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

[TomH1]

I did not list everything. There are two many. The ones I gave were the ones most people think are the only two obstacles.

The Immaculate Conception links back to how the Orthodox see original sin differently. They do not see us as stained with this sin from Adam and Eve. Therefore, they do not accept the Immaculate Conception because they do not believe it was necessary.

This does not mean the Orthodox do not believe in original sin; they do. However, rather than seeing each individual as stained with it they believe it means that at the Fall we lost paradise and are prone to disease, sickness and sin, and that we have to die.

They hold Our Lady is the same high esteem we Catholics do. However, because of how they understand original sin they believe Mary did not need an immaculate conception.

 

[ReaderT]

From the Orthodox perspective, we believe we are the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” church. If we didn’t believe our church was right, well, we wouldn’t be here.

And obviously we don’t believe the Bride of Christ lacks anything. So there’s no reason for her/us to change.

Therefore the Orthodox response to how the churches can reunite is: you get rid of everything that’s not Orthodox, and then join us.

I’m not trying to sound provocative by saying that; it’s just the logical outcome of everything above.

 

[porthos11]

From the Orthodox perspective, we believe we are the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” church. If we didn’t believe our church was right, well, we wouldn’t be here.

And obviously we don’t believe the Bride of Christ lacks anything. So there’s no reason for her/us to change.

Therefore the Orthodox response to how the churches can reunite is: you get rid of everything that’s not Orthodox, and then join us.

I’m not trying to sound provocative by saying that; it’s just the logical outcome of everything above.

And this, people, is why re-establishment of communion is not going to happen. This attitude is typical among the Orthodox, including their bishops. There is none of the same good will or openness that the Catholics are willing to show. Yes there are similar attitudes among Catholics, but usually just insignificant laymen, not among the bishops.

God willing, we don’t get the same attitudes from the Oriental Orthodox, having come to a resolution of our Christological questions. The Eastern Orthodox are just a different story altogether.

 

[ReaderT]

There is none of the same good will or openness that the Catholics are willing to show.

I don’t think it’s a question of good will or ill will; this is the inescapable conclusion of everything we believe:

1. We believe our church is the True Church and Bride of Christ (or else we wouldn’t be there)
2. We believe The Bride of Christ lacks nothing and doesn’t need to change (why would She, when she’s already perfect?)

So we will continue to do what we’re doing.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

There is none of the same good will or openness that the Catholics are willing to show.

I don’t think it’s a question of good will or ill will; this is the inescapable conclusion of everything we believe:

1. We believe our church is the True Church and Bride of Christ (or else we wouldn’t be there)
2. We believe The Bride of Christ lacks nothing and therefore doesn’t need to change.

So we will continue to do what we’re doing.

We believe the exact same thing, and yet we are willing to talk.

We are willing to talk, yet unwilling to change because we believe the underlying our differences in expressions is a common truth which we both hold. When we approach the table, it’s with the knowledge and assumption that the Eastern Orthodox are not heretics. That’s why we can talk: we know that if we work hard enough, we can agree that our expressions and understandings can be harmonized without doing violence to either theological system.

The Eastern Orthodox do not have the same attitude towards us. It’s not about theology or truth. It’s the simple fact that you don’t like us. That’s why it’s a thing of good will, not theology.

We did you wrong in 1204, and that’s what this is really about.

 

[ReaderT]

We are willing to talk, yet unwilling to change because we believe the underlying our differences in expressions is a common truth which we both hold. When we approach the table, it’s with the knowledge and assumption that the Eastern Orthodox are not heretics. That’s why we can talk: we know that if we work hard enough, we can agree that our expressions and understandings can be harmonized without doing violence to either theological system.

The Eastern Orthodox do not have the same attitude towards us. It’s not about theology or truth. It’s the simple fact that you don’t like us. That’s why it’s a thing of good will, not theology.

We did you wrong in 1204, and that’s what this is really about.

I would respectfully disagree; I think it is very much about theology. There are two distinct (and mutually exclusive) theological systems, and one of them is going to have to be wrong. The “filioque” is one example where we differ: Catechism 246 makes clear that Catholics don’t believe in divine simplicity, while we absolutely do.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

We are willing to talk, yet unwilling to change because we believe the underlying our differences in expressions is a common truth which we both hold. When we approach the table, it’s with the knowledge and assumption that the Eastern Orthodox are not heretics. That’s why we can talk: we know that if we work hard enough, we can agree that our expressions and understandings can be harmonized without doing violence to either theological system.

