Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[natsclem]

It doesn’t follow. The Holy Spirit is one essence with the Father and the Son. By the logic you are using the Spirit would proceed from Himself as well and the Son would be begotten by the Spirit but that is not the case.

The procession of the Spirit is not an act of the one essence of God, it is an act of the person of the Father. So the fact that the Father and Son are one essence is irrelevant because it is the person of the Father which is the foundation of the Trinity, not the one essence. The Father begets the Son and spirates the Spirit.

Aspirate is Latin aspirare meaning to breathe on.

Consider this verse: John 20:22…
"…And with that he (Christ) breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

This makes Christ aspirates the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Amen. Praise be to God.

 

[jimmy]

If the Father and the Son are one as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (John 10:30&38), it is correct to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son not separately but in their oneness. That oneness cannot be divided so the procession of the HS necessarily comes from that oneness–of the Father and the Son. We cannot say that the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father without the Son” without losing orthodoxy.

That is heresy. The Spirit does not proceed from the essence, He proceeds from the person of the Father. That is what the fathers taught. They did not teach that the Spirit proceeded from ‘the one essence’ or ‘the oneness’ of the Father and the Son. What they taught is that the Father as person is the fountain of the Trinity. The Son is begotten by Him and the Spirit proceeds from Him.

In this verse: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. ” (John 15:26 - New King James Bible), Jesus probably did not add “and Me” because he already mentioned earlier that he is the Truth (John 14:6). If Jesus is the Truth then the HS is His Spirit–the Spirit of Truth. In John 15:26, Jesus is trying to say that the Counselor (Helper) is also the Spirit of Truth (Jesus is the Truth) that proceeds from the Father making the HS also the Spirit of the Father as that can be read in Matthew 10:20.

I am glad to know that God the Father and God the Spirit are not the Truth. This contradicts Catholic teaching on God because it says that God - which includes Father, Son, and Spirit - is the essence of Truth. Jesus said what He meant. He will send the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. It is that simple.

Finally in John 20:22, the Holy Spirit clearly proceeds from the Son–"…And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

This does not have the same meaning as an eternal procession from the Father. Jesus breathing the Spirit on the apostles just means that He sends the Spirit, or is the Holy Spirit a creation in time as you imply basically by making the Spirit the product of Jesus’ breath in 33AD?

Therefore, the Father and the Son are the one inseparable principle of the Holy Spirit, He (HS) being the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.

Again, this contradicts the fathers of the Church. The fathers taught that the person of the Father is the source and principle of the Spirit, not the one essence.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

But then we did not divide over the lust of a king.

I think there’s a bit more to it than that, but this thread isn’t about Anglicanism.

We don’t intentionally dis the Scriptures as authoritative as the Anglicans do.

This is a problem with some Anglicans, yes.

We don’t intentionally ordain sodomites as you do.

I have never actually ordained anyone.

You would be making a very sad choice by choosing a schismatic group that throws off Apostolic tradition as easily as you throw off last years ties as being not modern enough.

I’m not actually going to become Anglican. The point I was making is that at least the Anglican Church is honest about the theological disagreement within its ranks. The Catholic Church claims to hold to uniformity of truth, but this thread seems to indicate that this is false.

We will pray for you.

Thanks! I will pray for you too.

It really isn’t that difficult to discern the difference between Catholic, whether Roman or Orthodox in variety, from Anglicanism. Scratch the surface and almost anyone can tell the difference.

Of course. They are very different. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are, in my opinion, far closer to historic Christianity than is Anglicanism.

I have believed for a while that the Catholic Church teaches that both Eastern and Western Catholicism are true. They have different disciplines, different liturgies and some different practices, but they do not contradict each other in matters of faith. If this is actually true, then I see no problem, and this whole thread seems rather silly.

What disturbs me is when Eastern Catholics accuse Western Catholics of being wrong about the filioque, papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, purgatory, etc…I understand why the Orthodox make these arguments. However, as the Eastern Catholics are Catholic, then they really should affirm everything the Catholic Church teaches. Western Catholics should do the same.

In regard to the “Orthodox in communion with Rome” label, if one can hold to the exact same faith as the Orthodox Church and still be in communion with Rome, then what are the remaining obstacles to union?

God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

If the Father and the Son are one as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (John 10:30&38), it is correct to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son not separately but in their oneness. That oneness cannot be divided so the procession of the HS necessarily comes from that oneness–of the Father and the Son. We cannot say that the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father without the Son” without losing orthodoxy.

