Is there any chance the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches will reunite in the future?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
patricius79 said:
Hi Keeperer,

I don’t know about those things. I think the issue of whether one can add to the Creed is a related-and-distinct issue from whether the Spirit receives His Being from the Father and the Son.

As I understand it, both the Eastern and Western fathers understood that the Spirit receives His Being from the Father and the Son.

For example, Gregory Nazienzen said that if there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not. And the Fifth Ecumenical Council said that they in every way followed the teachings of Gregory Nazienzen, and Augustine, Ambrose, and other who taught this idea.
cin.org/users/jgallegos/filio.htm
Click to expand...
For example saint Ambrose of Optina condemned Filioque. What now? We need an supreme authority, and that is Ecumenical Council.
 
Keeperer said:
For example saint Ambrose of Optina condemned Filioque. What now? We need an supreme authority, and that is Ecumenical Council.
Click to expand...
Hi Keeperer,

Thank you.

I believe that Ecumenical Councils, in communion with the Vicar of Christ, do have supreme authority.

Why did Ambrose of Optina condemn the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Did any of the early Church fathers condemn the idea that the Holy Spirit recieves His Being from the Father through the Son?

Thank you,

Pat
 
patricius79 said:
Hi Keeperer,

Thank you.

I believe that Ecumenical Councils, in communion with the Vicar of Christ, do have supreme authority.

Why did Ambrose of Optina condemn the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Did any of the early Church fathers condemn the idea that the Holy Spirit recieves His Being from the Father through the Son?

Thank you,

Pat
Click to expand...
Orthodox have different view on Ecumenical Council and papacy. Pope is not vicar of Christ, pope is also not the head of the Church, according to the Orthodox, pope is the bishop of Rome, and Christ is the head of the Church. Also about Ecumenical Councils, Orthodox do not really care if someone who is not Orthodox does not accept the Council, Rome no longer has a voice in the Councils of course, because Rome is no longer in communion with the Orthodox Church.

You see now why unity between Rome and the Orthodox Church is impossible. This dead-end happens in any theological debate. You guys past some saint quotes. We paste some other quotes. You paste more, we say it is forged. You quote Bible, we say it is sola scriptura, then we quote Ecumenical Councils, you say Rome didn’t really accept it. And at the end we agree to disagree.
 
Keeperer said:
Orthodox have different view on Ecumenical Council and papacy. Pope is not vicar of Christ, pope is also not the head of the Church, according to the Orthodox, pope is the bishop of Rome, and Christ is the head of the Church. Also about Ecumenical Councils, Orthodox do not really care if someone who is not Orthodox does not accept the Council, Rome no longer has a voice in the Councils of course, because Rome is no longer in communion with the Orthodox Church.

You see now why unity between Rome and the Orthodox Church is impossible. This dead-end happens in any theological debate. You guys past some saint quotes. We paste some other quotes. You paste more, we say it is forged. You quote Bible, we say it is sola scriptura, then we quote Ecumenical Councils, you say Rome didn’t really accept it. And at the end we agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Hi Keeperer,

I get that. But the early Fathers, such as St. John Damascene, apparently taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
cin.org/users/jgallegos/filio.htm

Do you know if there any Church fathers who rejected this idea?

As a Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the Infinite Love of the Father and the Son for each other… Do the Orthodox dogmatically reject this belief?

Peace,

Pat
 
Keeperer said:
Orthodox have different view on Ecumenical Council and papacy. Pope is not vicar of Christ, pope is also not the head of the Church, according to the Orthodox, pope is the bishop of Rome, and Christ is the head of the Church. Also about Ecumenical Councils, Orthodox do not really care if someone who is not Orthodox does not accept the Council, Rome no longer has a voice in the Councils of course, because Rome is no longer in communion with the Orthodox Church.

You see now why unity between Rome and the Orthodox Church is impossible. This dead-end happens in any theological debate. You guys past some saint quotes. We paste some other quotes. You paste more, we say it is forged. You quote Bible, we say it is sola scriptura, then we quote Ecumenical Councils, you say Rome didn’t really accept it. And at the end we agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
That’s about right (forgiving you for getting some things backward, e.g. saying that Rome no longer has a voice in the Councils because Rome is no longer in communion with the Orthodox Church, when really it’s the Orthodox who no longer have a voice in the councils because you aren’t in communion with Rome 😊 :)).

Hence why I say that a union of those two churches with each other is less likely than a union between one or the other of them and a smaller church. :cool:
 
patricius79 said:
Hi Keeperer,

I get that. But the early Fathers, such as St. John Damascene, apparently taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
cin.org/users/jgallegos/filio.htm

Do you know if there any Church fathers who rejected this idea?

