Eastern Catholic/Eastern Orthodox

[Micosil]

FYI Eastern Catholics reject the Filioque clause.

They do not and cannot. They do not recite it at Divine Liturgy because of tradition (lower-case “t”), but since it is part of the doctrine/dogma of the Catholic Church, and they’re in full communion with the Catholic Church and are effectively a part of it, they accept it. There’s certain issues here, such as the clause sounding odd in Greek, or something of the sort – but they certainly believe the theological truth contained in the Filioque.

 

[adamhovey1988]

FYI Eastern Catholics reject the Filioque clause.

If I recall correctly they are free to use it or not. all the Eastern Catholic liturgies I’ve been to they don’t use it

 

[Micosil]

If I recall correctly they are free to use it or not. all the Eastern Catholic liturgies I’ve been to they don’t use it

I think there’s a confusion here.

It is one thing to not use the Filioque clause when the Nicene Creed is recited during Divine Liturgy, and it is another to reject the theological truth associated with this clause.

The Eastern Catholic churches are indeed free not to use the clause when their faithful recite the Creed during their services, but being in full communion with the Catholic Church, and thus effectively a part of it, they have to accept the doctrinal truths associated with it.

 

[carnes88]

They do not and cannot. They do not recite it at Divine Liturgy because of tradition (lower-case “t”), but since it is part of the doctrine/dogma of the Catholic Church, and they’re in full communion with the Catholic Church and are effectively a part of it, they accept it. There’s certain issues here, such as the clause sounding odd in Greek, or something of the sort – but they certainly believe the theological truth contained in the Filioque.

Eastern Catholics can and most certainly do reject the Filioque.

 

[carnes88]

Yes actually it would be because you would be committing the sin of schism. I don’t want to weigh on anyone’s conscience but that would be schism. You would be accepting orthodoxy but without the proper authority.

13 ) “In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be avoided”.

1. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose most especially in what concerns unity. The faithful should be able to express their opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either with the Orthodox Church or with the Catholic Church. There is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.

 

[carnes88]

Yes actually it would be because you would be committing the sin of schism. I don’t want to weigh on anyone’s conscience but that would be schism. You would be accepting orthodoxy but without the proper authority.

So one can choose either to be in communion with the Catholic or Orthodox Churches
without fearing for their salvation, both are sufficient.

 

[Vico]

Eastern Catholics can and most certainly do reject the Filioque.

Any Catholic that does not assent to the dogmas of faith of the Catholic Church materially commit a grave error. Assent must be given to the dogma of faith at the Second General Council of Lyons (1274):
The Holy Ghost eternally proceeds from Father and Son as from one principle and by one spiration.

Although the dogma must not be denied, the Treaty of Brest, 1959, does not require the Roman form of creed to be used:

We require prior guarantees of these articles from the Romans before we enter into union with the Roman Church.

1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.

 

[Micosil]

Eastern Catholics can and most certainly do reject the Filioque.

Usually I’d agree to disagree, but there isn’t much to disagree with here. And I say this as charitably as I can, not to put you down – but you’re mistaken. The Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with Rome, and as such, are part of the Catholic Church, which has a specific deposit of faith of which the Filioque is a part of.

As Vico has stated (though there’s a typo in Vico’s answer, the Union of Brest is from 1595-96, and not 1959),

1. 
   *]the Second General Council of Lyons, the fourteenth ecumenical council of the Catholic Church declared dogmatically, once and for all, that the Filioque clause is a theological truth to be believed by all the faithful regardless of Rite, and that
   *]some Eastern Catholic Churches that come from Eastern Orthodox traditions had clergy that did teach the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, yet agreed to leave it out of the Nicene Creed per se:
   

   It was agreed that the filioque should not be inserted in the Nicene Creed,[a] although the Ruthenian clergy professed and taught the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The bishops asked to be dispensed from the obligation of introducing the Gregorian Calendar, so as to avoid popular discontent and dissensions, and insisted that the king should grant them, as of right, the dignity of senators.[3]

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Brest

 

[Peter_J]

Carnes,

I’m as troubled as anyone by the direction that this thread has been taken in. I think it is quite clear that the OP,

Ive been increasingly interested in the Eastern Catholic Rite. In my area, there is no Eastern Catholic churches but there is a thriving Eastern Orthodox church. While i know i would still receive sacraments through the Roman Catholic church in my area, would it be permissible to attend the Eastern Orthodox church divine liturgy and enter into community?

