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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Latin Church doesn’t even admit the truth of the Filioque, at least not as it was defined at Florence.

Just to clarify- Catholic Church agreed to use Nicene Creed without Filioque as it’s central Creed, to help Ecumenism. It did not try to invalidate Filioque as defined by infallible council but simply that it’s use in Creed is exclusive to Latin Rite- not entire Catholic Church. Eastern Sui Iuris Churches can formulate their Creeds differently than Latin Church, and vice versa. Armenian Church having different Creed is prime example of such thing happening in different communion, Oriental Orthodox one to be precise.

 

[George720]

Just to clarify- Catholic Church agreed to use Nicene Creed without Filioque as it’s central Creed, to help Ecumenism. It did not try to invalidate Filioque as defined by infallible council but simply that it’s use in Creed is exclusive to Latin Rite- not entire Catholic Church. Eastern Sui Iuris Churches can formulate their Creeds differently than Latin Church, and vice versa. Armenian Church having different Creed is prime example of such thing happening in different communion, Oriental Orthodox one to be precise.

Was not the giving of the Creed (Nicea 325) and its modification (Constantinople 381) for the sake of the union of the Christian Church, and is this not what was later (Ephesus 431) forbidden to be changed, a ruling never overturned by any later Ecumenical Council received by the whole Church?

It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges, and if they are laymen they are to be anathematized. ( Definition of the Faith at Nicaea )

The whole purpose of the Creed is to protect the unity of the Church Catholic - How can this be done if each of the catholic Churches makes up a different Creed?

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

any later Ecumenical Council received by the whole Church?

How do you define whole Church? If we include Miaphysites, nothing after Chalcedon is Ecumenical. Same way you exclude them, Catholic Church excludes Eastern Orthodox and hence it was received by whole Church in Catholic sense- by Maronites, and other Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, as well as by Latin Church. Using “accepted by whole Church” card does not do much, as by that logic either not even Nicea was Ecumenical as no Arian (who was in the Church before decision of the Council) accepted it, or two Bishops could hold a council, excommunicate everyone else and claim that since everyone else is out of Church, Council is Ecumenical as it is now accepted by entire, two-person Church… neither is logically sound scenario, and hence determination of Church and Ecumenical Council must be different than “accepted by those who agree with us”.

The whole purpose of the Creed is to protect the unity of the Church Catholic

I disagree, even before Nicea there were numerous Creeds in use by Christian Church, same way there were always more in use… while I can’t find any example of this in Eastern Orthodoxy post-schism (I guess other than Apostle’s Creed but idk if it is or is not in use anymore), Oriental Orthodoxy has Armenians using different Creed than other Churches in it, yet unity is not disturbed. Whole purpose of Creed is what it states it is- word Credum is linked to belief, it is linked to profession of faith. Creeds exist to profess the faith, which is universal and same in all valid Creeds- be it Nicene, Nicene-Constantinopolitan or Apostle’s Creed, or any other approved by Church in unity with Peter’s Cathedra. Was Nicea explicit in affirming that another Ecumenical Council can change the Creed? Wasn’t modification in Constantinople (381) done by local Council, not yet Ecumenical by the time it was finished? Wasn’t Toledo same kind of local council? Only difference you can find is that one was endorsed by Emperor, while other was not… I thought Bishops in attending Council of Toledo could exercise oikonomia to battle Arianism and help converts come to full truth- that Holy Spirit comes from the Father, through the Son, with Father as prime principle of Holy Spirit and all divinity, and include it in the Creed- exactly same way Greek Bishops could apply such thing in Constantinople.

 

[ReaderT]

We have had exactly 3 Theologians in the Orthodox Church: The Apostle John, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Symeon the New Theologian (1022 AD).

The first one: Saint John.

(John 15:26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

I haven’t read enough of Sts. Simeon or Gregory to reference them.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

(John 15:26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father , he shall testify of me.

You must have edited out part where he says “which proceedeth from Father alone” or “and not from the Son neither through the Son”, otherwise I don’t see any point Saint John made against Filioque. I do see Saint Paul calling Holy Spirit the “Spirit of the Son” and our Lord saying “whom I will sent to you” though…

St. Basil has said “Through the Son, Holy Spirit is joined to the Father and by himself completes the Holy Trinity”. St. Gregory Nazianus said manifestation of Spirit and the Son and their relations is different- hence Spirit is not the Son, neither inverse is true. St. Cyril of Alexandria has also said “from the Father and the Son” explicitly, as Coptic language allows for such expression- and from that. Alexandrian theological tradition also affirms Filioque, not just Latin one.

 

[dvdjs]

It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea.

