Is there a movement for Catholic and Orthodox to join back together?

[bmaz]

Do some more research.

I’m interesting in seeing some resources from both you and dochawk, since you are both saying opposite things. I can never get to the truth. Is it possible to provide links to where we can see what is what here? And not just a site that says it is one way or another, but actual proof if there is any?

 

[dochawk]

Wither wikipedia or a real encyclopedia will give you the dates of the councils, as well as the specific controversies that led to the addition of the flioque.

While wikipedia is generally accurate, it does seem to be expressing some offbeat theories as “generally accepted” for the council of Constantinople (i.e., that it didn’t issue the decrees associated with it). Aside from those, its timeline is generally correct.

hawk

 

[brian_custer]

good grief; is this the only thing separating us?

how about we argue about angels dancing on a pinhead?

what theological horse hockey

 

[Augustinian]

Actually, Brian, there are quite a few matters of dispute with the Eastern Orthodox people.

Example given, their procedures for Holy Communion are a lot more specific, a lot more involved.

This is from a local Russian Orthodox church here in Pittsburgh:

The holy Orthodox Church has set forth guidelines for the faithful in order that they might properly prepare themselves for the joyous partaking of the divine Body and the precious Blood of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. Each of us should strive to follow these guidelines to the best of our ability, they include:

1.     Attendance at Vespers the night before drawing near to the Holy Chalice at the Divine Liturgy.

2.     Observance of the fasting regulations of the Church during the week before Communion, and since the last confession made.

3.     Fasting from all food and beverage (including water) from midnight on the day in which Communion is being received.  If one must break the fast for medically reasons – one should still draw near to the chalice.

4.     Reading of the appointed Pre-Communion prayers; after Holy Communion, the Post-Communion prayers should be read as well.

5.     Before approaching the divine Mysteries of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ, one must be at peace with all others.

6.     A recent confession should have been made before Communion. Members of the faith should make confessions as often as possible, and must confess immediately before Communion if they have neglected the Church's guidelines for fasting, Church attendance, or the like. Likewise, confession should always immediately precede Communion if a person has committed any transgression against God or neighbor that would defile his presence at the partaking of Holy Communion.

As you can see, this is just a lot more than what Catholics are used to, I can’t see any agreement really on this.

 

[brian_custer]

this seems to be ritualistic in difference;

where is the conflict in theology?

 

[ziapueblo]

I’m not sure that “disputes” with the Orthodox Church are the write words to use. As a Byzantine Catholic, we are called, by Rome mind you, to go back to our ancient ecclesiastical heritage. We are called to be Orthodox in our liturgy, theology, spiritual life, etc. So when we say “disputes” with the Orthodox practices, some Byzantine Catholics, might feel as if some are saying that there is a “dispute” with us as well.

When we look at fasting rules, the Latin Church had much stricter fasting rules until Blessed Pope Paul VI apostolic constitution Paenitemini changed the strictly regulated fasting requirements.

ZP

 

[dochawk]

That just plain isn’t a conflict, but a difference.

Not all Orthodox churches have the same “rules”. Also realize that in the east (both EC and EO) such things, particularly fasting “rules”, are ideals to which we strive, not judicial, penalty of sin issues like in the west.

Not one right and the other other wrong, but different.

hawk

 

[dvdjs]

The Filioque was added over Western heresy (in Spain and France) , not Eastern (and was fought and denounced by popes for over a century before being adopted.

You presuambly realize that the the heresy in question was the Arian heresy which is an Eastern Heresey that was brought to Spain by the Goths who were driven West.

 

[dochawk]

I think a strong majority of the heresies over the millennia have been variants of Arianism (and, bizarrely, this includes both Mormonism and Mohammadism).

The particular outbreak that led to the Filioque was in the West.

hawk

 

[dvdjs]

I think a strong majority of the heresies over the millennia have been variants of Arianism (and, bizarrely, this includes both Mormonism and Mohammadism).

Yes. There is a body of opinion that displaced Arian Christians were involved in the development of Islam.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Please be a little more specific to the subject you are addressing.

Dochawk and I are saying the same thing, but we are giving two different perspectives to the subject of the Creed and the Filioque.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I think a strong majority of the heresies over the millennia have been variants of Arianism (and, bizarrely, this includes both Mormonism and Mohammadism).

