G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I believe so also. Imho for the sake of the argument I would concede this and go with the Ecumenical Council, done deal. For further reading…all available.
If the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church reunited
- Status
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
Reading those verses in context of the other passages of Scripture & Tradition, we see that Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to us by ASKING the Father to send the Holy Spirit to us becuase Jesus can’t personally send the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father:
John 14:16 “And I will pray the Father, and HE will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever” - emphasis added
John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the FATHER will send in My Name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your rememberance in all things that I said to you.” - emphasis added
John 15: 26: “But when the Helper comes, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father He will testify of Me.”
These verses which proceed those you quote from chapter 16 explain that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. In them Jesus explains that the way He will send the Holy Spirit is by ASKING the Father to send the Holy Spirit as Jesus can’t personally send what doesn’t proceed from Himself.
The Bishops of the Second Ecumenical Council, guided by the Holy Spirit, decreed & taught that the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” (period)
I know that some try very hard to take the apples (the Catholic point of view) & bananas (the Orthodox point of view) and say they’re identical focusing only on them both being Fruit; however, apples are not bananas and bananas are not apples - they don’t have the same nutritional value & they don’t look or taste the same. They are completely different fruit.
The Truth about God is the most important of all. Which has been consistently revealed to be the Truth about the Holy Trinity in the Bible & the 7 Ecumenical Councils- both inspired by the Holy Spirit?
One point of view is correct & other other in error. We can not unite Truth with falsehood that would be worse than a slap in the Face to Jesus Christ, our God, Who was crucified. Which ever Church is in the wrong will need to repent of her error in order for there to be true Unity.
UNITY is so important, but not important enough to unite falsehood with TRUTH.
Complete & total unity of all Theological issues is so easy for God. With Him nothing is impossible.
“For even if the Spirit exists in his own hupostasis [sic], and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit proceeds from him, just as undoubtedly he also proceeds from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:17 (Third Letter to Nestorius)
From: “The Fathers of the Church, St Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50” translated by John I. McEnerney
Another translation:
“For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the Truth, and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, The Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Third Letter to Nestorius
Edited and translated by P. E. Pusey, Oxford, 1872
Ει γαρ και εστιν εν υποστει το Πνευμα ιδικη, και δη και νοειται καθ εαυτο, καθο Πνευμα εστι, και ουχ Υιος αλλ ουν εστιν ουκ αλλοτριον αυτου Πνευμα γαρ αληθειας ωνομασται, και εστι Χριστος η αληθεια και προχειται παρ αυτου, καθαπερ αμελει και εκ του Θεου και Πατρος. - Αγιος Κυριλλος Αλεξανδρειας, Επιστολή 17:17
Nam etsi Spiritus in propria persona subsistat, eatenusque in seipso consideretur, quatenus Spiritus et non Filius; non est tamen ab eo alienus; quandoquidem Spiritus veritatis nominatur; Christus autem veritas est; et proinde quoque abillo, atque a Deo Patre procedit. - Cyrillus Alexandrinus Sanctus, Epistula 17:17
“ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον” - Nicene Creed
“Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit” - Latin Catholic Nicene Creed
[emphasis mine]
The Greek word “ἐκπορευόμενον” has a different meaning then the Latin word “procedit”. It is not heresy to say that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds [procedit] from the Father.
May the Lord, through the intercessions of St Cyril of Alexandria (the great mediator between Churches), unite the Orthodox Church (both Oriental and Eastern) with the Catholic Church (in union with Rome).
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
St. Cyril of Alexandria cannot be used to demonstrate the orthodoxy of the Latin formula ‘ex Patre Filioque procedit’ as he wrote in Greek. We have to establish first that the word procedit in the formula ‘ex Patre Filioque procedit’ is supposed to have the same meaning as the verb procheitai from the formula that the Spirit is poured forth (procheitai) from the Son. We cannot accept, for example, the common understanding that procedere is meant to signify a relation of origin.“For even if the Spirit exists in his own hupostasis [sic], and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit proceeds from him, just as undoubtedly he also proceeds from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 17:17 (Third Letter to Nestorius)
From: “The Fathers of the Church, St Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50” translated by John I. McEnerney
Another translation:
“For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is the Truth, and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, The Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Third Letter to Nestorius
Edited and translated by P. E. Pusey, Oxford, 1872
Ει γαρ και εστιν εν υποστει το Πνευμα ιδικη, και δη και νοειται καθ εαυτο, καθο Πνευμα εστι, και ουχ Υιος αλλ ουν εστιν ουκ αλλοτριον αυτου Πνευμα γαρ αληθειας ωνομασται, και εστι Χριστος η αληθεια και προχειται παρ αυτου, καθαπερ αμελει και εκ του Θεου και Πατρος. - Αγιος Κυριλλος Αλεξανδρειας, Επιστολή 17:17
Nam etsi Spiritus in propria persona subsistat, eatenusque in seipso consideretur, quatenus Spiritus et non Filius; non est tamen ab eo alienus; quandoquidem Spiritus veritatis nominatur; Christus autem veritas est; et proinde quoque abillo, atque a Deo Patre procedit. - Cyrillus Alexandrinus Sanctus, Epistula 17:17
“ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον” - Nicene Creed
“Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit” - Latin Catholic Nicene Creed
[emphasis mine]
The Greek word “ἐκπορευόμενον” has a different meaning then the Latin word “procedit”. It is not heresy to say that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds [procedit] from the Father.
