Filioque Debate

[wynd]

I’m not speaking of “receiving” communion in other churches; I’m talking about being “in” communion with other churches.

And while the 13? 15? autocephalous churches that make up the Orthodox “communion” have agreed on receiving communion, there appears to be much that prevents them from being in communion with one another on broader and deeper levels.

Hi Randy,

What do you think “in communion” means if not that?

 

[Seraphim73]

I’m not speaking of “receiving” communion in other churches; I’m talking about being “in” communion with other churches.

And while the 13? 15? autocephalous churches that make up the Orthodox “communion” have agreed on receiving communion, there appears to be much that prevents them from being in communion with one another on broader and deeper levels.

Is that really the way Catholics view the Eucharist or are you just speaking for yourself? There is nothing in creation more profound, more broad, more deep than sharing the Eucharistic Cup. In fact it is the only definition of being “in communion.” That is also why we could never share the Eucharist with someone outside the unity of the Church.

 

[Kmon23]

I would most agree with our Orthodox brothers here. Even in the early church there were clearly disputes that would eventually be settled by synods, councils, etc. I don’t see much difference here. The Orthodox Church is not a divided church. Surely there may be conflicts, but that has always been in the church. To bicker within a church is one thing, but communion is another. The Orthodox Church claims it has unity and is undivided in the one faith they all share, and I also share this view that this is a true claim. To say the Orthodox Church is divided is not a very accurate picture. And as prodromos says, they can have communion in the different respective churches within the communion. That alone shows that regardless of the conflicts that may exist, they are still in communion. If a shared Eucharistic communion isn’t enough to show they are united in a common faith, then what can?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

What do you think “in communion” means if not that?

The primary meaning of the word is NOT the reception of the Eucharist during the Divine Liturgy. It is this:

com·mun·ion
kəˈmyo͞onyən
noun
noun: communion; noun: Communion; noun: Holy Communion
1.
the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level.

We only receive “communion” (the body and blood of Christ) together because we are first in “communion” (a state of intimate agreement and sharing of ideas and feelings) with one another.

It is my contention (and quite probably that of the authors I quoted) that while the various autocephalous churches that make up what we refer to as “Orthodoxy” are technically in communion with one another and allow “communion” or the reception of sacraments between members and churches, they are not in genuine communion or fellowship with one another due to the bickering over various petty issues. The author of the Pan-Orthodox Council noted:

The most divisive issues on the Orthodox agenda relate to the relations between the local Churches. The models of these relations are constantly evolving, reflecting global political frameworks. Understandings of the fellowship of the Orthodox Churches changes constantly, and there is no agreement on it. Some Churches consider this fellowship in terms of an utilitarian cooperation of sovereign entities, which safeguard their territorial integrity and punish any intruder, including another local Church. This philosophy reflects the logic of international law and, particularly, the idea of sovereignty of the national states.

Political frameworks? Safeguarding territorial integrity? Punishing intruders including anther local (Orthodox) church?

Is this what Jesus preached? Is THIS what you got out of His prayer that we might all be one?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is that really the way Catholics view the Eucharist or are you just speaking for yourself? There is nothing in creation more profound, more broad, more deep than sharing the Eucharistic Cup. In fact it is the only definition of being “in communion.” That is also why we could never share the Eucharist with someone outside the unity of the Church.

See post #316 for my complete explanation.

And by the way, if you never received “communion” again in your life, but you remained in “communion” with your brothers and sisters in faith, hope, and love, I think Jesus would be very pleased.

Conversely, if you fail to love your neighbor and remain in “communion” with him, yet you receive “communion” daily, I’m not sure Jesus will be very pleased.

Paul warned of those who were eating and drinking unworthily.