You do realize that if you this to mean the specific words, then this anathema precludes the adoption of the Constantinople revision. Since that revision was later accepted as a legitimate Creed, and that Council as ecumenical - even though it was historically a local council that unilaterally changed the Nicean Creed - it is abundantly clear that the issue is not the formula of word but the faith itself. What is anathematized is Creed that contradicts the Nicean Creed.

(John 15:26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father , he shall testify of me*

This does not exclude the filioque; it does not say from the Father alone, anymore than biblical passages on being saved by faith say or justify the conclusion that we are saved by faith alone.

More importantly, the problem involves of the semantics of the word that is translated into English (or Latin) that involves procession. This work does not capture the overtone in the Greek (ἐκπρόρευσις) of origination. Curiously, while this distinction has been pointed out by numerous Orthodox, the English translation still uses “proceeds”, which does not capture the Greek.

 

[adamhovey1988]

We can hope for it, because Christ wills it. (John 17:21). I’m legitimately curious, whether or not anyone here has actually written any of the Orthodox Patriarchs on the subject. I wrote a letter to Patriarch Bartholomew a few years ago, but I never got to send it.

 

[George720]

You do realize that if you this to mean the specific words, then this anathema precludes the adoption of the Constantinople revision.

The date (Ephesus 431) rules out this narrow and legalistic understanding, because the addition at Constantinople (381) is included in that of Nicea (325), both of which are prior in time to prohibition of writing another creed… Which unity Ephesus affirmed…

It is abundantly clear that the issue is not the formula of word but the faith itself.

What is abundantly clear is that the Council wanted a single Symbol of the Faith…

This does not exclude the filioque; it does not say from the Father alone,

Well, it does not exclude Dudly Doolittle either…
It says that the Spirit of Truth is proceeding from the Father…
This Procession means ontological Source of Being…
Just as does “Singly/Uniquely-Begotten” of the Father…

It does not mean the economia of getting sent somewhere…

So that an etymological word study does not help…

Relation to “Only-Begotten” sets the context of the meaning of “is proceeding”…

You must have edited out part where he says “which proceedeth from Father alone”

Sincerity and kindness are a good thing, both of which are in short supply in my soul too…

Please forgive me…

geo

 

[George720]

How do you define whole Church?

I have seen on CAF the justification of the Filioque by means of the argument that it was approved by the “Ecumenical Council” at Florence… The Orthodox understanding is that Councils do make rulings, but they still need to be “ratified” by acceptance and usage of the whole Church in order that they be Ecumenical, and Constantinople fully rejected the Council at Florence upon the return of the delegates…

geo

 

[dvdjs]

The date …

The Creed that was read at sixth session of Ephesus 431was the Nicene Creed, not the Cosmopolitanism revision. The latter was approved at Chalcedon 451.

What is abundantly clear is that the Council wanted a single Symbol of the Faith…

What is abundantly clear is that they wanted one faith, with no tampering of the articulation of faith to accommodate heretical views - by name Hellenism, Judaism, and Nestorianism.

If the demand was literally for a single formukla of words, then the Nicence-Constanopolitan Creed would have to be considred to be anathematized. Also the Apotles Creed.

Well, it does not exclude Dudly Doolittle either…

So?
Dudley Doolittle is neither one in essence with the Father nor begotten of the Father before all ages.
Dudley was not discussed in the other biblical and Patristic support for the filioque.

This Procession means ontological Source of Being…

The word ἐκπρόρευσις has this meaning. The word procession does not. Why is the proper word not used in the Orthodox Creed in English?

The Orthodox understanding is that Councils do make rulings, but they still need to be “ratified” by acceptance and usage of the whole Church in order that they be Ecumenical, and Constantinople fully rejected the Council at Florence upon the return of the delegates…

That is historically inaccurate. Constantinople held to the union until controlled by the Sultan after the Ottoman conquest. The Kievan Metropolitan held to the union even for some time after that. In Moscow, it was Vasily II who made the unilateral decision to reject Florence and imprison Metropolitan Isadore.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This Procession means ontological Source of Being…

As a Greek word, yes. Latin word has different meaning. Coptic word has meaning similar to Latin one

Constantinople fully rejected the Council at Florence upon the return of the delegates…

Same way Copts rejected Chalcedon, council viewed as Ecumenical… and Nicea was rejected by huge population of those who were viewed as Christians before it’s decision- the Arians.

Sincerity and kindness are a good thing, both of which are in short supply in my soul too…

Please forgive me…

I thank you for rebuking me and hold no grudge for it nor anything else towards you, so there is nothing I can forgive you. @ReaderT I apologize for my unrespectful tone.