Natsclem,

There are definitely good arguments out there for the filioque, but this is not one of them.

You should try to educate yourself better about the Catholic teaching on the Holy Trinity. You might start with this from the CCC:

252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. 83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” 84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.” 85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” 86 “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” 87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” 88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: “In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.” 89 Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” 90 “Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.” 91

Jimmy,

That is heresy.

I’m not sure. Heresy is a strong word. I would just say that it’s a silly – and misleading – argument.

 

[Hesychios]

The Catholic Church claims to hold to uniformity of truth, but this thread seems to indicate that this is false.

Noted. No further comment.

However, as the Eastern Catholics are Catholic…

Are they? In the Western sense of Catholic? Orthodox have a concept of Catholic too, perhaps on that sense…well, I cannot speak for them.

In regard to the “Orthodox in communion with Rome” label, if one can hold to the exact same faith as the Orthodox Church and still be in communion with Rome, then what are the remaining obstacles to union?

Indeed, but one can see that many in the Papal party want nothing at all to do with this concept.

What did (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger say on this subject?

Anyway, the bulk of Catholics who normally post here on Catholic Answers have made it abundantly clear that such a union…of clearly autocephalic equal churches, in Communion but not merged into one corporate financial structure, is a dead dream. Of course, it’s not their dream, so they don’t care.

With that, I think that they kill the model of unity the eastern Catholic churches were hoped to exemplify (at least the hope of the most recent Pontiffs).

It is perhaps one reason so many eastern Catholics swim the Bosporus.

Michael

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Anyway, the bulk of Catholics who normally post here on Catholic Answers have made it abundantly clear that such a union…of clearly autocephalic equal churches, in Communion but not merged into one corporate financial structure, is a dead dream. Of course, it’s not their dream, so they don’t care.

With that, I think that they kill the model of unity the eastern Catholic churches were hoped to exemplify (at least the hope of the most recent Pontiffs).

Do people here think that some sort of union of “clearly autocephalic equal churches” is possible at some point in the future? What would the pope’s role be? It seems that the Eastern Catholics would like to see the pope adopt a role more in keeping with the desires of the Orthodox Church, a role which they both believe to be more like the early Church model. Have recent doctrinal definitions, such as papal infallibility, put Western Catholics in a position where such a return is not possible?

I would love to see the Catholic Church sort this out, as it would be a great aid to a future union with the Orthodox.

It is perhaps one reason so many eastern Catholics swim the Bosporus.

Indeed.

God bless!

 

[natsclem]

Natsclem,

There are definitely good arguments out there for the filioque, but this is not one of them.

You should try to educate yourself better about the Catholic teaching on the Holy Trinity. You might start with this from the CCC:

.

What are you objecting to?

I did not say the Father and the Son are one person. Of course, the Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Father. I said the Father is in the Son; the Son is in the Father. In other words, the Father and the Son are one in nature but two different persons.

Please read “in” in the statement.

 

[Peter_J]

What are you objecting to?

I did not say the Father and the Son are one person.

I know. That’s why I said your statement was not heretical, but just “a silly – and misleading – argument.”

To say that the filioque follows automatically from the fact that the Father and the Son are one (as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father) make no sense at all. Not every statement that can be made about the Father can also be made about the Son, and vice versa. Some statements are true about both of them, and some statements are true only about one or the other of them.

 

[Hesychios]

Do people here think that some sort of union of “clearly autocephalic equal churches” is possible at some point in the future?

I think many, if not most of the people here think it is not even desirable.

I think it is desirable, but not possible.

What would the pope’s role be? It seems that the Eastern Catholics would like to see the pope adopt a role more in keeping with the desires of the Orthodox Church, a role which they both believe to be more like the early Church model.

Not all eastern Catholics, surely. But many nonetheless. What we see taking place here is a battle…for the soul of eastern Catholicism. We see it manifesting within the eastern Catholic community, between the two parties.

Let me be frank about this. When the union of Brest was crafted (one example, every church was different), these rank and file Byzantine Christians were not ‘eastern Catholics’ in the sense we have today. They were Orthodox. They were accepted whole and entire into communion with Rome in their Orthodox mindset and belief system. I think at the time there might have been some four million (or more) people in the region encompassing the modern states of Belarus and Ukraine.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/IRP3Narodów.JPG/250px-IRP3Narodów.JPG

They knew nothing…nothing, of Purgatory, the Latin concept of Original Sin…etc, etc, etc. That’s to say nothing of such concepts as Universal Jurisdiction and Papal monopoly over the infallibility of the church (which were but the gleam in somebody’s eyes back then). Things today that people say must be believed by all Catholics, or they are anathema.

