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

[tafan2]

One could ask the same question about Adam.

 

[Isaac14]

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?

If Christ took on the fullness of our humanity, then yes, He took on our propensity to sin, and really everything that came about as a consequence of the fall (esp. death). Yet, being God, He took all these things on without sin, and destroyed them through His death and resurrection.

Merits and pre-application and all that just don’t come up in Orthodox theology, at least not that I’ve come across (and I certainly won’t claim my knowledge is anywhere close to exhaustive). We hold that Mary was without sin, and this wasn’t because of any special action by God to make it so. Inheriting the consequences of sin (esp. death) does not make in a sinner or otherwise unholy.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If Christ took on the fullness of our humanity, then yes, He took on our propensity to sin, and really everything that came about as a consequence of the fall (esp. death).

Follow up question.

In Catholic theology, the propensity to sin is a result of the deprivation of sanctifying grace. In this way, to say Christ had the propensity to sin is to say that he was somehow deprived of sanctifying grace until his baptism. How can this be? He is 100% divine and 100% human, but somehow lacking sanctifying grace? How can Jesus lack anything?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

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”.

Not exactly true. Latins meant it in “per Filio” way which is how dogmatically it is defined anyway.

According to the Filioque teaching, it is impossible to see why the Holy Spirit could not be called a grandson!

he 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.

Those two statements actually explain themselves I guess. By the way, “through” also refutes above statement about grandson.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Not exactly true. Latins meant it in “per Filio” way which is how dogmatically it is defined anyway.

Exactly. And, if I remember correctly, this was clarified during ecumenical dialogue with the eastern churches and a joint statement was release to that effect.

As far as I understand, the objection to the filioque is no longer a doctrinal one. Rather, there is procedural objection to the Latin Church changing the creed without an ecumenical council. In other words, it’s more a papal primacy issue today.

Edit: the Filioque is a part of our Latin tradition and so it remains in the creed for us, but I believe the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to omit the filioque when they say the creed because that is a part of their Eastern tradition.

 

[Isaac14]

In Catholic theology, the propensity to sin is a result of the deprivation of sanctifying grace. In this way, to say Christ had the propensity to sin is to say that he was somehow deprived of sanctifying grace until his baptism. How can this be? He is 100% divine and 100% human, but somehow lacking sanctifying grace? How can Jesus lack anything?

The East and the West approach and explain things differently. I certainly am not saying Christ lacked anything - He lacks nothing. But in the Eastern mindset, saying He took on our fallen humanity in order to heal it does not imply He lacks anything.

The West understands and explains things differently and is internally self-consistent. But trying to understand East or West while holding on to our own way of thinking is going to be problematic.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Edit: the Filioque is a part of our Latin tradition and so it remains in the creed for us, but I believe the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to omit the filioque when they say the creed because that is a part of their Eastern tradition.

Not just allowed to omit it, they are kinda expected to- but that is dependent on what each Sui Iuris Church decides for themselves. For example, Greek Catholic Church of Slovakia considers Filioque to be part of their tradition and unity with Apostolic See as well as Roman Catholics in the country- because while Creed can sound heretical in Greek, it is not the language of this Sui Iuris Church.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I suppose that’s fair.

There are many many things I appreciate about Eastern theology, but I have a really hard time wrapping my mind around things such as this. It just seems like a contradiction to me.

 

[Isaac14]

he was somehow deprived of sanctifying grace until his baptism.

The hymns for the Feast of Theophany don’t speak to Christ receiving grace through His baptism, but rather that He sanctified the waters of the Jordan and that the triune God was revealed, confirming Jesus as the Son of God:

Troparion:
When Thou, O Lord, wast baptized in the Jordan, worship of the Trinity wast made manifest; for the voice of the Father bore witness to Thee, calling Thee His beloved Son. And the Spirit in the form of a dove confirmed the truth of His word. O Christ our God, Who hath appeared and enlightened the world, glory to Thee.

Kontakion:
On this day Thou hast appeared unto the whole world, and Thy light, O Sovereign Lord, is signed on us who sing Thy praise and chant with knowledge: Thou hast now come, Thou hast appeared, O Thou Light unappproachable.

Forefeast Troparion:
Be thou ready, Zabulon; prepare thyself, O Nephthalim. River Jordan, stay thy course and skip for gladness to receive the Sovereign Master, Who cometh now to be baptized. O Adam, be thou glad with our first mother, Eve; hide not as ye did of old in Paradise. Seeing you naked, He hath appeared now to clothe you in the first robe again. Christ hath appeared, for He truly willeth to renew all creation.

Forefeast Kontakion:
In the running waters of the Jordan River, on this day the Lord of all crieth to John: Be not afraid and hesitate not to baptize Me, for I am come to save Adam, the first-formed man.

