Eastern Orthodox?

[Micosil]

If so, it really did not make any sense for the Roman Catholic legates to excommunicate Michael Cerularius.

I’m referring to Eastern Catholics as Oktava mentioned, not Eastern Orthodox. Michael Cerularius was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[Oktava]

I’m referring to Eastern Catholics as Oktava mentioned, not Eastern Orthodox. Michael Cerularius was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Oh, i thought you were talking about Eastern Orthodox, not Catholics. Well for example, the Eastern Catholics believe almost everything as Eastern Orthodox, they even celebrate Eastern Orthodox saints who were very strong criticizers of Rome, Eastern Catholics even have different Creed than Rome, but they simply ignore all these differences, they broke communion with those with whom they share same faith and they joined Roman-Catholic communion.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m referring to Eastern Catholics as Oktava mentioned, not Eastern Orthodox. Michael Cerularius was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Eastern Catholics do not say the filioque in the creed. The omission of the filioque in the creed was one of the points mentioned in the letter of excommunication deposited on the altar of the Hagia Sophia by Roman Catholic legates in 1054.

From what I see, there really aren’t actual differences. Just different focuses, or different emphases.

If the omission of the filioque from the creed is not an actual difference, then why did the Roman Catholic legates go out of their way to mention this in a bull of excommunication which they deposited on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054?

 

[Micosil]

Eastern Catholics do not say the filioque in the creed. The omission of the filioque in the creed was one of the points mentioned in the letter of excommunication deposited on the altar of the Hagia Sophia by Roman Catholic legates in 1054.

If the omission of the filioque from the creed is not an actual difference, then why did the Roman Catholic legates go out of their way to mention this in a bull of excommunication which they deposited on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054?

This has been discussed on the forums ad infinitum by now. They indeed are free to leave out the Filioque clause from their recitation of the Creed at Divine Liturgy, but my understanding is that they do subscribe to it doctrinally/theologically.

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Brest

 

[josie_L]

It wasn’t in the creed of the West or the East, but the Carolingians pushed for it around 800.

Btw, I notice that my earlier statement, that I stay away from this section of the forum, is no longer true, as we’re now in the Non Catholic Religions section.

And yet the first council of Constantinople (382 A.D.) had no problem adding to the Nicene Creed, without it being accepted by the whole Church via an ecumenical council up until Chalcedon (451).

p.s. “And the Son” was used in many parts of the West, before it became an issue.

"No clear record exists of the process by which the word Filioque was inserted into the Creed of 381 in the Christian West before the sixth century. The idea that the Spirit came forth “from the Father through the Son” is asserted by a number of earlier Latin theologians, as part of their insistence on the ordered unity of all three persons within the single divine Mystery (e.g., Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 4 and 5). Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century, emphasizes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power (ibid. 2), which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by the Son to the Spirit (ibid. 8). Hilary of Poitiers, in the mid-fourth century, in the same work speaks of the Spirit as ‘coming forth from the Father’ and being ‘sent by the Son’ (De Trinitate 12.55); as being ‘from the Father through the Son’ (ibid. 12.56); and as ‘having the Father and the Son as his source’ (ibid. 2.29); in another passage, Hilary points to John 16.15 (where Jesus says: “All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from what is mine and declare it to you”), and wonders aloud whether “to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father” (ibid. 8.20). Ambrose of Milan, writing in the 380s, openly asserts that the Spirit “proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son,” without ever being separated from either (On the Holy Spirit 1.11.20). None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being. [Note: This paragraph includes a stylistic revision in the reference to Hilary of Poitiers that the Consultation agreed to at its October 2004 meeting.]

The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

 

[Rohzek]

May I ask when you were Catholic? I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve heard the word purgatory mentioned by a priest in the 11 years I’ve been Catholic- in multiple dioceses / parishes. Never once in the confessional. Of course there are differences in our understanding of purgation after death, but certainly since Vatican II the West placed a renewed emphasis on confession as a remedial encounter with Christ the Good Doctor. For better or for worse, confessional booths were often replaced with reconciliation rooms where you meet with the priest face to face. As a note of interest, in my wife’s native Dominican Republic, where I have spent a lot of time, face to face confession in the church proper is the only method practiced (at least as far as my experience goes).

Well I was born well after Vatican II. And the priest didn’t go parading around Purgatory if that is what you mean. However, I remember being taught about it and its relation to reconciliation growing up and how important the act of penance was to it. And in all honesty, I never had a Catholic priest, save one, who actually bothered to hand down a penance that was anywhere near remedial.

 

[josie_L]

Oh, i thought you were talking about Eastern Orthodox, not Catholics. Well for example, the Eastern Catholics believe almost everything as Eastern Orthodox, they even celebrate Eastern Orthodox saints who were very strong criticizers of Rome, Eastern Catholics even have different Creed than Rome, but they simply ignore all these differences, they broke communion with those with whom they share same faith and they joined Roman-Catholic communion.

Different does not mean contradictory, I just wanted to express that.

 

[Vico]

Can someone explain in a concise way the difference between RC and Eastern Orthodox? Why do they say they are the true church and RC is not?