I want to understand Eastern Catholicism whithin a community and since there is no eastern catholic church in area the orthodox church is my closest option.

Secondary questions:
beyond papal authority and church hiarchy, are there any differences between the eastern catholic and orthodox churches?

was not asking whether it is sinful for a Catholic to convert to Orthodoxy, as he did not even bring up the topic of conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

If anyone does not believe that triumphalism is a problem, they should read ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=342343&language=en

On the other hand, since the issue has been forced, let me address it. You posted:

13 ) “In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be avoided”.

1. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose most especially in what concerns unity. The faithful should be able to express their opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either with the Orthodox Church or with the Catholic Church. There is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.

I completely agree with those quotes. Nevertheless, from a Catholic pov, it would be objectively sinful for someone who is Catholic to convert to Orthodoxy – just as, from a Orthodox pov, it would be objectively sinful for someone who is Orthodox to convert to Catholicism.

Of course, presumably either person (the one going from Orthodoxy to Catholicism or the one going from Catholicism to Orthodoxy) believes that they are doing the right thing, and therefore would not bear actual guilt.

 

[Peter_J]

Carnes,

I’m as troubled as anyone by the direction that this thread has been taken in. I think it is quite clear that the OP,

Ive been increasingly interested in the Eastern Catholic Rite. In my area, there is no Eastern Catholic churches but there is a thriving Eastern Orthodox church. While i know i would still receive sacraments through the Roman Catholic church in my area, would it be permissible to attend the Eastern Orthodox church divine liturgy and enter into community?

I want to understand Eastern Catholicism whithin a community and since there is no eastern catholic church in area the orthodox church is my closest option.

Secondary questions:
beyond papal authority and church hiarchy, are there any differences between the eastern catholic and orthodox churches?

was not asking whether it is sinful for a Catholic to convert to Orthodoxy, as he did not even bring up the topic of conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

If anyone does not believe that triumphalism is a problem, they should read ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=302530&language=en

On the other hand, since the issue has been forced, let me address it. You posted:

13 ) “In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be avoided”.

1. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose most especially in what concerns unity. The faithful should be able to express their opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either with the Orthodox Church or with the Catholic Church. There is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.

I completely agree with those quotes. Nevertheless, from a Catholic pov, it would be objectively sinful for someone who is Catholic to convert to Orthodoxy – just as, from a Orthodox pov, it would be objectively sinful for someone who is Orthodox to convert to Catholicism.

Of course, presumably either person (the one going from Orthodoxy to Catholicism or the one going from Catholicism to Orthodoxy) believes that they are doing the right thing, and therefore would not bear actual guilt.

 

[carnes88]

Carnes,

I’m as troubled as anyone by the direction that this thread has been taken in. I think it is quite clear that the OP,

was not asking whether it is sinful for a Catholic to convert to Orthodoxy, as he did not even bring up the topic of conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

If anyone does not believe that triumphalism is a problem, they should read ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=302530&language=en

On the other hand, since the issue has been forced, let me address it. You posted:

I completely agree with those quotes. Nevertheless, from a Catholic pov, it would be objectively sinful for someone who is Catholic to convert to Orthodoxy – just as, from a Orthodox pov, it would be objectively sinful for someone who is Orthodox to convert to Catholicism.

Of course, presumably either person (the one going from Orthodoxy to Catholicism or the one going from Catholicism to Orthodoxy) believes that they are doing the right thing, and therefore would not bear actual guilt.

My brother I was responding to the comment that was made that it would be gravely sinful for one to go/convert to Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[carnes88]

Carnes,

I’m as troubled as anyone by the direction that this thread has been taken in. I think it is quite clear that the OP,

was not asking whether it is sinful for a Catholic to convert to Orthodoxy, as he did not even bring up the topic of conversion from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

Also this would be a Latin POV not an Eastern Catholic POV.
If anyone does not believe that triumphalism is a problem, they should read ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=302530&language=en

On the other hand, since the issue has been forced, let me address it. You posted:

I completely agree with those quotes. Nevertheless, from a Catholic pov, it would be objectively sinful for someone who is Catholic to convert to Orthodoxy – just as, from a Orthodox pov, it would be objectively sinful for someone who is Orthodox to convert to Catholicism.

