Filioque Debate

[Randy_Carson]

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

Shhhhh!

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

History? Or present reality?

The Fragile Promise of the Pan-Orthodox Council
March 14, 2014 <-----

"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.

“Three Russian jurisdictions, two Serbian, two Romanian, two Albanian, two Bulgarian…A split among the Syrians…the animosity between the Russians and the Carpatho-Russians…the Ukrainian problem!..We teach our children to be ‘proud’ of Orthodoxy, we constantly congratulate ourselves about all kinds of historic events and achievements, our church publications distill an almost unbearable triumphalism and optimism, yet, if we were true to the spirit of our faith we ought to repent in ‘sackcloth and ashes,’ we ought to cry day and night about the sad, the tragical state of our Church…Nothing can justify the bare fact: Our Church is divided. To be sure, there have always been divisions and conflicts among Christians. But for the first time in history, division belongs to the very structure of the Church.” (Alexander Schmemann, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1964; pp. 67-84).

Not much has changed in fifty years, apparently. But then lack of change is a strength, right?

 

[Cavaradossi]

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?

It is more likely that it marked the suspension of Vigilius, in preparation for deposing him. There is also a difference between a bunch of churches synodally deciding together to strike a bishop from the diptychs and one church doing so. The former is rather grave, while the latter is usually regarded with less gravity. Such was the case for example 1054. The Churches not involved in the affair took little note of the situation, because momentary breaches like that were common. It took the crusaders deposing their local bishops in order to install their own to make them realize that it was the symptom of problems far more grave.

 

[Wandile]

It is more likely that it marked the suspension of Vigilius, in preparation for deposing him. There is also a difference between a bunch of churches synodally deciding together to strike a bishop from the diptychs and one church doing so. The former is rather grave, while the latter is usually regarded with less gravity. Such was the case for example 1054. The Churches not involved in the affair took little note of the situation, because momentary breaches like that were common. It took the crusaders deposing their local bishops in order to install their own to make them realize that it was the symptom of problems far more grave.

The former was not even an act the bishops themselves wanted to do for it was request of the emperor to remove Pope Vigilius for the diptychs. Further this is proof that Vigilius was never excommunicated if your reasoning of such actions follow.

But anyway I’m not about to derail this thread any further. This is a topic for another day.

 

[Cavaradossi]

History? Or present reality?

Not much has changed in fifty years, apparently. But then lack of change is a strength, right?

I see that you continue to make that most ignorant claim, despite the fact that the problems mentioned by Schmemann have largely abated. The general ecclesiastical consciousness has been to reject those who broke communion over the calendar (so-called old calendarists) as schismatics. That is to say that there is today from our perspective, only one legitimate Bulgarian Church, one Serbian, etc. Furthermore, the development of SCOBA and its successor, the Assembly of Canonical Bishops of the United States of America as a visual sign of who the canonical bishops in America are would likely have been seen by Schmemann as a great improvement in the state of Orthodoxy in America.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The former was not even an act the bishops themselves wanted to do for it was request of the emperor to remove Pope Vigilius for the diptychs. Further this is proof that Vigilius was never excommunicated if your reasoning of such actions follow.

But anyway I’m not about to derail this thread any further. This is a topic for another day.

I don’t claim that he was outright excommunicated by the council, so I really don’t see what you are going on about, to be frank.

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

Just because you’ve never heard of them, don’t think similar sorts of problems don’t exist. For example, I’m aware of a situation in very recent years where a Latin bishop opposed having a parish from one of the Eastern Catholic Churches being established in a city within the bounds of his diocese because that city already had an Eastern Catholic parish. It seemed not to matter to him that the particular church wanting to establish the parish wasn’t just a different particular church than the one already there, it was from an entirely different liturgical tradition. Sounds a lot like squabbling over turf to me.

 

[Wandile]

I don’t claim that he was outright excommunicated by the council, so I really don’t see what you are going on about, to be frank.

I’m countering general claim made by the EO for all observers of this thread. Not really addressing your position personally but that of the majority of EO on the internet who keep spreading this misinformation…

 

[Wandile]

Could we get back to the Filioque?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just because you’ve never heard of them, don’t think similar sorts of problems don’t exist. For example, I’m aware of a situation in very recent years where a Latin bishop opposed having a parish from one of the Eastern Catholic Churches being established in a city within the bounds of his diocese because that city already had an Eastern Catholic parish. It seemed not to matter to him that the particular church wanting to establish the parish wasn’t just a different particular church than the one already there, it was from an entirely different liturgical tradition. Sounds a lot like squabbling over turf to me.