Thus, they were not Catholics in the modern sense, or even in the 16th century sense.

They were in communion with Rome though.

Then followed a long period of assimilation into Latin theological perspectives and attitudes. Accomplished mostly by introducing Latin religious orders to teach in the seminaries, and the sending of new generations of priests into the hinterland to “complete” the conversion process (this is something Volodymyr actually alluded to in another place, his less perfectly diplomatic, but essentially accurate, comments were most unwelcome here). That process never really completed because we know today there are people from this community who still believe nothing but Orthodox theology.

We also know most of the people (they must number a good 80 million at least) who are descended from the people of that Union are not under submission to, nor any longer in communion with Rome today.

When they returned to Holy orthodoxy, they did not require any kind of extensive catechetical program, they already knew the theology.

Have recent doctrinal definitions, such as papal infallibility, put Western Catholics in a position where such a return is not possible?

I think most Orthodox and most western Catholics are in agreement on this. Reconciliation is not going to happen, primarily because of the positions staked out formally in 1870AD.

Another term for that is irreconcilable differences.

 

[natsclem]

That is heresy. The Spirit does not proceed from the essence, He proceeds from the person of the Father. That is what the fathers taught. They did not teach that the Spirit proceeded from ‘the one essence’ or ‘the oneness’ of the Father and the Son. What they taught is that the Father as person is the fountain of the Trinity. The Son is begotten by Him and the Spirit proceeds from Him.

If I said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father–the divine essence shared by His Son, by what authority that you said it is a heresy? Can you cite any authoritative document?

I am glad to know that God the Father and God the Spirit are not the Truth. This contradicts Catholic teaching on God because it says that God - which includes Father, Son, and Spirit - is the essence of Truth. Jesus said what He meant. He will send the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. It is that simple.

I did not say that God the Father and the God the Spirit are not the Truth. They share the same divine essence, how can that be otherwise?

This does not have the same meaning as an eternal procession from the Father. Jesus breathing the Spirit on the apostles just means that He sends the Spirit, or is the Holy Spirit a creation in time as you imply basically by making the Spirit the product of Jesus’ breath in 33AD?

“eternal procession” is another. the term procession is general. adding eternal is qualifying procession–you make it specific.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Not every statement that can be made about the Father can also be made about the Son, and vice versa. Some statements are true about both of them, and some statements are true only about one or the other of them.

Just wanted to point out that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the only person that can say “flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone” to First-Born of all creatures, Jesus Christ, as Adam said to Eve. Not even the First or Third Persons of the Most Holy Trinity can say this.

**245 **The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.” By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”. But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: “The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.” The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: “With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified.”

**253 **The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

 

[Ghosty]

In regard to the “Orthodox in communion with Rome” label, if one can hold to the exact same faith as the Orthodox Church and still be in communion with Rome, then what are the remaining obstacles to union?

The main reason is that there is no agreement, even on the Eastern Orthodox side, of what exactly constitutes the the necessary aspects of the Faith.

Is the filioque heresy, or a valid Latin approach to the question of the Trinity? You will find both opinions held even among Eastern Orthodox. Does the Pope (or Patriarch of Constantinople) have a unique role that goes beyond merely being another Patriarch in the Communion? Again, you will find different views on this even among the Eastern Orthodox (as the Ravenna statement, and the ROC’s rejection of it, demonstrate).

So one can be “Orthodox in Communion with Rome” if one is speaking about one subset of Eastern Orthodoxy, but not another. On the other side, some Catholics expect that only Latin theology be upheld in the Catholic Church, though I don’t believe that contingent is as strong in the Catholic Communion as the “Eastern Orthodox means not accepting the Latins approach as valid” contingent is among the Eastern Orthodox.

Another thing to remember is that in many cases there AREN’T remaining obstacles to Union. When the Patriarchate of Antioch re-established Communion with Rome a few centuries ago, it didn’t renounce anything of itself at the time. Same is true of the recent reunion between Mar Bawai Soro’s diocese (Assyrian Christians) with the Chaldean Catholic Church. Obstacles to full, corporate reunion lie largely in the attitudes and approaches of hardliners on both sides, but in practical terms there aren’t too many obstacles, at least not enough to have made it something that doesn’t occur with some historical frequency.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

They knew nothing…nothing, of Purgatory, the Latin concept of Original Sin…etc, etc, etc. That’s to say nothing of such concepts as Universal Jurisdiction and Papal monopoly over the infallibility of the church (which were but the gleam in somebody’s eyes back then).

