family member converting to Greek Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter sunny422
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sunny422 said:
I was wondering about the claim that the Roman Catholic Church broke off from the Eastern Orthodox Church and how I should respond to that? Is this just a matter of whose side your on?
Click to expand...
Probably 😉
sunny422 said:
Also what role does the Filioque play in all this? Does this affect how the Trinity is perceived?
Click to expand...
I’ll just speak from the Orthodox side on this trusting that you know the Catholic side already both Western Catholic & Eastern Catholic use & non use of the Filioque.

The Orthodox do not accept the Filioque added to the Creed because the Ecumenical Councils (Nicea & Constantinople) that formulated the Creed condemned under anathema anyone who added; or removed anything from the Creed and the following Ecumenical Councils had reaffirmed that anathema.

The local synod in Spain in the 8th century inserted it into the Creed and this was initially condemned by the Pope who has jurisdiction over Spain, under the Orthodox understanding of the Pope.

When a future Pope inserted the Filioque, Orthodox did not recognize this for two reasons: 1. It fell under the Ecumenical Councils anathema to make such an addition 2. The Orthodox Churches did not recognize that a Pope has authority over Ecumenical Council, at that time there were four other Orthodox Patriarchates besides Rome 3. The Orthodox appealed to written Tradition finding the Bible did not back up the idea of Filioque in addition to the Tradition of the Councils & the practice of the Church since the formulation of the Creed.

The Orthodox Church recognizes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father & that the Son is begotten of the Father. Re: the Holy Spirit, a singular eternal procession & that the Son after His incarnation/resurrection would ask His Father to send the Holy Spirit, in the Name of Jesus, who proceeds from the Father, to guide the Church in all truth via Ecumenical Councils & Synods like the one recorded in Acts. John 14:15-27 especially 26, John 16:5-14 especially 13 and John 20:22-23

To the best of my inability to explain well, this is the Orthodox perspective in regards to the Filioque.
 
This link is an absolutely amazing list of letter written by early church fathers from the EASTERN part of the church who believed in the primacy of Peter! (which the Orthodox churches don’t believe. They believe all bishops are at the same level)

fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

It is amazing and after reading it there is no doubt that The Catholic Church has been correct the whole time! And its especially good to see that these letters come from the east. God Bless and I will pray! :gopray:

And as for the filioque, this is an amazing link for the defense of Catholicism!

catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx
 
This link is an absolutely amazing list of letter written by early church fathers from the EASTERN part of the church who believed in the primacy of Peter! (which the Orthodox churches don’t believe. They believe all bishops are at the same level)
Click to expand...
fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
Click to expand...
Most Orthodox do believe that Rome holds a place of Primacy in the Church (though there could be debate on whether Constantinople is equal in honor due to a canon of an ecumenical council that the East accepted but was never ratified by a Pope). However, most of those quotes do not mention the See of Peter but rather Peter himself and there is a difference. Secondly, while the Orthodox generally believe in the Primacy of Rome they do no equate primacy with supremacy or infallibility (especially as this dogma was not a dogma until 1870).

As for the filioque, it can be defended as a valid expression of the Apostolic faith. However, doing so generally requires a lengthy explanation and completely ignores the prohibitions on altering the Creeds (as mentioned a few posts before this), which is why the Orthodox do not care for it. This does not even begin to touch on the issue that the filioque may represent a Sabellian understanding of the Trinity.
 
Mickey said:
During the first millenium of Christianity, when East and West were united, I saw that although Rome was the preeminent city amongst the Patriarchates, the bishop of Rome (Pope) did not have a particular supremacy…nor was he considered the universal infallible bishop. The development of infallibility and universal supremacy was championed by the ultramontanists and declared doctrine by Pius IX in 1870.

That is one of the reasons I came to the Holy Orthodox Church.
Click to expand...
The bolded sentence is where I disagree. I find its premise very weak the first 800 years of the church where the city Rome had preeminence and not the Bishop of Rome. The whole pre-eminent city is a much later view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top