Of course, presumably either person (the one going from Orthodoxy to Catholicism or the one going from Catholicism to Orthodoxy) believes that they are doing the right thing, and therefore would not bear actual guilt.

 

[Vico]

…

Of course, presumably either person (the one going from Orthodoxy to Catholicism or the one going from Catholicism to Orthodoxy) believes that they are doing the right thing, and therefore would not bear actual guilt.

A Catholic that knows that the Church teaches and assents to the Catholic faith cannot leave communion with the Catholic Church without guilt. If a belief that it it right is maintained, against the known teaching of the Catholic Church, then there is guilt. If a Catholic, with willful disregard, does not learn what the Catholic Church teaches, that person also incurs guilt. It is only invincible ignorance that would remove guilt.

 

[recentrevert]

My brother I was responding to the comment that was made that it would be gravely sinful for one to go/convert to Holy Orthodoxy.

For a Catholic converting to Eastern Orthodoxy is rejecting the Faith passed down to us from the Apostles and is a mortal sin of heresy and schism. Where do those quotations you have given come from?

 

[Vico]

For a Catholic converting to Eastern Orthodoxy is rejecting the Faith passed down to us from the Apostles and is a mortal sin of heresy and schism. Where do those quotations you have given come from?

I recognize the quotes in post #26 are from an advisory commission only. It is from the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church: Seventh Plenary Session - Balamand school of theology (Lebanon) from June 17-24, 1993.

 

[recentrevert]

I recognize the quotes in post #26 are from an advisory commission only. It is from the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church: Seventh Plenary Session - Balamand school of theology (Lebanon) from June 17-24, 1993.

Thank you.

The bit about sharing ‘Apostolic faith’ needs qualifying - the Eastern Orthodox hold only part of the Faith.

The bit about ‘no question of converting to ensure salvation’ is heretical. If an E.O. seeks the truth and is enlightened by God as to the truth of the Catholic Faith he must convert and would commit a mortal sin if he did not.

There is also the false implication there that the Catholic and E.O. are just legitimate alternatives to each other.

 

[Micosil]

…

There is also the false implication there that the Catholic and E.O. are just legitimate alternatives to each other.

Part of the reason people mistakenly assume this is because the EO Church also celebrates valid sacraments and their bishops truly are in the line of Apostolic Succession, legitimately tracing themselves back Paul, Peter, James, or whichever Apostle.

But the issue is, the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, Ethiopian Tewahedo, etc.) and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East also have these characteristics.

 

[Peter_J]

the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, Ethiopian Tewahedo, etc.) and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East also have these characteristics.

Don’t forget Catholics.

 

[Micosil]

Don’t forget Catholics.

That’s within the “also” bolded here:

Part of the reason people mistakenly assume this is because the EO Church also celebrates valid sacraments and their bishops truly are in the line of Apostolic Succession, legitimately tracing themselves back Paul, Peter, James, or whichever Apostle.

But the issue is, the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, Ethiopian Tewahedo, etc.) and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East also have these characteristics.

 

[Vico]

Thank you.

The bit about sharing ‘Apostolic faith’ needs qualifying - the Eastern Orthodox hold only part of the Faith.

The bit about ‘no question of converting to ensure salvation’ is heretical. If an E.O. seeks the truth and is enlightened by God as to the truth of the Catholic Faith he must convert and would commit a mortal sin if he did not.

There is also the false implication there that the Catholic and E.O. are just legitimate alternatives to each other.

The CDF released an important document in 1997, which answers related questions:

1. Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
2. What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
3. Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?
4. Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
5. Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

The USCCB reaction to the document contained this statement:
“When the Document speaks of “the faithful” and of their religious liberty “to express their opinion and to decide without pressure from outside if they wish to be in communion either with the Orthodox church or with the Catholic church” (24), this distinction becomes crucial. Neither the Orthodox nor the Catholic understanding sees the “faithful” only as referring to an individual Christian apart from community.”