I would agree and to include the Jehovah witnesses who have a type of Arian view of Jesus divinity and humanity. Rest assure, that the “filioque” had already settled and debunked all forms of the Arian heresy for all time.

The forms of Arian heresies you mentioned, come along much later after the Eastern Arian heresy tried to infect the Western Church. The Goth’s came from the East and brought their Arian priest who were Emperor supported.

These Arian priest used a new tactic to cause dissension within the Western Church. These heretics claimed the Nicene Creed professed in the Latin language proves that Jesus was not God. Because the Nicene Creed only has the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and not the Son. Remember these are learned Imperial Arian Priest.

The Church included the filioque which did not change the Nicene Creed, but only confirmed what the Nicene Creed professed that Jesus is God.

As, St. Hilary claimed; When, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son, How difficult is it to conceive, while the Spirit is proceeding through the Son, that the Spirit has proceeded and also from the Son. In fact, when Jesus breathed the power over the Church to teach, preach, baptize, FORGIVE SIN!, did not the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son?

The Apostles Creed is already in full use by the Roman Church in 150 a.d. This baptismal Creed, followed the Didache (96 a.d) in instructing catechumen and administering the Sacraments. The Apostles Creed is used to confirm those in the Apostolic Faith, which separated them from the heretical Gnostic and Marcion teachings.

Centuries later the Nicene Creed is introduced in order to defeat the multiple Eastern heresies infecting the Eastern Church’s.

When the Arian Eastern heresy reached the lands in the West. The Western Church defeated the Arian heresy again with the Nicene Creed and confirmed the Apostolic faith by declaring the filioque, which silenced the Arian’s who later converted to the Nicene Creed faith.

My point to this discussion relates to a hopeful OP discussion, that when the Church has defeated heretics and heresies by separating the sheep from the goats in declaring the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, filioque, canon of the bible and doctrine. We should not use these as a matter of tension in order to feed a schism, especially when the arguments involve secular powers influencing the arguments.

History proves that the Church being Rock will not be move by every wind of doctrine invented by men. If? there were ever a movement to unite West with the East. First thing would be to remove all secular influences, remove all secular powers from each Christian subject in question. Once this is done, that which is divinely revealed to us by God, stands alone and can be easily discerned by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in order to give to the Caesars’ what belong’s to Caesar and give to God what belong’s to God.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

this seems to be ritualistic in difference;

where is the conflict in theology?

We act as if there are 48,000 gods, and it seems obvious that they are worshipping the 47,999 wrong ones.

We are all created by the same God, the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We should unite under ‘One God’; our squabbling makes no sense.

 

[dochawk]

Yes. There is a body of opinion that displaced Arian Christians were involved in the development of Islam.

It has the basics: the acceptance that Jesus was Messiah of the Old Testament and the rejection of his divinity . . .

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

this seems to be ritualistic in difference;

where is the conflict in theology?

I would agree that there exist many differences in religious disciplines and practices. For example; our Latin priest take a vow of celibacy, poverty and obedience, and the Orthodox allow their priest to engage in Holy Matrimony.

The conflict in theology stems from the Orthodox’s misunderstanding of the Latin language and rejection of the Latin expression of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

So long as the Orthodox Church’s hold to the ecumenical Councils ratified by the Bishop’s of Rome. There is never a conflict of theology. Although an Orthodox would object to a theological interpretation from the Latin West, by trying to force an Orthodox Greek expression into the Latin expression, which becomes the tension of not only error on the part of the Orthodox, but a clear misunderstanding of the Latin expression of the Catholic faith.

Example; The filioque. The filioque is supported by pre-Constantinople East and Western Fathers, as Latin expressed in the Nicene Creed. When the Father and the Son are consubstantial, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. When the Orthodox remove the filioque outside of the Nicene Creed as expressed in the Latin Rite. The Orthodox filioque creates a monster. This is mainly due to the misunderstanding of the Greek expression as the Father being the principle source, while the Latin expression in the filioque is expressing the eternal relationship of the God head.