 

[Seraphim73]

I would most agree with our Orthodox brothers here. Even in the early church there were clearly disputes that would eventually be settled by synods, councils, etc. I don’t see much difference here. The Orthodox Church is not a divided church. Surely there may be conflicts, but that has always been in the church. To bicker within a church is one thing, but communion is another. The Orthodox Church claims it has unity and is undivided in the one faith they all share, and I also share this view that this is a true claim. To say the Orthodox Church is divided is not a very accurate picture. And as prodromos says, they can have communion in the different respective churches within the communion. That alone shows that regardless of the conflicts that may exist, they are still in communion. If a shared Eucharistic communion isn’t enough to show they are united in a common faith, then what can?

Well now that I think about it the Roman Catholic Church defines communion as being in submission to the Bishop of Rome. As has been said before, for the Roman Catholic Church, this is the paramount dogma, the measure of all beings and all things including communion. It takes communion and the faith away from the God-Man and places it on a man. That is why Randy can say despite sharing the Heavenly Cup we could somehow have a deeper communion. That’s because he is looking at it from a characteristically humanistic point of view. The way we see it communion is not based on human institutions but in the reality of the Eucharist. There is no higher reality in which we can be united in communion.

 

[Wandile]

Is that really the way Catholics view the Eucharist or are you just speaking for yourself? There is nothing in creation more profound, more broad, more deep than sharing the Eucharistic Cup. In fact it is the only definition of being “in communion.” That is also why we could never share the Eucharist with someone outside the unity of the Church.

You share it with the Oriental Orthodox whom you are not in communion.

 

[RyanBlack]

The primary meaning of the word is NOT the reception of the Eucharist during the Divine Liturgy. It is this:

com·mun·ion
kəˈmyo͞onyən
noun
noun: communion; noun: Communion; noun: Holy Communion
1.
the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level.

We only receive “communion” (the body and blood of Christ) together because we are first in “communion” (a state of intimate agreement and sharing of ideas and feelings) with one another.

It is my contention (and quite probably that of the authors I quoted) that while the various autocephalous churches that make up what we refer to as “Orthodoxy” are technically in communion with one another and allow “communion” or the reception of sacraments between members and churches, they are not in genuine communion or fellowship with one another due to the bickering over various petty issues. The author of the Pan-Orthodox Council noted:

The most divisive issues on the Orthodox agenda relate to the relations between the local Churches. The models of these relations are constantly evolving, reflecting global political frameworks. Understandings of the fellowship of the Orthodox Churches changes constantly, and there is no agreement on it. Some Churches consider this fellowship in terms of an utilitarian cooperation of sovereign entities, which safeguard their territorial integrity and punish any intruder, including another local Church. This philosophy reflects the logic of international law and, particularly, the idea of sovereignty of the national states.

Political frameworks? Safeguarding territorial integrity? Punishing intruders including anther local (Orthodox) church?

Is this what Jesus preached? Is THIS what you got out of His prayer that we might all be one?

You have given a common dictionary definition of communion, not a theological definition. As to your contention about bickering over petty issues, there’s plenty of that among Catholics. Does that mean that there is a lack of communion among Catholic bishops when they bicker over various issues? What about bickering in general among Catholics? Does that mean that Catholic lay people are not in communion with each other and with the hierarchy of the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would most agree with our Orthodox brothers here. Even in the early church there were clearly disputes that would eventually be settled by synods, councils, etc. I don’t see much difference here. The Orthodox Church is not a divided church. Surely there may be conflicts, but that has always been in the church. To bicker within a church is one thing, but communion is another. The Orthodox Church claims it has unity and is undivided in the one faith they all share, and I also share this view that this is a true claim. To say the Orthodox Church is divided is not a very accurate picture. And as prodromos says, they can have communion in the different respective churches within the communion. That alone shows that regardless of the conflicts that may exist, they are still in communion. If a shared Eucharistic communion isn’t enough to show they are united in a common faith, then what can?

Kmon23-

I see that you are discerning, so I encourage you to listen carefully to what the Orthodox priest has honestly admitted in the article to which I have linked. Read the whole thing. Then read it again.