As a Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the Infinite Love of the Father and the Son for each other… Do the Orthodox dogmatically reject this belief?

Peace,

Pat
Click to expand...
It is this God alone - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - that we confess, the God Who was manifested on the day of the Baptism of the Lord, at Holy Theophany, when the worship of the Trinity was made manifest, as the Dismissal Hymn of the Feast says. What was revealed on that day is what we confess in the Church of Christ. As St. Gregory the Theologian says:

When I say God, I mean the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, without extending the Godhead beyond this number of persons, for fear of introducing a plurality of Gods, and without restricting Him to a smaller number, for fear of being accused of diminishing the Godhead; by admitting only one principle, I would fall into Judaism, and by admitting several, into paganism.
We confess the three persons or hypostases of the Holy Trinity, the only God. Since their divine essence or nature is one, the three hypostases, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit possess all in common, except their personal or hypostatic properties:
  • the property that distinguishes the Father is that He is unbegotten;
  • the property that distinguishes the Son is that He is begotten of the Father;
  • the property that distinguishes the Spirit is that He proceeds from the Father.
    As St. Gregory the Theologian says:
What is common to the Father, to the Son and to the Holy Spirit is the divinity or uncreated nature. (What is common to the Son and to the Holy Spirit is to have their origin form the Father.) The attribute proper to the Father is to be unbegotten, generation is proper to the Son and procession is proper to the Holy Spirit.
Likewise St. John Damascene says:

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all things, except for being unbegotten, for being begotten and for proceeding. The three hypostases differ from one another merely in these personal properties, but not in their essence.
Our knowledge, therefore, is a very limited one. Very little has been revealed about the eternal existence of the Holy Trinity because very little knowledge is necessary for our salvation. And even what has been revealed remains incomprehensible to us, for, as the Prophet Esaias says: Who shall declare his generation? (Es. 53,8). The divine essence is totally unknowable not only to us, but even to the Holy Angels. We only know that God’s uncreated energies, namely, Love, Will, Righteousness, and so forth, which are common to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are infused into those who have prepared themselves to receive them, as much as they can endure, according to the economy of our salvation, in the Church of Christ, by participating in the Holy Mysteries and living the life in Christ.

Therefore, we confess the genuine Trinity that has revealed Himself - Father, Son and Holy Spirit; they are One distinctly and distinct jointly, St. Gregory the Theologian says, and he adds: however paradoxical this phrase may be, in order to show the revealed nature of this mystery, which is incomprehensible to human reason.

Also we Orthodox believe that many saint works were forged by the Latins in order to support Filioque. We claimed it in 9th century during saint patriarch Photius, we claimed it in Flroence in 15th century, and we still claim it.
 
Peter_J said:
That’s about right (forgiving you for getting some things backward, e.g. saying that Rome no longer has a voice in the Councils because Rome is no longer in communion with the Orthodox Church, when really it’s the Orthodox who no longer have a voice in the councils because you aren’t in communion with Rome 😊 :)).

Hence why I say that a union of those two churches with each other is less likely than a union between one or the other of them and a smaller church. :cool:
Click to expand...
I was talking about the Councils held by the Orthodox Church. Of course, Orthodox Patriarchates don’t have the voice in the Councils held by the Roman-Catholic Church. Because we are the two Churches now. But God spoke only of one Church, when we die, God will tell us which Church was the true Church. 😃
 
But, in a sense, aren’t we already in communion with the Orthodox? They are validly baptized Christians, and they belong to the Mystical Body of Christ.

Decree on Ecumenism - Unitatis Redintegratio
“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)”
Click to expand...
 
Keeperer said:
It is this God alone - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - that we confess, the God Who was manifested on the day of the Baptism of the Lord, at Holy Theophany, when the worship of the Trinity was made manifest, as the Dismissal Hymn of the Feast says. What was revealed on that day is what we confess in the Church of Christ. As St. Gregory the Theologian says:

When I say God, I mean the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, without extending the Godhead beyond this number of persons, for fear of introducing a plurality of Gods, and without restricting Him to a smaller number, for fear of being accused of diminishing the Godhead; by admitting only one principle, I would fall into Judaism, and by admitting several, into paganism.
We confess the three persons or hypostases of the Holy Trinity, the only God. Since their divine essence or nature is one, the three hypostases, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit possess all in common, except their personal or hypostatic properties:
  • the property that distinguishes the Father is that He is unbegotten;
  • the property that distinguishes the Son is that He is begotten of the Father;
  • the property that distinguishes the Spirit is that He proceeds from the Father.
    As St. Gregory the Theologian says:
What is common to the Father, to the Son and to the Holy Spirit is the divinity or uncreated nature. (What is common to the Son and to the Holy Spirit is to have their origin form the Father.) The attribute proper to the Father is to be unbegotten, generation is proper to the Son and procession is proper to the Holy Spirit.
Likewise St. John Damascene says:

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all things, except for being unbegotten, for being begotten and for proceeding. The three hypostases differ from one another merely in these personal properties, but not in their essence.
Our knowledge, therefore, is a very limited one. Very little has been revealed about the eternal existence of the Holy Trinity because very little knowledge is necessary for our salvation. And even what has been revealed remains incomprehensible to us, for, as the Prophet Esaias says: Who shall declare his generation? (Es. 53,8). The divine essence is totally unknowable not only to us, but even to the Holy Angels. We only know that God’s uncreated energies, namely, Love, Will, Righteousness, and so forth, which are common to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are infused into those who have prepared themselves to receive them, as much as they can endure, according to the economy of our salvation, in the Church of Christ, by participating in the Holy Mysteries and living the life in Christ.

Therefore, we confess the genuine Trinity that has revealed Himself - Father, Son and Holy Spirit; they are One distinctly and distinct jointly, St. Gregory the Theologian says, and he adds: however paradoxical this phrase may be, in order to show the revealed nature of this mystery, which is incomprehensible to human reason.

Also we Orthodox believe that many saint works were forged by the Latins in order to support Filioque. We claimed it in 9th century during saint patriarch Photius, we claimed it in Flroence in 15th century, and we still claim it.
Click to expand...
Hi Keeperer,

I hear you saying that the Essence of the Trinity is unknowable, and that writings in support of the Filioque are forged.

Are you saying that the early Church fathers’ writings which say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, are forged?

Do the Orthodox dogmatically reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son?

Also, do the Orthodox dogmatically reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is the Infinite Love of the Father and the Son for each other?

Peace,

Pat
 
rickpizzaro said:
I think long-term, its inevitable 👍 When the political will is there, the theological issues will be resolved. But at the moment, one problem is that many Orthodox countries are controlled by governments that have friction with the West. The orthodox churches are used to retain cultural sovereignty and independence, so reconciliation with the RCC would be seen as a threat. Putin’s regime in Russia, which effectively controls the Russian Orthodox Church, is the best example of this. Serbia and Greece (where the schism started, of course) are others.

The places with the best chances for reconciliation are countries where the population and governments want to be more integrated with Western Europe, and where the people are traditional enough to want religious ties, and not just social and economic ones. Maybe Orthodox areas of the Ukraine (already has Catholic population), Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania, Belarus (if freed from Russian influence), Montenegro (newly independent from Serbia), Georgia and Armenia.
Click to expand...
This makes sense. I have long thought the doctrinal issues are not the big thing, least of all the filioque. Orthodox churches are “national churches” with a very strong territorial identification and no small amount of involvement with the national state. The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize “boundaries” for its presence in the world, which is absolutely unacceptable to most Orthodox churches.
 
patricius79 said:
Hi Keeperer,

I hear you saying that the Essence of the Trinity is unknowable, and that writings in support of the Filioque are forged.

Are you saying that the early Church fathers’ writings which say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, are forged?

Do the Orthodox dogmatically reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son?

Also, do the Orthodox dogmatically reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is the Infinite Love of the Father and the Son for each other?

Peace,

Pat
Click to expand...
First of all, Filioque does not say through the Son, it says AND the Son. If you hear how Filioque sounds in languages other than Latin as well, the word is AND. Orthodox Church condemned Filioque at a Council, also whenever Orthodox bishop is ordained, he must read an oath which has a document that condemns “Latin heresy”, among which Filioque is listed.

Yes, Orthodox claim that Latins forged the works of the fathers about Filioque. From the moment Rome started to sponsor Filioque, Eastern Church complained that Rome uses forgeries.
 
Keeperer said:
First of all, Filioque does not say through the Son, it says AND the Son. If you hear how Filioque sounds in languages other than Latin as well, the word is AND. Orthodox Church condemned Filioque at a Council, also whenever Orthodox bishop is ordained, he must read an oath which has a document that condemns “Latin heresy”, among which Filioque is listed.

Yes, Orthodox claim that Latins forged the works of the fathers about Filioque. From the moment Rome started to sponsor Filioque, Eastern Church complained that Rome uses forgeries.
Click to expand...
Hi Keeperer,

Thank you.

I hear you distinguishing “through the Son” from “and the Son”.

Do you know if it is correct to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Also, do you know if the Orthodox dogmatically reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is the Infinite Love of the Father and the Son for each other?