 

[brian_custer]

these ritualistic differences; eg “when you can have a glass of water” before communion shouldn’t’ve divided Mother Church

was this was a “schism” or a difference in ritual & minor & obscure points in theology?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

these ritualistic differences; eg “when you can have a glass of water” before communion shouldn’t’ve divided Mother Church

Sunday’s Gospel comes to mind…

Gospel Mk 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23

When the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem
gathered around Jesus,
they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals
with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands.
—For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews,
do not eat without carefully washing their hands,
keeping the tradition of the elders.
And on coming from the marketplace
they do not eat without purifying themselves.
And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed,
the purification of cups and jugs and kettles and beds. —
So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him,
“Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders
but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?”
He responded,
"Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.
You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition."

He summoned the crowd again and said to them,
"Hear me, all of you, and understand.
Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person;
but the things that come out from within are what defile.

“From within people, from their hearts,
come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder,
adultery, greed, malice, deceit,
licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.
All these evils come from within and they defile.”

 

[Vonsalza]

When the Arian Eastern heresy reached the lands in the West…

Why are so many Roman Catholics so zealous to label Arianism as “eastern”?

The Goths that largely carried it were eastern Germanic tribes, but Germanic tribes nonetheless. So Roughly modern day Poland. This is smack-dab central Europe.

The best preserved Arian Gothic architecture is in Ravenna. Italy. That’s not “eastern” by any real stretch.

Arius himself was a Berber. That’s the western side of North Africa.

Just wondering, again, why so many RCs consider this “eastern”?

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

First of all the Western Church never had any bishop, priest or laity deny the full humanity and full divinity of Christ.

Not until the Eastern Imperial supported Goths came from the East to the West. While these Goth’s worked for the Eastern Emperor, the Arians became the Imperial supported Church’s, and converted all Goth’s to the Arian heresy not the Nicene Creed.

The Goth’s entered Spain, which was a Nicene Creed Catholic faith and because of the Goth’s Imperial support, they built their own Church’s and placed their own Arian Bishop’s and priest who were well learned, and began to spread the Eastern Arian heresy. Although with a different tactic. They used the Nicene Creed to prove Jesus was not divine. The Bishop of Rome and Her (I’m sad to say it, but it’s true), western Imperial support defeated the Arians and included the “Filioque” so that the simple people can profess their Nicene Creed that Jesus is God, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[Vonsalza]

First of all the Western Church never had any bishop, priest or laity deny the full humanity and full divinity of Christ.

This isn’t super-relevant to my question, but I’ll respond to it anyway - I think the heresy of adoptionism was born in Rome.

At any rate…

Not until the Eastern Imperial supported Goths came from the East to the West.

It wasn’t so much “supported” as much as it was “made the best of a mass invasion by giving them a place to settle (read: sheath their axes)”.

When the migrations began that killed the Western Empire and hemmed the Eastern one, the respective emperors didn’t invite these people in. The came by the hundreds of thousands in a migratory domino effect. Starting with the Scandinavians (from Gotland, giving the Goths their name) and domino-ing into the Germanic peoples which domino-ed into the Roman Empires - east and west. Probably driven by a mini-ice age where these folks had to move south or watch their babies starve.

Point overall being - these weren’t “eastern” people.

While these Goth’s worked for the Eastern Emperor, the Arians became the Imperial supported Church’s, and converted all Goth’s to the Arian heresy not the Nicene Creed.

Arianism among Romans (and thus the "Imperial Church (whatever that means)) was largely dead within a few decades after Nicaea.
But you’re right in that the Goths began conversion to Arianism from German paganism during the early migration when they spanned from Venetia to Thrace.

The Goth’s entered Spain, which was a Nicene Creed Catholic faith and because of the Goth’s Imperial support,

With, presumably, Byzantine Imperial support?

Fair question - do you have a source for this? In my studies, I had the idea that the Goths and the Byzantines tolerated each other and worked together only when it was mutually beneficial.

I have difficultly accepting a claim that the Eastern Imperial Throne directly supported insurrection against Western Imperial holdings in Hispania.

The Bishop of Rome and Her (I’m sad to say it, but it’s true), western Imperial support defeated the Arians and included the “Filioque”…

When the Goths dropped Arianism in favor of Trinitarianism of their own will, the Western Empire was a hundred years in its grave, making your statement here kind of impossible…

---

So to be crystal clear, Arianism is an “eastern phenomenon” because a portion of the Gothic migration encountered it while they were Byzantine tributaries? That’s what it boils down to?