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

[ziapueblo]

With the Eastern Orthodox Church, but then again there has to be a central authority, one Orthodoxy lacks today and such lacking state results into petty squabbles of Moscow and Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem etc… Such internal schisms are never healthy for the Church.

I would point to the Chieti document.

Msgr. Paul McPartlan, a member of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that hammered out the Chieti agreement in an interview about the Chieti document said this…

when speaking about the Pope

“It’s clear there was no recognition that the pope had direct jurisdiction in the East, but nevertheless bishops from the East could make an appeal to him, and so, what we say is that that practice manifested the communion of the Church. The bishop of Rome has a special role in the communion of the Church.”

He then went on to say…

“So when we look at the first millennium it would be anachronistic to speak about the universal jurisdiction of the pope. What instead we have to do is look at the very significant role the pope played in the communion life of the Church, a role that was recognized in the East as well as the West. Although it is clear that the pope related rather differently to the Church in the West than to the Church in the East, nevertheless the bishop of Rome was recognized in the East as playing an important role in the Church as a whole.”

We’ll see what happens with further dialogue.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Interesting talk on Orthodox and Catholic Reunion from Reason and Theology (R&T). R&T is a somewhat well rounded show. Haven’t been so impressed the last few weeks.

ZP

 

[Lysander]

Immuculate Conception, partially comes from the typology of the Ark of the new Covernant and the ark of the old Covernant.

 

[Wandile]

George720:

Do you accept the Papal right of the Pope of Coptic Egypt to intervene into the Vatican when he wishes to do so?

Coptic Pope can intervene in any Coptic Orthodox Church, but that intervention is based on their primacy and status as Mother Church of all in this communion.

Gregory Palamas and the Doctrine of the Uncreated Energies of God…

Yes, something Catholic Church holds to be true. Palamism does not contradict Papal dogmas either way. St. Gregory was a wise, venerable man.

I’m pretty sure Palamaism contradicts absolute divine simplicity as it posits composition in God (God is both his essence and energies yet the essence is not the energies. Thus God is composed of Essence and energies in a real distinction). At least when it’s explained that’s what I get from it which is a pretty problematic teaching from a western perspective as it contradicts scripture which says :

“Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is.” - 1 John 3:2

We will see God as he is (i.e. in his essence). Palamism says we cannot see God in his essence but rather only see his energies.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

We will see God as he is (i.e. in his essence). Palamism says we cannot see God in his essence but rather only see his energies.

There is a post, posted at link Essence and Energies distinction? - #6 by Ghosty thread on CAF several years ago.

"The “debate” is, in my opinion (and I’ve devoted a LOT of time to studying this topic), a mountain out of a molehile. Long story short, both East and West have always spoken of the Essence and Energies of God (Energy is translated into Western theological use as “activity” or “operations”). Prior to the Schism there was really no division on this issue; that came with theological developments in the Byzantine East with St. Gregory Palamas and his debate with a theologian called Barlaam (in the 14th century).

Their disagreement was basically this: if we can’t comprehend the Essence of God, but we can experience His Energies, how are these two things related? Barlaam argued that the two are distinct, and therefore we can’t have a direct experience of God. St. Gregory Palamas argued that they are distinct but they are both Divine, and so we have a direct experience of God through the Energy, but not through the unknowable Essence. Barlaam countered that this would make two Gods, and Palamas responded that Barlaam’s solution runs against Scripture and Tradition, since the Apostolic teaching is that we become direct participants in the Divine Nature through Grace. Barlaam, denying that the Energy could be God, also denied direct participation in Divinity (at least that’s how Palamas presents his argument; we only really know of Barlaam’s beliefs through the writings of his opponent).

continued

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

"
In the West this debate quite simply never came up, or rather the sharing of Divinity with humanity was approached from a different angle (with the Protestant Reformation). The fact that humans can’t comprehend the infinite Divine Essence was resolved by simply pointing out that “knowing” is not the same as “comprehending”, much the way that I can know about the Sun without comprehending nuclear physics. With that distinction in place, there really wasn’t any need argue over the distinction between Essence and Energies, since the Divine Energy in this case is simply the direct operation of the Divine Essence (this manner of speaking of Essence and Energies also fits with the teachings of great Eastern Fathers like St. John of Damascus, but so does St. Gregory Palamas’ answer). In Western theology, saying that we experience the Divine Energy, but not the Divine Essence, is simply translated as “we experience the action of the Divine Essence without comprehending It”.