Also, my understanding is that there was a Canon from Ephesus which prohibited additions to the Creed of the Council of Nicea. But unless I’m mistaken, that Council of Nicea didn’t even talk about the Procession of the Holy Spirit at all, and Constantinople had already changed this Creed, but had not yet been recognized as an Ecumenical Council (it was seen as a regional council, and was entirely Eastern).

Thank you.

Peace,

Pat
 
Keeperer said:
I was talking about the Councils held by the Orthodox Church. Of course, Orthodox Patriarchates don’t have the voice in the Councils held by the Roman-Catholic Church. Because we are the two Churches now. But God spoke only of one Church, when we die, God will tell us which Church was the true Church. 😃
Click to expand...
I’m having trouble choosing between 2 responses that I’ve thought of:
  1. “Oh okay. I thought you were talking about *real *Councils.”
  2. “Maybe God’s trying to tell you now, but you aren’t listening.”
Please choose the one you think is better. 😃
 
jas84173 said:
Don’t really have much to say about it, besides that they have officially been separate since 1054 when both sides ex communicated each other, there is so much information leading up to the separation that I won’t even get into it. Just assuming anyone has any knowledge of the separation, why it occurred, and if you think the two may ever reunite again, or have the traditions of the two changed so much that they are irreconcilable?
Click to expand...
Could this lead to Orthodox-Catholic unity on the papacy and beyond?
😉
 
patricius79 said:
Hi Keeperer,

Thank you.

I hear you distinguishing “through the Son” from “and the Son”.

Do you know if it is correct to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Also, do you know if the Orthodox dogmatically reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is the Infinite Love of the Father and the Son for each other?

Also, my understanding is that there was a Canon from Ephesus which prohibited additions to the Creed of the Council of Nicea. But unless I’m mistaken, that Council of Nicea didn’t even talk about the Procession of the Holy Spirit at all, and Constantinople had already changed this Creed, but had not yet been recognized as an Ecumenical Council (it was seen as a regional council, and was entirely Eastern).

Thank you.

Peace,

Pat
Click to expand...
Final Creed 381 said everything we need to know about the Holy Spirit’s source.

Canon 7 condemned any change to the Creed, and then the fathers of the Council read both Creeds (from 325 and 381).

“Holy Spirit is the Infinite Love of the Father and the Son for each other?” Does it Orthodox Church rejects it dogmatically?
I don’t know.
 
Keeperer said:
Final Creed 381 said everything we need to know about the Holy Spirit’s source.

Canon 7 condemned any change to the Creed, and then the fathers of the Council read both Creeds (from 325 and 381).

“Holy Spirit is the Infinite Love of the Father and the Son for each other?” Does it Orthodox Church rejects it dogmatically?
I don’t know.
Click to expand...
Hi Keeperer,

Thank you.

I hear you saying that you don’t know if the Orthodox reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is the mutuality of love between the Father and the Son.

Also, do you know if it is correct to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

As far as Canon 7 of Ephesus I thought Canon 7 prohibited any change to the Creed of Nicea. I don’t believe it mentioned or read the Creed of Constantinople, since this was not considered an Ecumenical Council.

Here is Canon 7 of Ephesus, which makes no mention of the Creed of Constantinople.

*Canon 7

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.*
newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm
Thank you.

Peace,

Pat
 
patricius79 said:
Hi Keeperer,

Thank you.

I hear you distinguishing “through the Son” from “and the Son”.

Do you know if it is correct to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Also, do you know if the Orthodox dogmatically reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is the Infinite Love of the Father and the Son for each other?

Also, my understanding is that there was a Canon from Ephesus which prohibited additions to the Creed of the Council of Nicea. But unless I’m mistaken, that Council of Nicea didn’t even talk about the Procession of the Holy Spirit at all, and Constantinople had already changed this Creed, but had not yet been recognized as an Ecumenical Council (it was seen as a regional council, and was entirely Eastern).

Thank you.

Peace,

Pat
Click to expand...
Eastern Christians believe that the Holy Spirit Proceeds only from the Father, but through the Son. In the west, this is becoming what is taught as well. I guess we use to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Son, I don’t hear anyone one claiming this today but the same people that liken the Holy Spirit to “the love between Father and Son”, which is condemned by the East and most likely the West if you really delve further into what that would mean. To liken the Holy Spirit who is God to an inanimate concept like love is not anywhere truthful as to who the Holy Spirit is. If you want to use the concept to explain the bonds between the Holy Spirit and Father and Son, I think you can talk this way, if done carefully. But St. Basil and others had to defend the personhood of the Holy Spirit from the false ideas of thinking He is simply Love or God’s action or some other non-person. It is better to admit we know nothing of God’s essence other than He has Himself shared, which will still always be lacking due to language. He has shared that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top