Is Orthodox Christianity seen as a place where the Catholic & Protestant Churches could possibly reunite?

[Tomdstone]

Tom-

That’s above my paygrade, but I have read that the differences between east and west on the procession of the Holy Spirit were largely the result of misunderstanding and emphasis rather than on actual disagreement.

If I can find an official, joint declaration to that effect, I will post it.

In the meantime, I would be interested in reading an explanation of how “from the Father through the Son” is different from “from the Father and the Son”.

Thanks.

Through the Son is acceptable to the East, but from the Son is not because the procession is from the Father.

 

[Tomdstone]

Crickets, and all week.

I don’t believe that citing crickets shows a respectful attitude toward the Orthodox belief on this question.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Through the Son is acceptable to the East, but from the Son is not because the procession is from the Father.

No-one ever said it wasn’t, everyone agrees there is one principle of the most Holy Spirit. And east and west.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Through the Son is acceptable to the East, but from the Son is not because the procession is from the Father.

Okay. I posted this in the Filioque Debate thread:

St. Maximus the Confessor

Defending the Romans, Maximus wrote:

“They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the Gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit–they know in fact htat the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession)–but they have manifested the procession through Him (to dia autou proeinai) and have shown the unity and the identity of the essence…I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided.”

The ‘Filioque’ as properly professed in scripture, the Fathers, the Councils and Eastern theologians and bishops including Bishop Eulogius, Sergei Svietlov, Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, should, in the words of Rev. Dr. Theodore G. Stylianopoulos and Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, “need not disturb us.” Indeed, Fr. Kallistos Ware, speaking at a May 1995 Symposium on the Trinity as Rose Hill, SC, affirmed:

The ‘Filioque’ controversy, which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I know believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences."

 

[Tomdstone]

Okay. I posted this in the Fililoque Debate thread:

St. Maximus the Confessor

Defending the Romans, Maximus wrote:

“They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the Gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit–they know in fact htat the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession)–but they have manifested the procession through Him (to dia autou proeinai) and have shown the unity and the identity of the essence…I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the ‘also from the Son’) in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided.”

The ‘Filioque’ as properly professed in scripture, the Fathers, the Councils and Eastern theologians and bishops including Bishop Eulogius, Sergei Svietlov, Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, should, in the words of Rev. Dr. Theodore G. Stylianopoulos and Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos, “need not disturb us.” Indeed, Kallistos Ware, speaking at a May 1995 Symposium on the Trinity as Rose Hill, SC, affirmed:

The ‘Filioque’ controversy, which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I know believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences."

Bishop Ware is seen as a liberal ecumenist by some Orthodox, who do not recognise his authority on this issue. It would be similar to the situation where some Catholics quote the great theologian Father Sullivan on the question of whether or not women can be ordained priests, as it is known he is liberal on this issue.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Same theology different language and emphasis. Unless someone can explain Gods essence I really think its a futile conversation as we witnessed for an entire week. Unless I missed the smoking gun and flash point in the conversations?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Bishop Ware is seen as a liberal ecumenist by some Orthodox, who do not recognise his authority on this issue. It would be similar to the situation where some Catholics quote the great theologian Father Sullivan on the question of whether or not women can be ordained priests, as it is known he is liberal on this issue.

Yes, there are some challenges in trying to get Orthodox to agree with us when they do not first agree with one another.

However, Maximus the Confessor, it appears, understood that the Roman Church was not in error.

The ‘Filioque’ controversy is, ultimately, a red herring.

 

[Tomdstone]

Same theology different language and emphasis.

That is the Roman Catholic POV, but not the Eastern.

 

[Tomdstone]

The ‘Filioque’ controversy is, ultimately, a red herring.

That is the Roman Catholic POV, to minimise the differences between East and West. The East looks upon these differences more seriously.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Sounds to me like there are a lot of egos involved, at least at the lay level. Good to read that clergy from both sides are open to dialogue and goodwill. Sometimes people need to dragged kicking and screaming to change.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is the Roman Catholic POV, to minimise the differences between East and West. The East looks upon these differences more seriously.

Just out of curiosity, the original text of the Creed includes this phrase: Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, God from God.

We Catholics still say ‘God from God’, but the Orthodox website I visited did not include that phrase.

Why the change?

 

[Peter_J]

I believe the Holy Spirit speaks for the Church through whomever He pleases.

Strictly speaking, we believe that as well. Hence how we are able to recognize books of the New Testament that were not written by St. Peter.

 

[Tomdstone]

Just out of curiosity, the original text of the Creed includes this phrase: Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, God from God.

We Catholics still say ‘God from God’, but the Orthodox website I visited did not include that phrase.

Why the change?

Here is the text in Greek as given on the Web site Symbolum Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum – Greek from the First Council of Constantinople (381):
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί·
Here is the English translation given in Schaff’s work, Creeds of Christendom
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
Here is the passage given at the Orthodox website
goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

 

[Peter_J]

Before anybody does some budging the Russian and Romanian orthodox churches need to stop thinking that being seen talking with a catholic is a great controversy and a sign of selling out.

That has not been my experience. I spoke with a Romanian Orthodox priest and he said that I was welcome in his Church at any time.

When you think about it, there are good and bad apples in every bunch. Anyone with much experience with the internet knows that there are Catholics who are hostile to the Orthodox and Orthodox who are hostile to Catholics. (Which is not meant as a put down to anyone who doesn’t have enough internet experience to know that – heck, I often think I should spend less time here and more time reading joint statements and other documents on the Vatican’s website. )

 

[Peter_J]

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - Pope Boniface VIII

Now if Pope Boniface misspoke that is fine. But you can’t fault people for taking popes at their word.

I suppose you are right about that. At the same time, I would take the highlighted:

It does, however, underscore the fact that** making egregiously mistaken claims against the CC is apparently acceptable within the EOC** - or is St. Justin considered glorified in spite of this remarks?

as being neither more nor less that dvdjs’s opinion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here is the text in Greek as given on the Web site Symbolum Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum – Greek from the First Council of Constantinople (381):
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί·
Here is the English translation given in Schaff’s work, Creeds of Christendom
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
Here is the passage given at the Orthodox website
goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Right. And we say:

God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Begotten not made, one in being with the Father.

So, ‘God from God’ was not in the original Greek text from Nicaea?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Loaded question much? Of course what he says is true. If you don’t believe it listen to your own pope.

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - Pope Boniface VIII

Now if Pope Boniface misspoke that is fine. But you can’t fault people for taking popes at their word.

Boniface did not misspeak, but what he said is often misunderstood. Catholic Answers Staff Apologist Jimmy Akin laid out the basics this way:

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough. We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

+++

Of course, if Jimmy were presenting this material to an Orthodox audience, I’m sure he would add supporting materials that would address Orthodox objections.

 

[Tomdstone]

Right. And we say:

God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Begotten not made, one in being with the Father.

So, ‘God from God’ was not in the original Greek text from Nicaea?

I wasn’t there, but according to these references,“true God from true God” comes after “light from light.”

 

[Tomdstone]

Boniface did not misspeak, but what he said is often misunderstood. Catholic Answers Staff Apologist Jimmy Akin laid out the basics this way:

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough. We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

+++

Of course, if Jimmy were presenting this material to an Orthodox audience, I’m sure he would add supporting materials that would address Orthodox objections.

I disagree, since I think that Buddhists and Jews can be saved.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I disagree, since I think that Buddhists and Jews can be saved.

Catholics do, too.

The key is to notice that Jimmy says these are “normative necessities” - but not absolute necessities.

He explains all this in detail with great clarity if you read the full article.