Ryan-

So, the Latin bishop opposed the construction of a (Ruthenian) parish because a (Maronite) parish already existed? Or something like that? Okay. Why? What were the reasons for his objection?

And more to the point of this off-topic sub-thread )), did this particular squabble prevent the Catholic Church from holding the Second Vatican Council? Or the recent Synod on the Family? Obviously not. Was ANY official Church gathering ever interrupted by this event?

If not, I’m not sure your example rises to the level of disagreement equivalent to the potential derailment of the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council which might occur for a similar scenario to the one that you just referenced.

The divisions within the Orthodox “communion” are ancient and deep, and no one is turning the other cheek.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Could we get back to the Filioque?

:clapping:

 

[RyanBlack]

Ryan-

So, the Latin bishop opposed the construction of a (Ruthenian) parish because a (Maronite) parish already existed? Or something like that? Okay. Why? What were the reasons for his objection?

And more to the point of this off-topic sub-thread )), did this particular squabble prevent the Catholic Church from holding the Second Vatican Council? Or the recent Synod on the Family? Obviously not. Was ANY official Church gathering ever interrupted by this event?

If not, I’m not sure your example rises to the level of disagreement equivalent to the potential derailment of the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council which might occur for a similar scenario to the one that you just referenced.

The divisions within the Orthodox “communion” are ancient and deep, and no one is turning the other cheek.

Yeah, something like that. And the reason offered was there was no need for another Eastern Catholic parish, because one already existed. Never mind the fact that it would involve two parishes that weren’t even from the same liturgical tradition, much less from the same particular church. But why should his reasons even matter? What business did he have objecting in the first place? Why should the presence of a Maronite parish ever be used to justify an attempt to block the establishment of a parish that is Ruthenian, or Melkite, or Ukrainian, or whatever? Neither parish involved would have even been under his authority, but under the authority of their respective eastern bishops.

The Orthodox have held synods since the Second Council of Nicea. Some of them were local, a few were universal. I fail to see the big deal about the fact that they are not specifically called ecumenical councils.

I am not saying that the example I gave is equivalent to some of the divisions that currently exist among the Orthodox. However, I do believe the differences are not of a fundamentally different nature. We have enough sins within our own household. We should tend to them, and let the Orthodox tend to theirs.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Could we get back to the Filioque?

Interesting the filioque marks no division, no separation, and no confusion.

The Greeks who object to the filioque true definition, appear to force a division into the mystery of the blessed Trinity when there never is one, professed from the filioque.

As far as unity and communion is concerned. The Orthodox pretend to possess a supernatural power to be able to divide or remove what God has joined together.

When they re-baptize valid baptized Christians, when it is clear from antiquity that a rebaptism of Christians was outlawed.

What man dares separate what God has joined to himself in the sacrament of baptism.

Here the filioque proceeds not man. Especially in that most blessed of Sacraments the Eucharist.

Is it not the communion we receive united to Christ in the Euchariist which supersedes all of man’s folly arguments over secular, territory, and political divisions.

It is a myth for anyone to pretend that man, council, patriarch, bishop, or pope can divide or separate what God has joined together in, with and through God’s Sacraments.

The filioque should be an example to all of us, of how the Works of God are done without division or separation of God’s Essence by His presence in Trinity.

We become a lost cause fighting over scraps, when we divide our human communions to infect or divide our divine communion with God’s presence in Eucharist, except for when sin is the cause of division or separation of God’s communion.

Our first Love is communion with God first via His sacraments which no man was ever given the power to remove or separate what God has joined together.

For anyone Church to believe they can remove a valid sacrament of the divine, deceives and lives both a lie and a myth.

If anyone is removed from communion due to sin, obeys God. If anyone is removed from communion due to secular, worldly, or political reasons lives a myth or a lie, if he thinks he can remove a valid sacrament of the Eucharist by one who communes with the living God.

Peace be with you

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yeah, something like that. And the reason offered was there was no need for another Eastern Catholic parish, because one already existed. Never mind the fact that it would involve two parishes that weren’t even from the same liturgical tradition, much less from the same particular church. But why should his reasons even matter? What business did he have objecting in the first place? Why should the presence of a Maronite parish ever be used to justify an attempt to block the establishment of a parish that is Ruthenian, or Melkite, or Ukrainian, or whatever? Neither parish involved would have even been under his authority, but under the authority of their respective eastern bishops.