Afterfeast Troparion:
The River Jordan receded of old by the mantle of Elisha when Elijah ascended into heaven; and the water was separated to this side and that, the wet element turning into a dry path for Him, being truly a symbol of Baptism, by which we cross the path of transient age. Christ appeared in the Jordan to sanctify its waters.

 

[Isaac14]

There are many many things I appreciate about Eastern theology, but I have a really hard time wrapping my mind around things such as this. It just seems like a contradiction to me.

I can say the same about the West. At the same time it’s hard to shed some of my Eastern mindset to fully understand certain things of the West that just sound off (even as intellectually I understand they aren’t)

 

[Dan_Defender]

In the 17th century, St Josaphat, archbishop of Polotsk, sought to join communion with Rome. He was accused of having ‘turned Latin’ and was then martyred. IMO the odds are not good.

 

[ReaderT]

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?

I’m no theologian. Perhaps I used “divine simplicity” incorrectly.

Not exactly true. Latins meant it in “per Filio” way which is how dogmatically it is defined anyway.

How about what they added into the Holy Creed then: “ex … Filio”? Why should I not believe that’s what they meant?

 

[ziapueblo]

We only recognize 7 in our liturgical calendar, “lex orandi lex credendi”, the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. So it is up for debate!

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

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!

Photius was quite frankly wrong and he was the only father to ever teach such.

The Father remains monarch as all ultimately orginates in him. The only way monarchy is destroyed is if there are two ultimate origins and two spirations but as the Florentine decree makes very clear, there is one ultimate orgin, the Father.

Secondly saying the Sonship is destroyed by the Son spirating the Holy Spirit manifestly misunderstands what spiration is. Spiration is not filiation (Begetting). Filiation is a property that belongs the Father alone. It’s what makes Him the Father. Hence there is no risk of the Holy Spirit being a grand son as he is not filiated by the Son not the Father.

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.

[/quote]

They must have an opposite relation. The Eastern Orthodox model does not contain this which is a big problem as persons in the Godhead are only distinguished by opposite relations.

Wandile:

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.

I would urge you to learn more about this aspect of your faith. It’s the west who have upheld absolute divine simplicity.

 

[Wandile]

We only recognize 7 in our liturgical calendar, “lex orandi lex credendi”, the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. So it is up for debate!

ZP

We Latin Catholics don’t commemorate any of them as far as I’m aware so that’s okay. You guys weren’t at most of them so it would be expected you don’t have a big relationship with them and hence don’t commemorate the latter councils liturgically. Just as the Oriental Catholics would only commemorate 3 ecuemnical councils. Just because we celebrate feats days of some saints liturgically doesn’t mean we don’t consider the others who aren’t commemorated as saints.

 

[Wandile]

tafan2:

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?

I’m no theologian. Perhaps I used “divine simplicity” incorrectly.

Not exactly true. Latins meant it in “per Filio” way which is how dogmatically it is defined anyway.

How about what they added into the Holy Creed then: “ex … Filio”? Why should I not believe that’s what they meant?

From the council of Florence:

“Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.”

 

[ziapueblo]

Most Byzantine Catholics I know, clergy and laity, believe we have only had 7 ecumenical councils.

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Most Byzantine Catholics I know, clergy and laity, believe we have only had 7 ecumenical councils.

ZP

With all due respect, they are wrong.
Many Catholics believe weird things, even clergy. What matters is what the church herself has declared and all fathers (eastern and western) confirmed Vatican II as the 21st ecumenical council and the second to be held at the Vatican. There’s just no getting around this.

To say Vatican II was not ecumenical, you would have to erase the eastern presence and participation at said council and the signing off of said council. In other words, you would have to rewrite history.

 

[ziapueblo]

Lol! They won’t go for that. V-2 expressly states that Eastern Catholics are to return to their ancient ecclesiastical heritage. If Eastern Tradition is 7 councils, then 7 councils it is. Now, I could see Eastern Catholics excepting V2 as ecumenical.

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Lol! They won’t go for that. V-2 expressly states that Eastern Catholics are to return to their ancient ecclesiastical heritage. If Eastern Tradition is 7 councils, then 7 councils it is. Now, I could see Eastern Catholics excepting V2 as ecumenical.

ZP

Vatican II was called the 21st ecumenical council… if they didn’t believe it so, then why did they attend, participate and sign off on it as the 21st ecumenical council?

The call to return to the eastern customs was reference to the Traditions, practices, rites and theology of the East due to latinization of eastern Catholicism at the time. It wasn’t a call to become Eastern Orthodox. To be eatsern you don’t have to be Eastern Orthodox.