackQ]

And that is the crux of our issue with the Roman Catholic apologetics. Rome was respected because it was orthodox. Rome did not define orthodoxy simply because it was Rome. From the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.

For not from his Apostolic Confession does he (the pope) glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.
Every patristic quote has to be seen through this light. Rome, for the most part, was a bastion of orthodoxy. When Rome ceased to proclaim the orthodox faith, it lost any claim to primacy.

So what Irenaeus was saying was that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church unless they don’t agree?

 

[Nine_Two]

So what Irenaeus was saying was that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church unless they don’t agree?

Irenaeus was speaking of the Church in Rome of his day, when it did reflect the Orthodox position.

 

[JackQ]

Whether Christ was talking about Peter’s faith, or Peter himself is irrelevent to what the focal point of unity in the Church is. If you wish it to be a man, then it is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Additionally while I would agree that Rome held a primacy (that is a leadership role among the Churches), that certainly is not expressed in the verse calling Peter “Rock”. Rome and Peter are not the same thing. Whether or not Rome inherited Peter’s place of leadership is not the same as inheriting his place as cornerstone.

Maybe I wasn’t being clear. Do you think that the following statement from Optatus of Milevus from 367 A.D. gives a correct understanding of Peter being the rock on which the Church is built?

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church”

 

[JackQ]

Irenaeus was speaking of the Church in Rome of his day, when it did reflect the Orthodox position.

If one only has to agree with the Roman Church when it is Orthodox (as determined by who?), then what’s the point of saying that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church? Why didn’t Irenaeus simply say that everyone should agree with the Orthodox position? Moreover, if Irenaeus means that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church because it is Orthodox, and by implication saying that one would not have to agree with Rome if it stopped being Orthodox, then why does he give special mention to the Roman Church at all? Wouldn’t the same be true of any Church?

 

[JackQ]

Hello,

Question

(1. Orthodox Churches interested in union with the Catholic Church must accept all essential Catholic teaching and beliefs, such as papal infallibility, universal papal supremacy, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary, and Purgatory)

Answer

(Not now or ever)

Have a good day

Well, that settles that, then.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I will adopt what the Catechism says:

“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.”
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. the use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). the introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.”

I’ve always taken this to mean that both ways of stating the procession of the Holy Spirit are legitimate provided that those doing the stating have the foregoing in view. I suppose that means that the Latin Church could drop the Filioque, but I honestly don’t think that the Orthodox would want to reunify with us just because we did that. If we did drop it, I would approach the Eastern Catholic section of these forums with some trepidation since I would bet you dinner that the next argument we’d hear from the Orthodox posters would be that we had admitted error and, thus, cannot be the true Church. So, without more, the primary effect of dropping the Filioque from the Creed would be to provide a polemical aid for the Orthodox on Catholic Answers Forums.

To answer what I think is the point of one of your questions, the addition of the Filioque was specifically condemned in the Orthodox version of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. That Council, of course, was never accepted by the Western Church. So Rome didn’t exactly overrule the Council on that one point. Rome never accepted the legitimacy of the Council at all. (The Orthodox bishops did, however, agree with the Council of Florence, at least until they got home.)

Now if you want my honest, frank, and psychologically nude opinion about all this, I don’t think the Filioque wars have in any way assisted in the effort to let our light shine before men, but rather has given the appearance before men of an obsessive compulsive disorder projected beyond the borders of the cosmos. So, absolutely, I’m willing to stop saying the Filioque in the Creed, and given my power to effect change in the practices of the Catholic Church, you can expect that willingness to result in nothing whatsoever.

Certainly, in 2011, dropping the Filioque will not reunify the Churches. A Union Council would be required but this presupposes the willingness, on both sides, to come together and work out their differences to become the One Church they were prior to 1200 (what happened in 1054 was a temper tantrum that did not affect church unity, as I think later historical precedents can demonstrate).

The “economic” Filioque (that the Spirit is sent into the world by both the Father and the Son) is accepted by the Eastern Fathers (I will say “Fathers” rather than “Orthodoxy” since the Orthodox Church does indeed rely on Patristics for this as for other matters). St John Damascus, in his “De Fide Orthodoxa” categorically denies that the Spirit proceeds from the Son eternally (contested later by Aquinas).

My point is there is sufficient in the Triadology of both Churches to bring them together on this while leaving their respective ecclesial Trinitarian perspectives alone. The Orthodox Church does not understand why the Latin Catholic Church needs to have the Filioque - especially given the fact that the Latin Church would condemn as heretical the view of two Sources for the Spirit within the Trinity and the Filioque COULD be understood (as it is in the East) in that heretical meaning. But what each Church does internally in terms of “doing theology” should be left to it.

So while the dropping of the Filioque won’t change matters much, I do believe the good will shown by the West in this respect might actually oblige the East to respond in kind.

Ultimately, the big sticking point is the Papacy and the Orthodox see the Papacy as something that follows the theology of the Filioque e.g. if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then the Vicar of the Son, the Pope, must also be seen as having the Spirit proceeding from himself (i.e. papal infallibility).

But good will can overcome all obstacles.

Alex