Ryan-

What was the end result? Was the second parish built or not?

The Orthodox have held synods since the Second Council of Nicea. Some of them were local, a few were universal. I fail to see the big deal about the fact that they are not specifically called ecumenical councils.

The question is not so much about what they are called as it is about whether they will manage to set aside their differences long enough to gather at all.

I am not saying that the example I gave is equivalent to some of the divisions that currently exist among the Orthodox. However, I do believe the differences are not of a fundamentally different nature. We have enough sins within our own household. We should tend to them, and let the Orthodox tend to theirs.

I have no disagreement with most of this (I do think the squabbles are of a different nature, but whatever. )

I think that the value (and yes, I do think there IS value) in pointing these things out is that all we Catholics seem to hear from the other side is how they, and they alone, are the one, true Church, the continuation of that Church founded upon Peter (the confession, not the Rock), blah, blah, blah. To hear some tell the tale, Orthodoxy is heaven on earth while Rome is the, well, you know…it has to do with Babylon.

Frankly, I think a lot of Protestants who convert to Orthodoxy get caught up in how “pretty” their liturgies are (which we Catholics could learn from, btw) and how they have not wavered from this and that. For those longing for a more spiritually satisfying worship than can be found in today’s MegaChurch, it can be pretty appealing. Add to it the fact that converts can continue to oppose the Pope and resort to private judgment (my latest revelation), and there’s no wonder why the “New Rome” draws those from "No Rome’.

The problem is, that the closer you look (well, the closer I look, anyway), the more you find to object to, and these things need to be pointed out in the interest of honesty. Some in these forums disagree with me on that, but I happen to think that the mind can be a stronghold of the enemy that needs to be breached by strong arguments and facts. I know from experience that sometimes the one unanswerable question was all it took to get someone thinking beyond their presuppositions.

Call me a crazy optimist, but I hope that somebody, somewhere, someday, will read these threads and say, “You know, Randy has a point,” and begin the journey home.

That’s all I really want. :yup:

 

[Seraphim73]

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

If we share the Eucharist we are very much in communion. It’s like the marital embrace where two become one. When you share the Cup you become one. As you know most EO and OO achiever believe that we share the exact same faith. So really there is nothing to prevent communion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If we share the Eucharist we are very much in communion. It’s like the marital embrace where two become one. When you share the Cup you become one. As you know most EO and OO achiever believe that we share the exact same faith. So really there is nothing to prevent communion.

So, why EO and OO and not just O?

And it seems kinda weird to me that you would extend your “communion” to people with serious Christological differences but not to those who simply disagree with you over the governance of the universal Church? How does that make any sense?

 

[RyanBlack]

So, why EO and OO and not just O?

What’s the point of your question?

 

[Seraphim73]

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

I would second what Cav said and add this. Any faithful from Antioch could commune in any parish of the Jerusalem Patriarchate and vice versa. I belong to an Orthodox Church in America parish whose autochephaly is not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate or by many other autocephalous Churches. But I receive regularly in a parish under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, our priests concelebrate with priests in the EP, our bishops concelebrate with bishops from the EP and all of the other Churches including the ones who do not recognize our autocephalous status, I can receive Communion in any canonical parish on the planet including from the hands of Patriarch Bartholomew himself. So these questions of jurisdiction that many like to point to don’t touch on the faith at all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If we share the Eucharist we are very much in communion. It’s like the marital embrace where two become one. When you share the Cup you become one. As you know most EO and OO achiever believe that we share the exact same faith. So really there is nothing to prevent communion.

What’s the point of your question?

I’m am honestly trying to understand something that I have not considered before.

Seraphim suggests that the sharing of communion between the EO and OO means that the “two become one”. Yet, two (EO and OO) remain.

What is he saying and what am I missing?

It seems to me that he has just proven that “communion” as he defines it is insufficient to bring about unity.

The “communion” to which I referred (mocked by Cav and others) is that unity itself.

 

[Seraphim73]

So, why EO and OO and not just O?

And it seems kinda weird to me that you would extend your “communion” to people with serious Christological differences but not to those who simply disagree with you over the governance of the universal Church? How does that make any sense?

It would be weird if there were any Christological differences. But both the EO and OO agree that we share the one and same Orthodox faith. And neither the EO or OO believe that Roman Catholics share that faith with us. I’m afraid my friend, among the ancient Apostolic Churches, the Roman Catholic Church is quite alone.