Catholics believe that St. Paul, for example, exercised infallibility when he wrote his epistles. Plus of course, there’s the ecumenical councils. So I would say that “Papal monopoly over the infallibility of the church” exists only in the confused minds of a few individual Catholics (and, of course, in anti-Catholic polemics).

 

[Peter_J]

They were in communion with Rome though.

Then followed a long period of assimilation into Latin theological perspectives and attitudes. Accomplished mostly by introducing Latin religious orders to teach in the seminaries, and the sending of new generations of priests into the hinterland to “complete” the conversion process (this is something Volodymyr actually alluded to in another place, his less perfectly diplomatic, but essentially accurate, comments were most unwelcome here). That process never really completed because we know today there are people from this community who still believe nothing but Orthodox theology.

Hmm … the uniatism(s) of a few centuries ago were exactly our finest moment. However, I believe that now-a-days Rome is much more up-front concerning what a “union” would entail. Take the recent case of 3000 Assyrians uniting with Rome: I sure that they have a far clearer idea of what they are getting into than did the Ukrainians at the outset of the Union of Brest.

 

[Peter_J]

“eternal procession” is another. the term procession is general. adding eternal is qualifying procession–you make it specific.

But eternal procession is the issue. If Catholic and Orthodox (sorry Byzcath ) sat down to have a debate about temporal procession it would be really, really short!

• We believe in a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
• Oh, that’s alright. We believe that too.

 

[Peter_J]

Hmm … the uniatism(s) of a few centuries ago were exactly our finest moment.

Oops freesmileys.org/smileys/ashamed001.gif … I meant to say “I don’t think the uniatism(s) of a few centuries ago were exactly our finest moment.”

 

[jimmy]

If I said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father–the divine essence shared by His Son, by what authority that you said it is a heresy? Can you cite any authoritative document?

God is not an impersonal essence. He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The essence of God is not the subject of the source of the Trinity. The subject is the person of the Father. The creed says that the Son is begotten of the Father, not of the one essence. It says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from one essence that is shared between the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit is of one essence with the Father as well. To say that the Spirit proceeds from the one essence which the Father and Son share is to imply that the Son does not share the same essence.

I did not say that God the Father and the God the Spirit are not the Truth. They share the same divine essence, how can that be otherwise?

You said that since Jesus is the Truth and the Spirit is ‘the Spirit of Truth’ therefore the Spirit is His[the Son’s] Spirit and consequently He proceeds from the Son. This is false with your admission here because it would also imply that because the Spirit is the essence of Truth in Himself that He is therefore the Spirit of the Spirit. What does that mean?

“eternal procession” is another. the term procession is general. adding eternal is qualifying procession–you make it specific.

The creed speaks of an eternal procession. It speaks of the origin of the Spirit. It speaks of the origin of the Son when it speaks of the begetting of the Son. They are eternal statements.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=ByzCath;3708363]The main cause for the arugment on the filioque is the root languages involved. The use of Latin and Greek. Latin uses a word that has multiple meanings where Greek uses a word that has one meaning.

Any ways, the filioque is not a dogma and we Eastern Catholics have been told to remove it from our Creed. I know that when Pope John Paul II would recite the Creed in Latin he would omit it.

Thank you. I think I understand a little better that it is basically a linguistic problem. I still do not see If you a person believes in the Trinity that all 3 persons of of the Trinity Are the one True God. why it would be a problem saying it or not saying it. Maybe I just have a to simplistic view. As one who has always said the Creed with it I really have no problem with a brother catholic whose tradition calls for it not to be said. I really think that people that make a issue out of it either way are trying to find things to argue about. If Rome decided to drop if from the Creed I would do so with out another thought about it.

As I have said in another thread I really have know Idea how God works in the Trinity all I know is that there is one God and It is in the Persons of the Father Son and Holy Ghost that we know Him. The how it works is of really no concern to me. So again weather or not we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds form the Father or from the father and the Son to me is all the same.

I do not understand why the Orthodox keep coming up in a thread on Eastern Catholicism.

I don’t either.

 

[dessert]

Our Blessed Virgin Mary had certainly been left out of this thread. She would say do as He tells you. Obedience is everything.
Obedience to God is an absolute. We are to obey Him in all things.
Disobedience is when we withhold something of our selves from God. When we say,“I want to do this my way, and I’m not going to change”.