Not to my knowledge. And the fact that it was not built is not necessarily the fault of the Latin hierarch-at least no entirely. My point is that the Latin bishop’s opposition was unwarranted from the beginning, and reveals that we are not without our own problems with squabbling over turf.
Athanasius was alone, too. But he was right.
All of the autocephalous Churches remain. We are united in our shared faith and shared Eucharist. As to EO/OO relations you don’t heal 1,500 years of separation over night. We really only reestablished formal contact a few decades ago. But even in that short time a remarkable amount of progress has been made. There is already extensive, officially sanctioned inter-communion and concelebration. There have been numerous agreed statements that state quite clearly that we hold the exact same faith. Here is a paragraph from the 1989 meeting in Egypt which is particularly pertinent for this thread.
I was just curious, and I understand the point that you are trying to illustrate. Fair enough.
Come on Randy you’re smarter than that. Simply because we don’t agree on everything doesn’t mean we don’t agree on some things. And I imagine the agreement on the Christological issues has already happened between the OO and RCC. There is no reason why it couldn’t. That’s not where we disagree with you. And no there is no higher union than union in the Precious Body and Blood of God. How someone could even think there was is just astounding to me.Athanasius was alone, too. But he was right.
As for the rest:
The Oriental Orthodox churches came to a parting of the ways with the remainder of Christianity in the 5th century. The separation resulted in part from the Oriental Orthodox churches’ refusal to accept the Christological dogmas promulgated by the Council of Chalcedon, which held that Jesus Christ is in two natures — one divine and one human, although these were inseparable. To the hierarchs who would lead the Oriental Orthodox, this was tantamount to accepting Nestorianism. In response, they advocated a formula that stressed unity of the Incarnation over all other considerations, that being “one nature of God the Word Incarnate”, “of/from two natures” in and after the union. The Oriental Orthodox churches are therefore often called “Monophysite” churches, although they reject this label, which is associated with Eutychian Monophysitism, preferring the term non-Chalcedonian or Miaphysite churches. Oriental Orthodox Christians anathematize the Monophysite teachings of Eutyches. They are sometimes also known as anti-Chalcedonians.
In the 20th century, a number of dialogues have occurred between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Orthodox which revealed that both communions now share a common Christology with differing terminology. As yet, full communion has not been restored. There have also been some agreed Christological statements issued in conjunction with the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonian) family (Ecumenical Patriarchate and official representatives of other Eastern Orthodox Churches) [1]. (orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox)
- Why has full communion not been restored is the receiving of “communion” the highest form of “communion” there is? Doesn’t this suggest that there is another, more comprehensive form of communion of which the sharing of “communion” in the Divine Liturgy is but a part? I REST MY CASE.
- What happens when the OO and the RCC reach similar agreements concerning past Christological misunderstandings?
- Why would “agreed Christological statements” be issued if, as you claim, “the Roman Catholic Church is quite alone”?
You may be the only Eastern Christian, Orthodox or Catholic, ever to suggest that possibility.
Which applies to Rome, also. If Rome and Constantinople(?) Moscow(?) agree on the ‘Filioque’ in a way that satisfies all parties, then all that would remain would be differences over the governance of the Church (universal jurisdiction, supremacy and infallibility), right? All significant, to be sure, but not one of them would have anything to do with orthodoxy of belief about God or the validity of apostolic succession and holy orders. Surely, we can share the Eucharist at that point, right?
Well, on the scale of importance, is there much higher than proper doctrine concerning God Himself?
I kinda want to agree with you but then I consider that there may be many people walking the planet right now who are more pleasing to God than I am but who have never received the Eucharist. And when you get to heaven, you will be one with those folks IN CHRIST, so it seems to me that while the mass (or the Divine Liturgy) is the highest form of WORSHIP, it may not be the highest form of communion. I reserve the right to change my mind on this precise point.
Well as long as you’re smarter than me you’re good…You may be the only Eastern Christian, Orthodox or Catholic, ever to suggest that possibility.
But there is no agreement on the filioque. I think agreement is possible if Rome very publicly clarifies that the Father alone is the cause of the Trinity. But the biggest problem isn’t Church governance. It’s that you’ve made Church governance a matter of dogma. Now there is no going back on these issues unfortunately.
Proper doctrine is of paramount importance and is a necessary condition to share Communion.
But your meaning is a misunderstanding.
Numerous Fathers expressed the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Could you explain why “through the Son” is an error?
No Orthodox would disagree that the Spirit is sent through the Son. But the addition to the Creed as written sows confusion. And that article has some gross mischaracterizations that honestly I’m just not in the mood to address right now.
Ah. Well, perhaps this explanation is better:No Orthodox would disagree that the Spirit is sent through the Son. But the addition to the Creed as written sows confusion. And that article has some gross mischaracterizations that honestly I’m just not in the mood to address right now.
Well, thank you, Cav.
Here you go, twisting people’s words again. It confirms nothing of the sort. At best, we traditionally regard the non-Chalcedonians as schismatics, at worst as heretics (and they likewise with us). Unless you are erroneously equivocating, you can’t use the schism over Chalcedon as evidence that the Orthodox are divided at least not any more so than you could use the same schism to claim that Catholicism is divided (they do, after all, make their own exclusive claim to being the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church).
If this were the issue, then there wouldn’t be any because Rome states the same aside for the analogy of cause. There is no contradiction of the monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole principle of principles. So the problem certainly isn’t here, but is misunderstanding.
For most of the past day or two, I have been explaining how the idea of “unity” or “communion” among the xx autocephalous churches is a “Big Myth”.
It looks like it all resulted from a mistranlation…If this were the issue, then there wouldn’t be any because Rome states the same aside for the analogy of cause. There is no contradiction of the monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole principle of principles. So the problem certainly isn’t here, but is misunderstanding.
Right, the phrase Father is the sole [Cause] of the Son, is taken from one of the Saints [St John Damascene] though he isn’t speaking in terms of cause and effect. The terminology is a human analogy to explain the Divine.It looks like it all resulted from a mistranlation…
From Randy’s link:
In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusiV. St Maximus the Confessor then wrote a letter from Rome linking together the two approaches — Cappadocian and Latin-Alexandrian — to the eternal origin of the Spirit: the Father is the sole principle without principle (in Greek aitia) of the Son and of the Spirit; the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession (to proienai) of this same Spirit. “For the procession they [the Romans] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (Aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole Cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusiV — but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence” (Letter to Marinus of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B). According to St Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusiV of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father’s monarchy.
They have communion without communion of unity. A true Church but for one aspect, they are not in communion with Rome. They have been working on the point over there though.
Seraphim73;12538862]All of the autocephalous Churches remain. We are united in our shared faith and shared Eucharist. As to EO/OO relations you don’t heal 1,500 years of separation over night. We really only reestablished formal contact a few decades ago. But even in that short time a remarkable amount of progress has been made. There is already extensive, officially sanctioned inter-communion and concelebration. There have been numerous agreed statements that state quite clearly that we hold the exact same faith. Here is a paragraph from the 1989 meeting in Egypt which is particularly pertinent for this thread.
or is this heresy in the making from a "mutual agreement? That creates another schism?