While Orthodoxy has many strengths and positive aspects, it remains, at best, a loose assembly of small, ethnically and nationally-oriented churches that individually and collectively cannot possibly claim to have come even close to fulfilling the Great Commission given to the Church by Jesus Christ in Matthew 28.

There is, of course, a Church that was built upon Peter, the Rock, of Mt. 16:18-19, and despite its weaknesses and negative aspects, it remains the one, true Church promised by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

May the Lord guide you during this important and exciting time in your life!

 

[Cavaradossi]

The primary meaning of the word is NOT the reception of the Eucharist during the Divine Liturgy. It is this:

com·mun·ion
kəˈmyo͞onyən
noun
noun: communion; noun: Communion; noun: Holy Communion
1.
the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level.

We only receive “communion” (the body and blood of Christ) together because we are first in “communion” (a state of intimate agreement and sharing of ideas and feelings) with one another.

It is my contention (and quite probably that of the authors I quoted) that while the various autocephalous churches that make up what we refer to as “Orthodoxy” are technically in communion with one another and allow “communion” or the reception of sacraments between members and churches, they are not in genuine communion or fellowship with one another due to the bickering over various petty issues. The author of the Pan-Orthodox Council noted:

The most divisive issues on the Orthodox agenda relate to the relations between the local Churches. The models of these relations are constantly evolving, reflecting global political frameworks. Understandings of the fellowship of the Orthodox Churches changes constantly, and there is no agreement on it. Some Churches consider this fellowship in terms of an utilitarian cooperation of sovereign entities, which safeguard their territorial integrity and punish any intruder, including another local Church. This philosophy reflects the logic of international law and, particularly, the idea of sovereignty of the national states.

Political frameworks? Safeguarding territorial integrity? Punishing intruders including anther local (Orthodox) church?

Is this what Jesus preached? Is THIS what you got out of His prayer that we might all be one?

Utterly facile. Being in communion refers above all to the mutual commemoration of hierarchs during the Liturgy of the faithful, as well as the ability for hierarchs to concelebrate the Liturgy. The life of the Church is liturgical, not administrative or based on feelings.

 

[Kmon23]

Kmon23-

I see that you are discerning, so I encourage you to listen carefully to what the Orthodox priest has honestly admitted in the article to which I have linked. Read the whole thing. Then read it again.

While Orthodoxy has many strengths and positive aspects, it remains, at best, a loose assembly of small, ethnically and nationally-oriented churches that individually and collectively cannot possibly claim to have come even close to fulfilling the Great Commission given to the Church by Jesus Christ in Matthew 28.

There is, of course, a Church that was built upon Peter, the Rock, of Mt. 16:18-19, and despite its weaknesses and negative aspects, it remains the one, true Church promised by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

May the Lord guide you during this important and exciting time in your life!

Thank you Randy for the response. I’ve been waiting over a year to be able to take Communion, and it’s what I look forward to the most. I’ll consider Catholicism in my journey of course. I’m actually in RCIA, and prior to a week ago I was sure set going into the Catholic Church. However even with many months of certainty, I have decided to go back and reconsider the claims of Orthodoxy to avoid a hasty decision (will be entering Orthodoxy 101 soon for my further study of Orthodoxy). After all as you say, it sure is an important part of my life! Wherever God may lead me, I pray he leads me to the Apostolic Faith.

You share it with the Oriental Orthodox whom you are not in communion.

Wandile, does not the Catholic Church also allow under certain circumstances that a Catholic may receive sacraments in an Orthodox Church in emergency situations?
Unless of course you mean a communion that can be shared irrespective of the circumstance, although this seems to be unheard of to me.

 

[Wandile]

How do the EO explain the fact that certain patriarchs and autoclapeous churches are not in communion with certain others even within the EO communion. Like for example the Antiochan and Jerusalem patriarchats which excommunicated each other over territory disputes.