 

[George720]

What is abundantly clear is that they wanted one faith, with no tampering of the articulation of faith to accommodate heretical views…

Is this not the exact reason the Latin Communion for Her ADDITION of the Filioque TO the Creed? eg To address heretical Arian views? Or do you understand it to mean only to VALIDATE such heresy? eg The term “accommodate”?

If the demand was literally for a single formula of words, then the Nicence-Constanopolitan Creed would have to be considred to be anathematized. Also the Apotles Creed.

ONE Faith, ONE God, ONE Creed, ONE Baptism…

I mean, how can it mean anything other than “Don’t be messin’ with the Creed!”? It is not meant to be exhaustive, but inclusionary…

The Creed that was read at sixth session of Ephesus 431was the Nicene Creed, not the Cosmopolitanism revision. The latter was approved at Chalcedon 451.

This from a quick check on line:

It is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because it was originally adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day İznik, Turkey) by the First Council of Nicaea in 325. In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople, and the amended form is referred to as the Nicene or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed .

And I agree with you that it is rather cosmopolitan - I hate spell-corrector too!

Well, it does not exclude Dudly Doolittle either…

You left off the smiley!!
Which left it rather smelly, I say!
The simple point being that the absence of a negative does not prove a positive…
And you are right, it CAN leave open ROOM for the positive…
You need to remember you are posting with an elderly and wart-ridden TOAD…

The word ἐκπρόρευσις has this meaning. The word procession does not. Why is the proper word not used in the Orthodox Creed in English?

ἐκπόρευσις (And I confess to being your spell corrector here!) means “go forth out of”… It only means “to have as its ontological Source of Being” in the context of the Creed, to differentiate it from the “Only-Begotten” genesis of the Son… It is in this context that it takes on a radically new meaning in John - Which is why the Orthodox see Theology as DESCRIPTIVE, rather than as the West so often sees it, eg as Philosophico-Speculative…

That is historically inaccurate.

Historical studies was never my strong suit… All I know is that when they got back to Constantinople they were shamed by the people and the Church there and all save one recanted and told their sorry tale of the woes of that Council…

Thank-you for the lively discussion…

geo

 

[George720]

I thank you for rebuking me and hold no grudge for it nor anything else towards you, so there is nothing I can forgive you. @ReaderT I apologize for my unrespectful tone.

Thank-you for your gracious response - It is so easy here, and especially for old cranky buzzards like myself, to wobble a little on the rails of a disagreement… As for Reader T, being an Orthodox Christian whose treasury is humility, even by humiliation (she is the best bestower of humility bar none), I am surprised he has not thanked you by now for smacking him around a little…

But enough levity, I say!

What?

Are we Levites here??

geo

 

[dochawk]

would that mean Eucharist consecrated by Catholic Priest would be valid and salvific for Orthodox Christian?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) George720:

Not necessarily. There was a period in which at least one Orthodox Church instructed its faithful in England to attend and receive at the CodE–and maintained that while those around them would not, the Orthodox would receive the actual Presence . . .

Is it not true that there were cases where the widowed priest was allowed to take his children and live in the countryside and remarry so that the children could have a stepmother?

There are cases both for EO and EC in which widowed priests with young children were allowed to marry for the sake of the children by the exercise of Economia (or one of its other assorted spellings–I don’t have enough greek for that).

I could probably count them all on my fingers, too . . .

Well, the Catholic Church is more for a father than a sibling, since it has the primacy.

Leaving aside what primacy means, it is the mother church, in that sense, in any Papal writing I’ve read . . . and as @ziapueblo points, out we currently refer to sister churches (which doesn’t really exclude “mother church” . . .)

Also, primacy of the pope will likely never be recognized by the Orthodox in a juridical manner.

Actually, they historically did acknowledge this–but house modern terms, in an “appellate” rather than"immediate" sense

So what is the justification for the supremacy of the Pope with we are all just brothers?

“primacy” does not imply “supremacy” !!!

That would present an interesting (i.e., non-transitive) situation if these (unlikely) things happened:

non-transitive common is easy to find: currently, both the EP and MP are in communion with the rest of canonical orthodoxy, but not each other . . . and similar examples are of a “dime a dozen” frequency . . .

I do, though, get the impressioin that the OO are currently closer to the RCC than the EO in restoring communion. (at the moment, RCC and OO are at the “whoops! is that what you meant??? [blush]” stage with each other, rather than the “you’re wrong about . . .” of the EO and RCC . . .

Is there a real chance of communion between Moscow and Constantinople?

