Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

[Isaac14]

Thank you for a clear and concise answer - and one that enlightens why East & West have such a different view.

Being Orthodox, I’m obviously in favor of the Eastern understanding, in line with my quote from St. Gregory above, but I can appreciate where the West is coming from.

 

[tafan2]

My question is, if you believe that she inherited the propensity to sin, why is the Immaculate Conception considered just unnecessary? I seems that you actually consider it wrong.

 

[Isaac14]

My question is, if you believe that she inherited the propensity to sin, why is the Immaculate Conception considered just unnecessary? I seems that you actually consider it wrong.

It implies the Theotokos is different than the rest of us, lacking the propensity to sin.

Surely as God, Christ can heal us however He wants, but to me there’s a certain beauty in Him taken on the fullness of fallen humanity and healing that through His death and resurrection. If the Theotokos was unique in lacking a propensity to sin, He couldn’t take on the fullness of humanity through her.

 

[Isaac14]

I should add, I believe our theologians ought to be able to find a way for us to remain faithful to our respective theologies while yet coming to an agreement that the other is not “wrong.”

I firmly believe that restoration of communion is not going to come through either side giving up what defines them, but yet each is going to have to do some serious soul searching and being willing to understand the same truth in different ways.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I firmly believe that restoration of communion is not going to come through either side giving up what defines them, but yet each is going to have to do some serious soul searching and being willing to understand the same truth in different ways.

Yes, I agree with that. On the other hand, both sides should avoid misinterpretation of their doctrine just to please other side. Both extremes are extremely dangerous to unity / communion.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Orthodoxy does believe Adam’s sin caused something, right? And we believe Theotokos was free from it’s effects.

This makes no sense and imo derogates from the infinite dignity of Our Lord and His Immaculate and Ever-Virgin Mother.

If She inherited “both the propensity to sin and to death” then how could She be Theotokos? God created Eve immaculate (Gen. 1 & 2; Eve sinned in Gen. 3) so why would He not do the same and even more for the Woman who would bear His Only-begotten Son and thus crush the head of the serpent? Gen. 3: 15: [15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

[15] “She shall crush”: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.

When two persons are at enmity, they have nothing in common, they don’t speak to each other etc. Wisdom 1: 4: For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.

She would be unworthy of the dignity of Theotokos if She had “both the propensity to sin and to death”. God ordered that the Ark of the Covenant (which the Holy Fathers say is a type of the Theotokos) be covered with gold inside and out. Obviously, no human goldsmith could make the gold absolutely free from impurities.

The Annunciation:

[28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Chairo, kecharitomene…

God in His Infinite Mercy willed that the Woman who would bear His Only-begotten Son would be immaculate. Only He can do this because He is Almighty. C.f. Hymn of the Theotokos (Magnificat).

Cont’d

 

[tafan2]

So Christ did not have the propensity to sin, but did have the fullness of humanity. Yet if his mother had did not have the propensity to sin, he could not have had the fullness of humanity?

Why must his mother and not Him?

 

[Kullervo]

Well, If they really are Orthodox they should forgive, shouldn’t they?

 

[Isaac14]

If She inherited “both the propensity to sin and to death” then how could She be Theotokos? God created Eve immaculate (Gen. 1 & 2; Eve sinned in Gen. 3)

If Eve was created immaculate, i.e. with no propensity to sin, how could she turn around and sin?

 

[Wandile]

OrbisNonSufficit:

You will notice that in history, anyone who leaves Catholic Church stops having Ecumenical Councils,

I’m not sure the Catholic Church itself recognizes councils after the 7th as being “ecumenical”?

http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/71/71.3/10.1177.004056391007100307.pdf

Many Byzantine Catholics that I know only believe that there have been 7 ecumenical councils so it’s not just the Eastern Orthodox.

ZP

The opening address of Vatican II called itself the 21st ecumenical council and the second at the Vatican.

All fathers signed off on this (east and west). It’s not up for debate. There have been 21 not just seven.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

When Christ took on flesh from His Mother, He also took on these consequences so that He could destroy them through His death and resurrection.

Cont’d

Again, this doesn’t make sense. Our Lord Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two natures, Divine and human, in the unity of His Divine Person. (Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon). He is the New Adam (c.f. St. Paul) just as the Fathers from St. Irenaeus say that the Theotokos is the New Eve. “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”

Adam was created perfect by God (Gen. 1 & 2). He lost the Divine Life of God by eating the forbidden fruit and was driven with Eve from the garden (Gen. 3).

Since Christ is the New Adam, therefore He must have a perfect human nature exceeding the perfection with which He created the first Adam.
The first Adam had the gifts of immortality, integrity etc as well as the Divine Life of God. He did not experience death, sickness, weakness of the will until he disobeyed God. Again, Wisdom 1:4: For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.

The infinite dignity of the Eternal Son and Wisdom of God demanded that He assume a perfect human nature. How could this be if He had the propensity to sin and death? The ability to sin (concupiscence) is a weakness of human nature that occurred with the Fall. Adam and Eve were created perfect but sinned through their own fault. Also, He did not have to die but He willed to do so: “I lay down my life to take it up again.” (John 10:17)

Therefore, the Immaculate Conception was necessary because it prepared the Virgin to cooperate in our redemption.

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

 

[Margaret_Ann]

She was created with free will, which is not the same as the propensity to sin (concupiscence).

 

[Isaac14]

Given all this, are the Orthodox completely wrong?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

On the Immaculate Conception? Yes imo.