May the Lord, through the intercessions of St Cyril of Alexandria (the great mediator between Churches), unite the Orthodox Church (both Oriental and Eastern) with the Catholic Church (in union with Rome).
I was also showing that the Latin procedit is broader in its meaning than the Greek ἐκπορευόμενον.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Well the CC has already removed the bar completely by welcoming EO’s to commune in the CC. So we are* only* talking about the bar help by the EOCs. There is very little, particularly in the way of development, that can be expected to be accepted by everyone in the EOC. Even the use of the calendar that is in general use in the world, led to a splintering of the Greek church. I expect if there were a cooperate reunion, that there would be splinter sects - on both sides - who would have a much better private judgment about God’s will and refuse the reunion. Splinters can be painful, but there are usually small, and only very rarely grave.
I agree.
Some of the bigger ones splinters (not including those that split back into union with Rome):The Catholic Church and the Church of the East (c. AD 431 - 489)
The Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church (c. AD 451 - 536)
The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (c. AD 1054)
The Catholic Church and the protestants (c. 1517)
M
malphono
Guest
In my unsolicited HO, calling any of the first 3 “splinters” is, I think, a severe oversimplification.I agree.
The Catholic Church and the Church of the East (c. AD 431 - 489)
The Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church (c. AD 451 - 536)
The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (c. AD 1054)
The Catholic Church and the protestants (c. 1517)
Agreed!
I was responding to “very rarely grave” and giving examples but, I agree that it is a severe oversimplification.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Splinters are rarely grave. But I agree with Malphono, your examples are not splinters at all.Agreed!
The example I gave made the context of splintering very clear; and the remark was in response to the idea that we could not expect “the entire people” to accept a reunion.
If the point is that a reunion would be generate a schism on much more than a splinter scale - that is possible. But given the hypothetical nature of a reunion itself, what is the evidence for that scale?
I disagree with you in one case. The splinter of the Oriental Orthodox from the Catholic Church occurred as a result of trying to reconcile the Antiochian Christology with the Alexandrian Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria. The Council of Ephesus supported the Alexandrian school and upset those of the Antiochian school. The Council of Chalcedon tried to reconcile this and ultimately caused what you have now defined “splinter” to be.
D
dvdjs
Guest
This not a disagreement. Not all breaks are splinters. Some, like this, are fractures. But the existence of fracture does not imply that there are no splinters.
My estimation is that if we ever got to a point on which there was a degree of reconciliation that led to reunification of OO, EO , and C Churches, the vast majority would be in joyous agreement, even though there would be small splinter groups that would never, ever agree.
Thus, in answer to theistgal, the inability to reach the entire people does not strike me as a fatal limitation.
V
Vico
Guest
Also we know that for the Assyrian Church of the East, Catholicos Mar Isaac was elected by the Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410 A.D. and then in 424 A.D. under Catholicos Mar Dadisho I it was decided to not refer to any bishop or Church Council in the Roman Empire. All prior to the Council of 431 A.D.I agree.
The Catholic Church and the Church of the East (c. AD 431 - 489)
The Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church (c. AD 451 - 536)
The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (c. AD 1054)
The Catholic Church and the protestants (c. 1517)
C
Catherine_Grant
Guest
Note from Moderator:
This is a general reminder.
If you want to discuss a tangential topic in-depth, start a new thread. You may link to it from here.
If you want to debate a topic, start a debate thread and adhere to the Eastern Catholicism forum’s debate rules. You may link to it from here.
Please stay on topic in this thread:
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator
This is a general reminder.
If you want to discuss a tangential topic in-depth, start a new thread. You may link to it from here.
If you want to debate a topic, start a debate thread and adhere to the Eastern Catholicism forum’s debate rules. You may link to it from here.
Please stay on topic in this thread:
May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator
F
friendster324
Guest
I completely agree. The saints issue is one of the minor, easy, things to get done. Both accept both (with a few, possibly, not included) and move on to more pressing issues.
L
latingirl
Guest
Yes, I agree here.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Something to keep in mind is that saints recognized by both the Catholic and Orthodox were not perfect people and most likely got something wrong theologically in their viewpoints in their teaching. It’s not like these saints, post-schism, are authors of the Bible.
Now if some Orthodox recognize Origen or Tertullian as saints, that could be problematic, but I’m not aware of such recognition of these as saints in the Orthodox Church.
Emperor Constantine I believe is recognized as a saint by some Orthodox and is not recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church. Not sure if we could reconcile that one or not.
Now if some Orthodox recognize Origen or Tertullian as saints, that could be problematic, but I’m not aware of such recognition of these as saints in the Orthodox Church.
Emperor Constantine I believe is recognized as a saint by some Orthodox and is not recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church. Not sure if we could reconcile that one or not.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Interesting question – although, at the same time, an unpleasant reminder of my lack of time-traveling power.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I’m not aware of Tertullian being recognized as a saint by any apostolic Church. I believe that some of the Oriental Orthodox consider Origen to be a saint (understandably so, since he was tortured for holding to the faith, and they do not recognize the authority of the Second Council of Constantinople, which posthumously condemned Origen). Constantine is indeed recognized and honored as a saint in the Catholic Church-Byzantine Catholics, like the Eastern Orthodox, honor him as “Equal to the Apostles,” so that one is entirely a non-issue.
Origen of Alexandria is not commemorated by the Coptic Oriental Orthodox Church of Alexandria, therefore, I highly doubt that the other Oriental Orthodox Churches consider him a saint.
- Status