Kept within their own theological frameworks there’s really no contradiction between the two traditions. The problem comes when they encountered eachother without much effort at proper translation (a common problem you’ll find again and again between Apostolic traditions, going back to the Council of Ephesus at least). Remember, the Byzantine tradition (with St. Gregory Palamas) takes it as a given that we can’t comprehend the Divine Essence, and builds from there without making a distinction between “knowing” and “comprehending” the way the West did. Furthermore, there is no “partial sharing” of Essence in this system the way there is in Western theology (in the West it would be called “participation in the Divine Essence”); it’s all or nothing, since the Essence is what fundamentally defines a thing. The West gets around this by pointing out that “essential properties” can be shared without the essences themselves changing (basically, the West uses a less strict definition of Essence, broadened to include essential properties and not merely the “pure definition”). In the East, the “essential properties” get folded into energy instead, and essence is kept as the “simple definition”. Neither approach is right or wrong, so long as they are both internally consistant, and they are.

continued again

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So along comes the West saying “we share in the Divine Essence through Grace”, and the East hears this as “we become Persons of the Trinity through Grace”. From the other side, the East comes along saying “we can’t share in the Divine Essence, but only the Divine Energy (activity/operation)”. The West sounds, to the East, like it’s proposing the disolution of the self into the Godhead, and the East sounds, to the West, like its denying any real participation in Divinity. The irony, of course, is that both sides are actually saying the exact opposite from what they’re being heard to say.

Sometimes you will see this confusion compounded by the fact that the West uses the term “created Grace” to refer to our participation in divinity, the same terminology that Barlaam used to indicate that we DON’T share in Divinity through Grace (he used it to indicate a firm and sharp distinction between creature and Creator that could not be bridged in any way, not even by participation). In Western theology this term is used to indicate that our sharing in Divinity is something created (i.e. that our participation is created new, but what we participate in is not), not something eternal per se (in other words, we come into the Life of Grace, and are not born as extensions of Divinity in some kind of pantheism, like in Hinduism). The West drew this language from Scripture: “we are made new creatures in Christ Jesus”. The West was emphatically NOT saying what Barlaam is claimed to have said, but it uses the same terminology and that gets in the way when not properly understood.

That’s a brief overview, and I hope it helps! BTW, both approaches of theology are endorsed by the Catholic Church, so long as they are properly understood.

Peace and God bless!"

by Ghosty

I find this very helpful.

 

[Wandile]

I’m aware of Ghosty’s past attempts to reconcile the two but the west’s concerns are simplified to an unhealthy degree. They don’t just concern comprehensibility but the very truth of divine simplicity. The east in both Barlaam and Palamas said the essence and energies are distinct which is something the west completely denies as this would mean composition in God and thus a refutation of divine simplicity.

In the west we only speak of Energies or Gods activity in a theoretical way so as to understand him and speak of him but do not posit that this distinction is an actual reality in God which the east appears to be saying.

I could be mistaken though.

 

[George720]

Palamism says we cannot see God in his essence but rather only see his energies.