 

[ReaderT]

The catholic teaching on filioque looks like :

Father ——> Son ——> Holy Spirit

There is one Spiration not two. The Father and the Son together are one principal not two. The procession of the Holy Spirit is ultimately from the father through the Son (Who is everything the Father is except being the Father and thus has the Spirit of the Father as his own) . Thus monarchy of the Father is maintained as the other two persons in the Godhead find their ultimate origin in the Father. Thus the Son truly has the Holy Spirit proceeding from himself mediately while the Holy Spirit proceeds principally/ultimately from the father. Hence the dogmatic Florentine decree:

The Monarchy (“one-rule”) of the Father is not maintained if the Holy Spirit has the Son as (even part of) His source. Saint Photios (ca. 880 A.D.) says:

If, by begetting the Son, the power was given to the Son that the Holy Spirit would proceed from Him, then how would His Sonship itself not be destroyed when the Son, Who Himself has a source, became the source of Another Who is equal to Him and is of the same nature as He? According to the Filioque teaching, it is impossible to see why the Holy Spirit could not be called a granson!

The Eastern Orthodox diagram (and teaching) does not show how the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son nor does it show any relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit which is even more problematic.

They do have a relationship: they have the same Source (the Father) - somewhat like two siblings, but that’s not the best analogy.

In fact the Eastern Orthodox are the ones who have historically taken issue with Divine simplicity held in the west and criticized the west for teaching absolute divine simplicity due to the Eastern Orthodox belief in Palamism which fundamentally destroys divine simplicity.

I’ve never heard before that we don’t believe in Divine Simplicity.

To my mind it denies homoousion, one in being and essence with the Father. Biblically Jesus also states in Jn 16:7 that he will send the Holy Spirit:

Yes, but there’s a difference between sending the Spirit (like I’d send a student from my classroom to do something for me) and originating from Christ.

That’s actually a problem at least for me. It’s basically proto Arianism. It’s just another way of stating that Jesus isn’t one with the Father but that he is subservient to the Father.? Even in the model shown above it depicts Jesus as less than the Father. That’s a huge theological problem.

Jesus is “subservient” (Latin: “serves-under”) to the Father in one aspect because He does the Father’s will. But we also believe Him when He says “I and the Father are one” (One God, Three Persons).

 

[ReaderT]

Yes, because Son is Son because he is son of the Father. If Holy Spirit just proceeds from Father, then Holy Spirit and Son are paternal twins, and because their cause is the same and they lack nothing (as God lacks nothing), they are same.

The Son comes from the Father through begetting (“The Only-Begotten Son”) while the Holy Spirit does not (he “proceeds from the Father”). Clearly they are not the same.

which is exactly why Athanasius of Alexandria and many other Pre-Schism Fathers did say “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son”. This was traditional Eastern teaching, and even something Orthodoxy can agree with- and it is what Latins mean.

The problem is that the Latin doesn’t have “through” (“per”); it uses “ex”+ablative (qui ex Patre Filioque procedit), which means something different than just “through”.

It’s not clear to me. If three arrows violate divine simplicity, why do two arrows also not violate divine simplicity?

The problem, as we see it, is that “filioque” collapses the Trinity and turns the Holy Spirit into a “grandson” almost - this is from Saint Paisios from the 800s:

If, by begetting the Son, the power was given to the Son that the Holy Spirit would proceed from Him, then how would His Sonship itself not be destroyed when the Son, Who Himself has a source, became the source of Another Who is equal to Him and is of the same nature as He? According to the Filioque teaching, it is impossible to see why the Holy Spirit could not be called a grandson!

 

[Isaac14]

And, consequently, Eastern Catholics must accept the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Faith, so it has to be believed with the same divine and Catholic Faith as one believes that Our Lord Jesus Christ is True God and True Man.

PJPII said the church must breathe with both lungs. I don’t see the Immaculate Conception as a hindrance but as part and parcel of the Catholic Faith, both East and West.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Surely as God, Christ can heal us however He wants, but to me there’s a certain beauty in Him taken on the fullness of fallen humanity and healing that through His death and resurrection. If the Theotokos was unique in lacking a propensity to sin, He couldn’t take on the fullness of humanity through her.

A comment and a question:

First, as I understand Catholic teaching, in the Immaculate Conception God pre-applied the merits of Christ’s once and for all sacrifice to Mary. This application was perfect. Meaning she was once and for all free of any “stain of sin” (before she was conceived. In other words, she was exempt) so that she could be a fitting vessel for the Son of God. This is a bit different than saying that she was created a “unique” person. I don’t understand why the pre-application of the merits of cross means that “He couldn’t take on the fullness of humanity through her“.

Secondly, are you saying that the Orthodox believe that Christ had the propensity to sin (inherited from Mary)? If so, how could He be the spotless lamb that was slain in a once and for all sacrifice?

Edited to clarify there was never a time that she had the stain of original sin.

 

[tafan2]

The problem, as we see it, is that “filioque” collapses the Trinity and turns the Holy Spirit into a “grandson” almost - this is from Saint Paisios from the 800s:

If, by begetting the Son, the power was given to the Son that the Holy Spirit would proceed from Him, then how would His Sonship itself not be destroyed when the Son, Who Himself has a source, became the source of Another Who is equal to Him and is of the same nature as He? According to the Filioque teaching, it is impossible to see why the Holy Spirit could not be called a grandson!

But that is a different argument. Indeed, if Christ being a son does not violate divine simplicity, why the Holy Spirit being a grandson violate divine simplicity?