Or the Estonian Orthodox Church situation where the Russian Orthodox Church refuses recognize the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, and its establishment in 1996 which led to rupture of between the Moscow and Constantinople patriarchates in Estonia?

I’m not trying to patronize here but this really paints a bleak picture of communion in EO and how thin the bond I’d that really hold various EO churches together. Just my POV

 

[Cavaradossi]

Kmon23-

I see that you are discerning, so I encourage you to listen carefully to what the Orthodox priest has honestly admitted in the article to which I have linked. Read the whole thing. Then read it again.

While Orthodoxy has many strengths and positive aspects, it remains, at best, a loose assembly of small, ethnically and nationally-oriented churches that individually and collectively cannot possibly claim to have come even close to fulfilling the Great Commission given to the Church by Jesus Christ in Matthew 28.

There is, of course, a Church that was built upon Peter, the Rock, of Mt. 16:18-19, and despite its weaknesses and negative aspects, it remains the one, true Church promised by Jesus and led by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

May the Lord guide you during this important and exciting time in your life!

You don’t even know what you’re talking about at this point. If the churches were truly centered around ethnicity, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church of Greece would not be separate entities. If it were based on national lines, then the Russian Church would not extend into Ukraine, and the Serbian Church into Macedonia (albeit underground and persecuted there). You make the mistake of conflating historical accidents with what is essential.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile, does not the Catholic Church also allow under certain circumstances that a Catholic may receive sacraments in an Orthodox Church in emergency situations? Unless of course you mean a communion that can be shared irrespective of the circumstance, although this seems to be unheard of to me.

Yes the Catholic Church does. But that’s because we don’t make the claim that we could never share the Eucharist with someone outside the unity of the Church. We recognize the sacraments of certain churches and thus in certain dire situations a person who is not in communion may receive in a Catholic Church or vice versa

My comment was made to Seraphim because he claimed that :

… we could never share the Eucharist with someone outside the unity of the Church.

And I showed this claim to be false… As they share communion with the Oriental Orthodox at times who are not in communion with the EO…

 

[Kmon23]

Yes the Catholic Church does. But that’s because we don’t make the claim that we could never share the Eucharist with someone outside the unity of the Church. We recognize the sacraments of certain churches and thus in certain dire situations a person who is not in communion may receive in a Catholic Church or vice versa

My comment was made to Seraphim because he claimed that :

And I showed thus claim to be false… As the share communion with the Oriental Orthodox at times who are not in communion with the EO…

Well I wouldn’t put it past Seraphim as a false statement entirely. I would assume it’s just under the normative circumstances that communion would not be shared and shared in emergency circumstances. After all an exception is by no means the norm, and if that is the case, then Seraphim’s statement is not what I would call false. Let’s let Seraphim explain himself fully then.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You have given a common dictionary definition of communion, not a theological definition.As to your contention about bickering over petty issues, there’s plenty of that among Catholics. Does that mean that there is a lack of communion among Catholic bishops when they bicker over various issues? What about bickering in general among Catholics? Does that mean that Catholic lay people are not in communion with each other and with the hierarchy of the Church.

Ryan-

Thank you again for your thoughtful response to my post. I am honored that you would take the time to offer your thoughts, and I welcome your brotherly correction.

As for the appropriateness of my definition of “communion”, I have defined it exactly how I meant it when I first wrote that Orthodox communion is a “Big Myth”. The dispute arose after an EO attempted to apply HIS definition of the word to MY post. Oh, and he also called me a liar two or three times.

Now to your major point: It is true that Catholics have differences amongst themselves, but do our bishops squabble over whether a church from one rite will be built on another bishop’s turf? Not that I have ever heard of. You may have information that I am unaware of in this regard. For example, Fr. wrote:

However, the Synaxis did not completely avoid conflict. The Church of Antioch refused to sign the documents of the Synaxis because of its dispute with the Church of Jerusalem over a community in Qatar. The Patriarch of Antioch, John X, was not present at the Synaxis because of illness. However, he ordered his representatives to avoid signing the decisions of the Synaxis unless the problem of the parish in Qatar was solved. His ultimatum did not work, however, and so the signature of the Church of Antioch is absent.