The Eastern Orthodox do not have the same attitude towards us. It’s not about theology or truth. It’s the simple fact that you don’t like us. That’s why it’s a thing of good will, not theology.

We did you wrong in 1204, and that’s what this is really about.

I would respectfully disagree; I think it is very much about theology. There are two distinct (and mutually exclusive) theological systems, and one of them is going to have to be wrong. The “filioque” is one example where we differ: Catechism 246 makes clear that Catholics don’t believe in divine simplicity, while we do.

The filioque is a smokescreen, and the least of our concerns.

We already have Catholic churches who omit the filioque. The Latins have no problem with them, they have no problem with us.

And you’re wrong about divine simplicity. Catholicism holds on to divine simplicity as absolute dogma of faith, non-negotiatble.

Sorry, nice try, but this is not a point of disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox.

Again, smokescreens, all smokescreens to use as excuses to not come to the table. Our differences can be reconciled. It is not theology; it is attitude.

 

[Vico]

…
The See of Rome, a particular Church. The See of Constantinople, a particular Church. According to Popes of the last 50 years, Vatican II and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Rome and Constantinople are “sister Churches” not “father and daughter Churches.”

ZP

Also noting that sister churches includes the non-patriarchial churches, for example, each Catholic sui iuris church is a sister church, which including the Latin sui iuris church encompasses a total of twenty-four in full communion. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East, constitute many sister churches in each respective communion.

 

[ReaderT]

The filioque is a smokescreen, and the least of our concerns.

And you’re wrong about divine simplicity. Catholicism holds on to divine simplicity as absolute dogma of faith, non-negotiatble.

Sorry, nice try, but this is not a point of disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox.

The filioque issue is not a smokescreen, it is a very big disagreement, concerning the very nature of God, which is definitely not “the least of our concerns”!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Let me quote your Catechism, paragraph 246:

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. the Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration… And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

Clearly this is not divine simplicity: the Father begets the Son, but the Father and the Son together generate something else.

 

[porthos11]

Again, no it’s not. Our expressions do not violate divine simplicity, and the fact that we have filioque-less churches shows that it’s not as big an issue, and the two expressions can be harmonized, if only we just talk.

See we Latins can easily tell you: your lack of the filioque is fine, and does not contradict our filioque. You on the other hand, call us heretics, instead of also trying to provide the same attempt at understanding. Instead you just go “OH YEAH IT’A A HUUUUGE DISAGREEMENT!”

However, we have Peter, so heresy is not something his chair is ever going to throw out. You will never be able to say the same about Constantinople.

And that’s why this rupture is not going to heal any time soon.

The Oriental Orthodox showed a much more open attitude on the Christological questions and that’s why are a probably closer to intercommunion with them than we ever will be with you. Because you have such a hardness of heart towards your brothers that there’s just no talking with you.

 

[ReaderT]

The fact that we have filioque-less churches shows that it’s not as big an issue

Another (Catholic) poster in another CAF thread told me that even if some churches (Byzantines) don’t recite filioque, they still necessarily have to agree with that theology. So there’s a difference between that stance and the Orthodox stance: we reject that theology outright, which is all I’ve ever been saying in this thread: the problem is a theological one.

See we Latins can easily tell you: your lack of the filioque is fine, and does not contradict our filioque. You on the other hand, call us heretics, instead of also trying to provide the same attempt at understanding. Instead you just go “OH YEAH IT’A A HUUUUGE DISAGREEMENT!”

Whether or not “you Latins” say we can omit the filioque, the problem still remains that we would never allow anyone to admit it, because (as I showed in that picture), it is a different theology than what we believe. And so we can never be in communion as long as you believe in God’s nature differently than we do.

 

[porthos11]

porthos11:

The fact that we have filioque-less churches shows that it’s not as big an issue

Another (Catholic) poster in another CAF thread told me that even if some churches (Byzantines) don’t recite filioque, they still necessarily have to agree with that theology. So there’s a difference between that stance and the Orthodox stance: we reject that theology outright, which is all I’ve ever been saying in this thread: the problem is a theological one.

See we Latins can easily tell you: your lack of the filioque is fine, and does not contradict our filioque. You on the other hand, call us heretics, instead of also trying to provide the same attempt at understanding. Instead you just go “OH YEAH IT’A A HUUUUGE DISAGREEMENT!”

Whether or not “you Latins” say we can omit the filioque, the problem still remains that we would never allow anyone to admit it, because (as I showed in that picture), it is a different theology than what we believe. And so we can never be in communion as long as you believe in God’s nature differently than we do.