Orthodox Christianity views some Roman Catholic teaching as heretical such as the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, and some other Roman Catholic doctrines. Some Orthodox believe that Roman Catholicism is with grace but others think it is devoid of grace.

oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

 

[dvdjs]

If the omission of the filioque from the creed is not an actual difference, then why did the Roman Catholic legates go out of their way to mention this in a bull of excommunication which they deposited on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054?

Just re-read the bull. The omission of the filioque in the Creed is not mentioned. What is mentioned is the rejection of the Western theology of the procession of the Holy Spirit by then Patriach Cerularius and his backers. While often misconstrued, the Bull is about Cerularius’s objections to Western practices and the provocative actions that he had taken against them.

Cerularius was later ousted and died in prison awaiting trial for heresy and treason.

 

[dvdjs]

I’ll try to be as concise as possible, especially since I am a convert from Catholicism.

1.) The biggest difference is over the papacy and Papal Supremacy. The Orthodox do not believe that the bishopric of Rome holds any more theological significance than any other bishopric. They recognize its historical significance, but feel that today it has fallen into heresy/heterodoxy. And while they recognize its Petrine status, they do not see how its Petrine status differs from either Antioch or Alexandria’s. In the past, they only recognized Rome as First Amongst Equals in honor.

2.) Original Sin (Catholic/Protestant) vs. Ancestral Sin (Orthodox). Today, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do not differ significantly from their understanding of Man’s fallen nature. However, in the past the Latin West often bought wholesale into Augustine’s extreme positions on Original Sin and even endorsed predestination. So while this difference is no longer existent, it is still something to be aware of.

3.) Communion. Catholics generally wait until a child reaches a certain age before allowing them to receive communion. Orthodox, however, allow them to receive it regardless of age.

4.) Confession. Unlike Catholicism, Orthodox usually have to schedule a personal meeting with their priest for confession. There is no weekend period for confessions as with most Catholic parishes in the USA. Additionally, the confession generally takes much longer, as long as 2-3 hours in some cases, because the priest wants to know all of the details and circumstances of your problems. The priest gives a penance, but the purpose is less tied up with the idea of Purgatory (which the Orthodox reject), and is more concerned with helping you avoid the situations that give rise to sin or at least helping you overcome them. The advice is usually more than a prayer and is specific.

5.) Marriage. Orthodox regard marriage as a sacrament. However, they also recognize that is not the same as baptism, which is forever (since Christ himself granted ground for divorce). So should a marriage tragically fail, they may grant a canonical divorce (not to be confused with an annulment) and allow for a second marriage. But the ceremony for a second marriage involving a divorce is kept solemn in acknowledgment of the participant’s past failure.

6.) Birth Control. Orthodox all condemn abortifacients. That being said, the position on other methods of birth control is not unanimous, such as with condoms. Many have no problem with it as long as it is used within a marriage and in consultation with the parish priest. Others hold a position much closer to the Roman Catholic position, but also generally reject Natural Family Planning too.

7.) Filioque. Orthodox reject the filioque clause of the creed for at least the reason that it inserted into the Nicene Creed unilaterally. Most also believe it to be heretical. The topic is a deep one, so I cannot give an adequate summary about the matter here. As for my own interest in Orthodoxy, I didn’t really pay much attention to the Filioque until after I converted.

The deficiencies in the item about Confession have already been noted.

In the case of item one, it should be noted that the EO accept some idea of Primacy, but the ideas recently published by prominent theologians in the EP and the MP are in stark disagreement with each other. Perhaps the meaning of Primacy will be worked out in Council this summer.

Similary, with item 2, one can find a range of opinions on Original Sin among contemporary Orthodox leaders and some prominent theologians that run the gamut of fully endorsing the language and ideas of the CC, to those rejecting it outright. As to the claim:

the Latin West often bought wholesale into Augustine’s extreme positions on Original Sin and even endorsed predestination

I would like to ask for some substantive evidence supporting it.

Item five on marriage is incorrect. Key point: marriage is forever; an ecclesiastical divorce is permitted in a number of circumstances that has grown over time, with allowance for remarriage after divorce, as a concession to human weakness. Such remarriages were conducted by civil authorities only, until ca. the tenth century, when the Emperor decreed that all marriages would be conducted by the church. At the time, these services were of a penitential nature and were not crownings, but these aspects have evolved in modern times. A good book on the subject is, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective by John Meyendorff,

 

[Tomdstone]

Just re-read the bull. The omission of the filioque in the Creed is not mentioned. What is mentioned is the rejection of the Western theology of the procession of the Holy Spirit by then Patriach Cerularius and his backers…

…But as far as Michael, who is called patriarch through an abuse of the term, and the backers of his foolishness are concerned, innumerable tares of heresies are daily sown in its midst.
…
Like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar;…
Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;…
Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office, who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.
ercf.blogspot.com/2011/05/papal-bull-of-excommunication-to.html

 

[adamhovey1988]

That Our Lady died and then shared in the resurrection of Her Son is also the traditional Catholic view. It is taught by nearly all Catholic authorities. The iconography at St Mary’s Major in Rome, the most important Marian church in Latin Christendom, depicts the Dormition. It is a modern novelty to suggest Our Lady did not first die before her resurrection and assumption. It’s a popular belief here on CAF, but it was invented in recent centuries and is as foreign to the Latin tradition as it is to the East.