Breaking and restoring communion are downright common among orthodox churches . . .

hmm, I now notice that I’m replying to weeks old posts

 

[dvdjs]

Is this not the exact reason the Latin Communion for Her ADDITION of the Filioque TO the Creed?

This is the opposite of the what was anathematized at Ephesus. The objection was the tampering with the Creed to accommodate heresy, not the elaboration to combat heresy.

I mean, how can it mean anything other than “Don’t be messin’ with the Creed!”?

If that were the case,m the Constinipolitan :meessin’" would never have been accepted.

It is called Nicene

The Creed read at Ephesus was the Creed of Nicea 325.
The Creed of Constantinople 381 was not read.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I do, though, get the impressioin that the OO are currently closer to the RCC than the EO in restoring communion. (at the moment, RCC and OO are at the “whoops! is that what you meant??? [blush]” stage with each other, rather than the “you’re wrong about . . .” of the EO and RCC . . .

All I know is that when they got back to Constantinople they were shamed by the people and the Church there and all save one recanted and told their sorry tale of the woes of that Council…

That was half-true… some people were very strong proponents of the union, some were not. Anti-latin rhetorics played part as much as some people just wanting union at all costs… but union did survive until Muslims conquered Constantinople, and abolished it, appointed people loyal to them as Patriarchs and often sold the post. Muslims were surely motivated by politics and wanted to keep West and East in Schism, so no military help nor rescue ever comes from West nor can Rome grant anyone inside their borders valid excuse to depose Sultan. That does not invalidate Orthodoxy not those who opposed the union, but their victory was largely based on this.

There was a period in which at least one Orthodox Church instructed its faithful in England to attend and receive at the CodE– and maintained that while those around them would not, the Orthodox would receive the actual Presence . . .

Yeah, that is why I asked. I knew this happened with Church of England, but for what reason is Catholic Eucharist not the same then? Church of England has objectively worse claim to valid Priesthood and Eucharist. At the same time, I heard that other Patriarchs opposed this decision and said that it isn’t true that CoE has Eucharist which would be valid for Orthodox Christians. Now if I were Orthodox, I would be way too confused…

hmm, I now notice that I’m replying to weeks old posts

No worries! Your replies are appreciated

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Thank-you for your gracious response - It is so easy here, and especially for old cranky buzzards like myself, to wobble a little on the rails of a disagreement… As for Reader T, being an Orthodox Christian whose treasury is humility, even by humiliation (she is the best bestower of humility bar none), I am surprised he has not thanked you by now for smacking him around a little…

Now I am not sure who was it, but one of great Desert Fathers has once made similar point about humility. What a wise teaching by wise man. Humility is lacking in me too, pray for me, please.

 

[George720]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) George720:

I did not write the above - I am too woefully ignorant of the history of the CoE and its relations with the EOC… I do know that we were nearing inter-Communion for a while, and then turned from it…

I do, though, get the impressioin that the OO are currently closer to the RCC than the EO in restoring communion.

The Copts are much more humble than the EO converts in the US… Their Church is within the captivity and under the protection of an Islamic rulership… They may give a less “in your face” reply to the overtures of the Latin Church - But I think it an error to see this as a lack of resolve regarding the theological issues… And their difference from the EOC is, as a matter of fact, really hard to discern… The Latin Church has cast about to find in this ‘hard to discern’ issue a basis for a linguistic approach to theological resolutions… They have to be met head-on…

The Copts/OOs have been separated from the rest of the Church for 1700 years over our one word addition to the Creed - homo-ousios - And we have had a thousand year separation now from the Western Church with the addition of one word - Filioque…

Some matters are slow to resolve…

But the Copts do not budge in their dogmatics, so trying to read their ‘tone’ as an indicator of their willingness to unite with the Western Church of Rome is in all probability not a good idea, although it is a hopeful one…

Is this not the exact reason the Latin Communion for Her ADDITION of the Filioque TO the Creed?

I took another look, and you are right in the wording… Yet what is confounding is that Ephesus 451 is long after Constantinople 381’s completion of Nicea 325’s Creed - It was explicitly done, apparently, to not give heretics a way to add to the Creed in a local manner… Are you arguing that it was legitimized in the Latin view because of the Council of Florence? If so, then the problem is that the Council of Florence has never been received by the EOC’s Communions…

geo

 

[George720]

Humility is lacking in me too, pray for me, please.

And you, my brother, for me…

Amazing things often happen when one prays for another…

Contours of love and joy can emerge…

Thank-you again…

geo

 

[dochawk]

Yeah, that is why I asked. I knew this happened with Church of England, but for what reason is Catholic Eucharist not the same then?

That has always struck me as odd, a well. But I stopped expecting such things to be fully logical long ago