Thank-you for Ghosty’s post…

I like to start with John 17:3 -

αυτη δε εστιν η αιωνιος ζωη
This is Eternal Life

ινα γινωσκωσιν σε τον μονον αληθινον θεον
That they should know You, the One True God

και ον απεστειλας ιησουν χριστον
And Whom You sent, Jesus Christ

That term, γινωσκω, is the conjugal term used in the marriage bed of a man and his wife…
It means total and intimate union with someone…
It means the two becoming “into” one…

In terms of the Marriage of the Lamb, John 17:3 means Theosis…
It is the Gift of God Himself to man…
Moses KNEW God this way, as did John the Evangelist…

This union is the energizing of man BY God…
We know God by these Energies that ARE God…
We cannot know God in His Essence for this reason…

Because knowing means ontological union with…
To be one with God in His Essence would mean…
That we ARE God…

And we are NOT God…
We are one with His Creative Energy that IS God…
But not according to His Essence…

Hence apophatic theology is central for us…
And it pertains to God’s Essence…
Moses only saw the “backward parts” of God…

That is how I understand it so far…
Knowing is not epistemological…
It is union with, not concepts about, God…

geo

 

[AlNg]

Unwise? He was later deposed and died in prison awaiting trial for treason and heresy.

The papal declaration of excommunication of 1054 applied to the Patriarch Michael and all of his followers. All of his followers, would that not mean all Orthodox Christians?
" all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN."

 

[Wandile]

To be one with his essence does not mean you become God as the creature only experiences God finitely to the extent of that creatures finititude. To become God you would have to experience Him infinitely.

 

[Wandile]

dvdjs:

Unwise? He was later deposed and died in prison awaiting trial for treason and heresy.

The papal declaration of excommunication of 1054 applied to the Patriarch Michael and all of his followers. All of his followers, would that not mean all Orthodox Christians?
" all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN."

No as not all the east followed him in his actions. The patriarch of Antioch rebuked him for his antics for example.

 

[George720]

To be one with his essence does not mean you become God as the creature only experiences God finitely to the extent of that creatures finititude. To become God you would have to experience Him infinitely.

This is exactly the reason for the distinction, and for saying that we do not become one with His Essence, and it is why His Essence is not Communicable to us, and it is why we cannot know it - eg This is the utter justification of apophatic theology regarding God in His Essence… The Essence of God is that which makes God to be God, and of this we have no knowledge nor can we… Nor can we become one with it…

To say that man can become one with God’s Essence would thereby make man to become God… God created creation out of His Essence through His Creative Energies which proceed from His Essence… But as He said to Moses, “No man can look on My Face and live…” So the Divinization of man is by His Energies, not His Essence, because man does not become God, but does become “Godded” - eg Divinized - As Moses certainly was, having to cover his face which his followers could not look upon…

geo

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

To be one with his essence does not mean you become God as the creature only experiences God finitely to the extent of that creatures finititude. To become God you would have to experience Him infinitely.

This is exactly the reason for the distinction, and for saying that we do not become one with His Essence, and it is why His Essence is not Communicable to us, and it is why we cannot know it - eg This is the utter justification of apophatic theology regarding God in His Essence… The Essence of God is that which makes God to be God, and of this we have no knowledge nor can we… Nor can we become one with it…

To say that man can become one with God’s Essence would thereby make man to become God… God created creation out of His Essence through His Creative Energies which proceed from His Essence… But as He said to Moses, “No man can look on My Face and live…” So the Divinization of man is by His Energies, not His Essence, because man does not become God, but does become “Godded” - eg Divinized - As Moses certainly was, having to cover his face which his followers could not look upon…

geo

We can become one with God’s essence and not become God. It’s all about our extent of experience of the essence (a finite experience) as well as how much we actually comprehend His essence (we cannot fully comprehend Him). To say we experience God’s energies but not His essence means we don’t really experience God (As your essence is what you are and thus, God cannot be separated from his essence lest he stop being God) but only something like God as the energies don’t contain the essence of God. So how can one be truly divinised if one does not truly experience Gods essence.

Yes scripture says no man can see God and live but that is clearly in reference to our fallen state, not to our heavenly state as scripture says in 1 John 3:2 that we will be transformed and see God as he is (in His essence).

Do you believe we will see God as he is?

 

[George720]

We can become one with God’s essence and not become God. It’s all about our extent of experience of the essence (a finite experience) as well as how much we actually comprehend His essence (we cannot fully comprehend Him). To say we experience God’s energies but not His essence means we don’t really experience God (As your essence is what you are and thus, God cannot be separated from his essence lest he stop being God) but only something like God as the energies don’t contain the essence of God. So how can one be truly divinised if one does not truly experience Gods essence.