I remember talking to an Orthodox priest (he was a professor in my comparative religion class), and he said that he agreed with the assumption, but he also asked me (I was also the only Catholic in the class, which he knew) whether the Theotokos died first, I said to him “The traditional Catholic belief is that she did”

 

[Vico]

That Our Lady died and then shared in the resurrection of Her Son is also the traditional Catholic view. It is taught by nearly all Catholic authorities. The iconography at St Mary’s Major in Rome, the most important Marian church in Latin Christendom, depicts the Dormition. It is a modern novelty to suggest Our Lady did not first die before her resurrection and assumption. It’s a popular belief here on CAF, but it was invented in recent centuries and is as foreign to the Latin tradition as it is to the East.

Catholics are free to believe either way on the bodily death of the Blessed Virgin Mary, prior to her Assumption. That issue was not define in the dogma.

 

[Rohzek]

The deficiencies in the item about Confession have already been noted.

In the case of item one, it should be noted that the EO accept some idea of Primacy, but the ideas recently published by prominent theologians in the EP and the MP are in stark disagreement with each other. Perhaps the meaning of Primacy will be worked out in Council this summer.

Similary, with item 2, one can find a range of opinions on Original Sin among contemporary Orthodox leaders and some prominent theologians that run the gamut of fully endorsing the language and ideas of the CC, to those rejecting it outright. As to the claim: I would like to ask for some substantive evidence supporting it.

Item five on marriage is incorrect. Key point: marriage is forever; an ecclesiastical divorce is permitted in a number of circumstances that has grown over time, with allowance for remarriage after divorce, as a concession to human weakness. Such remarriages were conducted by civil authorities only, until ca. the tenth century, when the Emperor decreed that all marriages would be conducted by the church. At the time, these services were of a penitential nature and were not crownings, but these aspects have evolved in modern times. A good book on the subject is, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective by John Meyendorff,

The Augustine bit warrants its own thread, so just pm me about it if you are really curious. It requires a lot of elaboration, etc. As for marriage, I think you are mistaken. In Orthodoxy, the failure of the marriage is considered sinful, but the second or third marriage is not considered sinful. We do not consider it some sort of sacramental bigamy, because we acknowledge that once a marriage is broken, it is done and over with. It has ceased to be, hence divorce.

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/re_marriage_in_the_orthodox_church

 

[Micosil]

The Augustine bit warrants its own thread, so just pm me about it if you are really curious. It requires a lot of elaboration, etc. As for marriage, I think you are mistaken. In Orthodoxy, the failure of the marriage is considered sinful, but the second or third marriage is not considered sinful. We do not consider it some sort of sacramental bigamy, because we acknowledge that once a marriage is broken, it is done and over with. It has ceased to be, hence divorce.

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/re_marriage_in_the_orthodox_church

A question for you, though. We know that the Sacrament of Holy Orders cannot be undone (a priest is always a priest, and he can always confect the Eucharist until the day he dies), nor can Baptism, nor can Confirmation, so what makes it possible for Matrimony to be “undone”, in light of its sacramental nature? Is it something like when one receives the Sacrament of Penance, falls into mortal sin again and loses sanctifying grace, and thus has to confess again?

 

[Tomdstone]

A question for you, though. We know that the Sacrament of Holy Orders cannot be undone (a priest is always a priest, and he can always confect the Eucharist until the day he dies), nor can Baptism, nor can Confirmation, so what makes it possible for Matrimony to be “undone”, in light of its sacramental nature? Is it something like when one receives the Sacrament of Penance, falls into mortal sin again and loses sanctifying grace, and thus has to confess again?

When the husband dies, the wife is free to remarry. So it is possible for Matrimony to be “undone” in Roman Catholicism.

 

[Brendan]

And in all honesty, I never had a Catholic priest, save one, who actually bothered to hand down a penance that was anywhere near remedial.

Most of the penances that I receive either involve the recitation of additional prayers, or reading Scripture.

Would you classify prayer and Scripture as ‘remedial’?

 

[Micosil]

When the husband dies, the wife is free to remarry. So it is possible for Matrimony to be “undone” in Roman Catholicism.

Yes, and when a priest dies, he is no longer a priest, obviously. You seemed to have missed my point. I was wondering this from an Orthodox point of view.

 

[Tomdstone]

I heard a Roman Catholic nun say that when the marriage dies, the marriage is dead and the couple should be able to get the church to recognize the death of the marriage so that the couple could be free to remarry.

 

[Micosil]

I heard a Roman Catholic nun say that when the marriage dies, the marriage is dead and the couple should be able to get the church to recognize the death of the marriage so that the couple could be free to remarry.

A nun is not the Magisterium.