And I’m saying, we don’t. We may express it differently, but we believe the same thing.

We completely accept your theology as compatible with ours. You don’t. And that’s why I agree, we will never be in communion, but the obstacles will be due to you, not to us.

 

[ReaderT]

We may express it differently, but we believe the same thing.

Dude, I don’t know why you’re debating something that is crystal clear and no Catholic theologian denies: we don’t believe the same thing about the essence of the Holy Spirit. Read Catechism 246 and then read Photios’ “Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.” This is a well-established fact.

 

[AlNg]

We did you wrong in 1204, and that’s what this is really about.

Was it only 1204? Or was it also 1054?

The filioque is a smokescreen

If so, why was it mentioned in the papal letter of 1054 as a reason to excommunicate Michael Cerularius?

 

[Vico]

…

The monarchy of the Father is affirmed in the ontological procession “as from one principle and through one spiration”. (See Catechism “the principle without principle”, below.)

Catechism of the Catholic Church

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. 77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son ( filioque ). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, 78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, 79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

 

[Wandile]

porthos11:

The filioque is a smokescreen, and the least of our concerns.

And you’re wrong about divine simplicity. Catholicism holds on to divine simplicity as absolute dogma of faith, non-negotiatble.

Sorry, nice try, but this is not a point of disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox.

The filioque issue is not a smokescreen, it is a very big disagreement, concerning the very nature of God, which is definitely not “the least of our concerns”!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This diagram is wrong for the catholic teaching

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 Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration… And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

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.

 

[Wandile]

porthos11:

We are willing to talk, yet unwilling to change because we believe the underlying our differences in expressions is a common truth which we both hold. When we approach the table, it’s with the knowledge and assumption that the Eastern Orthodox are not heretics. That’s why we can talk: we know that if we work hard enough, we can agree that our expressions and understandings can be harmonized without doing violence to either theological system.

The Eastern Orthodox do not have the same attitude towards us. It’s not about theology or truth. It’s the simple fact that you don’t like us. That’s why it’s a thing of good will, not theology.

We did you wrong in 1204, and that’s what this is really about.

I would respectfully disagree; I think it is very much about theology. There are two distinct (and mutually exclusive) theological systems, and one of them is going to have to be wrong. The “filioque” is one example where we differ: Catechism 246 makes clear that Catholics don’t believe in divine simplicity, while we absolutely do.

This must be the weirdest quote I have seen all day.

Catholics steadfastly uphold classical theism and absolute divine simplicity as a dogma of the faith. This teaching underpins everything we believe about God and why the persons of the Trinity can and must only be distinguished by opposite relations.

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.

 

[Nicene]

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.

John.1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God;
3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.
8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.
9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.
11 He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.
12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

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:

Jn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

As well as Jn 20:22-23. Honestly I just see it as a modern version of Arianism. God became man Jesus, in whom the fullness of God dwells (Colossians) not a small divided part. It certainly isn’t the west who abandoned divine simplicity.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

One reason was that the Greek Church had allowed married priests.

Actually, while Apostles were married, sexual relations between anyone celebrating Eucharist (Bishop or Priest) and his wife were forbidden. East changed this practice, while West enforced it even further to the point West was asking itself a question “Why even let them marry then? It just brings married men who already have kids into giving out Church property and they can’t live with their wives anyway after ordination”. Of course, nowadays West demands nothing like that from East- but practice of continence is ancient as Church itself, and hence it was East who changed the practice (though, they have right to do so arguably) and not the West. Fact currently Rome respects that change does mean East can make that innovation- but it doesn’t change that it was innovation.

Anyway, Cardinal Humbert was just trying to get anything and everything he could find to put on his invalid Decree of Excommunication. I would not give it much thought. After all, 50 years after mutual excommunication, some Latins asked Emperor why is Pope not on their diptychs and Byzantines actually had to check archives because no one knew. During Latin Empire age, when Excommunicated Crusaders effectively ruled Byzantium, every Orthodox person in the Empire viewed their Byzantine Clergy being replaced by Latin Clergy as “Spoils of War” and attended Latin Masses, as they viewed that to be one Church. Schism was far from fermented back then. Who truly fermented Schism was Sultan who did not like hope of Western Christians ever coming to help their brethren. Russian Princes used their anti-Catholic agenda after Florence to conquer Catholic lands, to get some sort of authority over other Slavic Christians and etc. It was mostly political agenda which propagated Schism.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I certainly hope Communion is possible. God does not desire that the Body of Christ remain fractured. God desires healing and oneness.