Yes scripture says no man can see God and live but that is clearly in reference to our fallen state, not to our heavenly state as scripture says in 1 John 3:2 that we will be transformed and see God as he is (in His essence).

Do you believe we will see God as he is?

Not in this life…

God’s Energies are not separated from His Essence…

Do you believe that you have personally experienced God’s Essence?

And if yes, what was the result?

geo

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

We can become one with God’s essence and not become God. It’s all about our extent of experience of the essence (a finite experience) as well as how much we actually comprehend His essence (we cannot fully comprehend Him). To say we experience God’s energies but not His essence means we don’t really experience God (As your essence is what you are and thus, God cannot be separated from his essence lest he stop being God) but only something like God as the energies don’t contain the essence of God. So how can one be truly divinised if one does not truly experience Gods essence.

Yes scripture says no man can see God and live but that is clearly in reference to our fallen state, not to our heavenly state as scripture says in 1 John 3:2 that we will be transformed and see God as he is (in His essence).

Do you believe we will see God as he is?

Not in this life…

God’s Energies are not separated from His Essence…

But they are in some way as the energies are what we encounter but not his essence hence they must be separated (as far as Palamism teaches) lest we interact with His essence which according to Palamism is not possible.

Do you believe that you have personally experienced God’s Essence?

And if yes, what was the result?

geo

I believe God is trully present in the Eucharist and thus his essence is there so yes I have experienced the divine essence. Also in Grace. I’ve been divinised and grown grace.

 

[dvdjs]

All of his followers, would that not mean all Orthodox Christians?

Why would it meant that?
Dis all orthodox follow him in error.
Were they all, like him, imprisoned for treason and heresy?

 

[George720]

God’s Energies are not separated from His Essence…

Just as human actions proceed from the heart of man, so also do God’s actions regarding His creation come forth from His Essence…

And just as a man’s actions are not his essence…
Neither are God’s actions His Essence qua God…

The essence (ousia) is that which is the source of actions…
Salvation is an essential work in man…
The Fall of Adam was the fall of his hypostasis into the rulership of death…
His Salvation is the restoration of that hypostasis by enhypostatic union with Christ…
The perfecting of that Restoration is Theosis…

Similarly with God, His Essence is full and complete prior to creation…
His Creation of creation did not add to or take away from God at all…
He is as Other in His Essence from His creation…
As is Henry Ford from the Model T Ford he created…
Except moreso…
And is utterly unknowable to man…

So if you think that by man partaking of the Divine Nature is the same as his partaking of the Divine Essence, and the Latin Church also believes this to be true, and especially if dogmatically true, then we will have another issue to resolve in order to concelebrate the two Communions…

And because the issues are real, they cannot be swept away with good intentions that deny their reality… The Palamite understanding is that God is absolutely in His Essence OTHER than His creation (Kosmos)… So that the Image of God in which God created man is not the Essence of God in Which He created him, nor the Likeness, from which Adam fell by turning away from God…

So that perhaps we have uncovered a basic teaching that is contradicted by the teachings of the two Churches… Someone said the teachings do not contradict, but are merely verbal, yes?

geo

 

[Roguish]

I’ve never met a single Eastern Orthodox Christian who took the slightest interest in the idea of Communion with the RCC. The other way around, yes. Some Roman Catholics feel that there’s something to be gained from a reunion, while no Orthodox feel that way. The Orthodox are entirely content to be separated from the RCC. They don’t look to the RCC with a subtle hidden envy the way many Protestants do. The idea that Reunion with the RCC might be something they need, is alien to the Orthodox. In this sense, Orthodoxy may truly be considered a separate religion, while most Protestant denominations remain “rebellious children” of the RCC. (The answer to OP’s question is therefore simply “no”.)

 

[Isaac14]

We must not have met, then.

I am Orthodox, and I believe restoration of communion between the Catholic and Orthodox churches is something to be desired and that we should all work towards.