There is no also a signature of the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The Russian Church facilitated the recent election of Archbishop Rastislav, the new Primate of that Church. This election is not, however, recognised by the Church of Constantinople and the majority of other Orthodox Churches. Finally, the signature of the Orthodox Church in America is also absent. This Church was granted autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970, but that autocephaly is not recognised by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the majority of other Orthodox Churches. (catholicworldreport.com/Item/3001/the_fragile_promise_of_the_panorthodox_council.aspx)

Ryan, our Orthodox brothers have not had an Ecumenical council in over 1,000 years, yet, as Schmemann noted, they are not weeping and mourning over their divisions in sackcloth and ashes. Instead, they argue over how many chairs will be set up at the negotiating table!



But I rather defer to you. Instead of me guessing as to what differences you might judge as rising to the level of disagreement found among the autocephalous churches of the East, why not just point out for us some specific examples of those things which you believe should prevent Catholics from “communing” together?

Should those who publicly support abortion be allowed to receive? Not in my opinion.
Those who have remarried without receiving a proper annulment of the first marriage. Nope.

But those are matters of sin regarding individuals, so I look forward to hearing what you may have in mind when you suggest that Catholics are just as divided as are the various churches collectively known as “the Orthodox”.

Thanks.

 

[Wandile]

Oh yeah Cav

You asked if i copied someone’s commentary on the Photian schism and the quotes of the emperor because of the reference of himself in the third person. The answer is no I did not. That is a genuine quote of the emperor. For whatever he refers to himself in such a fashion. At least that’s how I found the quote… Maybe its a result of an ancient commentary on the dispute.

 

[Wandile]

Well I wouldn’t put it past Seraphim as a false statement entirely. I would assume it’s just under the normative circumstances that communion would not be shared and shared in emergency circumstances. After all an exception is by no means the norm, and if that is the case, then Seraphim’s statement is not what I would call false. Let’s let Seraphim explain himself fully then.

Maybe… Lets wait for Seraphim then

 

[Cavaradossi]

How do the EO explain the fact that certain patriarchs and autoclapeous churches are not in communion with certain others even within the EO communion. Like for example the Antiochan and Jerusalem patriarchats which excommunicated each other over territory disputes.

Frankly, I know that you know better than to think that a break in the diptychs (what has happened presently between Antioch and Jerusalem) means an outright excommunication. An excommunication is the claim that a certain person, by virtue of some act, has cut himself off from the Church. Momentary breaks in the diptychs were in fact a common occurrence in the ancient Church, with reasons ranging from accusations of heresy to territorial disputes to something innocuous like a lost synodic letter.

Or the Estonian Orthodox Church situation where the Russian Orthodox Church refuses recognize the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, and its establishment in 1996 which led to rupture of communion between the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates in Estonia?

As far as I know, the EP and the MP worked out a mutual arrangement. So your point is moot, as the event did not truly injure the communion of the two.

 

[Wandile]

Frankly, I know that you know better than to think that a break in the diptychs (what has happened presently between Antioch and Jerusalem) means an outright excommunication. An excommunication is the claim that a certain person, by virtue of some act, has cut himself off from the Church. Momentary breaks in the diptychs were in fact a common occurrence in the ancient Church, with reasons ranging from accusations of heresy to territorial disputes to something innocuous like a lost synodic letter.

But when the Orthodox reference Pope Vigilius’ momentary removal from the diptychs of the second Council of Constantinople the EO never fail to exclaim that Vigilius was excommunicated. Double standards?

As far as I know, the EP and the MP worked out a mutual arrangement. So your point is moot, as the event did not truly injure the communion of the two.

I shall update my knowledge of the situation and get back to you.