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

[patricius79]

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.

Hi Pacloc,

As I understand it, the Catholic Church teaches that the Son receives His own Being from the Father. So then the Spirit would proceed from the Father through the Son. This can also be said as “from the Father and the Son”. I don’t think Catholic Church ever claimed that the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Son, if by that you mean that that the Son is somehow independent of the Father.

Also, I think it is correct to see the Holy Spirit as the Infinite Love between the Father and the Son, as long as we understand that the Holy Spirit is equally the eternal and Infinite God.

But as far as whether the consensus of the Orthodox is that we can say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, I don’t know. But I hear you saying that is what they believe.

Thanks,

Pat

 

[Rohzek]

Lots of discussion about the Filioque here. I really do recommend this history book for those who are really interested in the history and theology of the topic. It covers the understanding of the Filioque from the first century to the 21st century:

Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

 

[patricius79]

Lots of discussion about the Filioque here. I really do recommend this history book for those who are really interested in the history and theology of the topic. It covers the understanding of the Filioque from the first century to the 21st century:

Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Hi Rohzek,

Do the Orthodox have any problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Thanks,
Pat

 

[jas84173]

I actually have always gotten answers it seems that seem sympathetic to the Orthodox church. There were five Patriarchs from the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of Rome. They were in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. I always hear that the bishop in Rome assumed more authority that the other bishops because that is where Peter and Paul died preaching. Also following western Rome’s collapse, the pope had much more authority in his area of power than did the other Patriarchs, thus leading to a feeling that the bishop in Rome felt more powerful than the others, which angered many in the east. Eventually traditions changed from the east to west, the Islamic expansion happened, greatly hurting Jerusalem and Alexandria’s power to influence their areas, and it became almost a conflict between the bishop of Rome and Alexandria, where in 1054 it finally hit the boiling point and both sides ex communicated each other. In reality the two churches were one but through hundreds of years they changed amongst themselves to the point they were not the same anymore, and separation seemed inevitable. Now is that basically the history of it? That is always what I thought it to be, correct me if I am wrong.

 

[pablope]

I actually have always gotten answers it seems that seem sympathetic to the Orthodox church. There were five Patriarchs from the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of Rome. They were in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. I always hear that the bishop in Rome assumed more authority that the other bishops because that is where Peter and Paul died preaching. .

I would suggest this article to get a better understanding of the early years:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Byzantium and the Roman Primacy

Instead of repeating all the known arguments pro and contra, let us try the historical method and examine the position which the Byzantine Church took on this problem from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between the Eastern and Western parts of mediaeval Christianity became apparent and began to envenom the atmosphere in which the Churches had to live.

 

[patricius79]

I would suggest this article to get a better understanding of the early years:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Byzantium and the Roman Primacy

Instead of repeating all the known arguments pro and contra, let us try the historical method and examine the position which the Byzantine Church took on this problem from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between the Eastern and Western parts of mediaeval Christianity became apparent and began to envenom the atmosphere in which the Churches had to live.

Hi Pablope,

(Btw, I’m always curious if the names people choose on here are their real ethic names or if they are made up for some unknown reason–I myself wonder sometimes why I chose Patricius Not that your name is any more unusual than the next person’s name on here. Actually your name may be more usual than the average.

Anyway,

That article you referenced looks really interesting and I am trying and probably will try more to read it,

But it is long and I have trouble processing things so complicated.

Would you be able to summarize it in your own words, by chance, as an aid to studying it?

Either way, thank you,

Pat

 

[Starwarsfan2]

They probably won’t unite , because of papal primacy, marriage of priests, purgatory , immaculate conception of Mary and papal infallibility.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi Rohzek,

Do the Orthodox have any problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Thanks,
Pat

Officially, we hold to the Synod of Blachernae, which accepts the formula from the Father through the Son, but rejects attempts to equate through with from, as well as attempts to say that the Son is a secondary cause, since the former would contradict the Fathers who taught that the Father is the only cause within the Holy Trinity and the latter would essentially be setting up two principles of the Holy Spirit rather than one.

 

[Cavaradossi]

They probably won’t unite , because of papal primacy, marriage of priests, purgatory , immaculate conception of Mary and papal infallibility.

More properly, one speaks of the ordination of married men. Priests may not marry.

 

[patricius79]

Officially, we hold to the Synod of Blachernae, which accepts the formula from the Father through the Son, but rejects attempts to equate through with from, as well as attempts to say that the Son is a secondary cause, since the former would contradict the Fathers who taught that the Father is the only cause within the Holy Trinity and the latter would essentially be setting up two principles of the Holy Spirit rather than one.

Thanks, Cav, that helps.

I really don’t understand the dispute, however. If, as the Orthodox believe, the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, then I think the Son must be a secondary cause.

Otherwise, what would “through the Son” even mean?

Thanks again,

Pat

 

[rickpizzaro]

As a final post, I wanted to add this link to an article on EWTN, which describes the eastern churches that are already in communion with Rome. If the RCC and Eastern Orthodox churches were ever to reunite, I think it would be along similar lines (ie in Communion with each other, and not just the RCC absorbing the Eastern churches):

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES
ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

 

[prodromos]

How do you define “many”?
There have only been a handful of married priests of other denominations who have converted to Catholicism and remained as priests, while the Eastern Catholics make up less than half a percent of the Catholic Church and not all in the ranks of the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic rites are married.

 

[Peter_J]

As a final post, I wanted to add this link to an article on EWTN, which describes the eastern churches that are already in communion with Rome.

Not meaning to get too far off topic, but this is an interesting extension of something we discussed on another thread, namely the interesting ways Latin Catholics have of phrasing things when it comes to Eastern Catholics. For example, I have many times heard phrases like “eastern churches that are already in communion with Rome” in place of “Eastern Catholics” … yet I don’t think I have ever heard the phrase “Americans who are already in communion with Rome” in place of “American Catholics”.

 

[Rohzek]

Thanks, Cav, that helps.

I really don’t understand the dispute, however. If, as the Orthodox believe, the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, then I think the Son must be a secondary cause.

Otherwise, what would “through the Son” even mean?

Thanks again,

Pat

Hi pat,

Sorry I didn’t reply earlier. But to add to Cav’s statement, understanding the the Filioque is a difficult thing to do since the exact beliefs regarding the Filioque have changed over time. A good example of this is the first Latin defense of the Filioque made by Alcuin of York and Theodulf of Orleans in the 8th century. They argued that the persons of the Trinity did not derive their personhood from the person of the Father, but rather from the divine essence. The Orthodox rejected this interpretation because it leads to Sabellianism. Correctly, the later Latins also rejected this notion. But notably, at the Council of Florence, it was proclaimed that the Holy Spirit came from both the Father and the Son, but as one cause/spiration. Even this to Orthodox is problematic, because again the Latins seem to be confusing divine essence with personhood, although they reject this assertion.

I avoided intitially getting into all these details, because it is a very prickly issue. The Orthodox believe the following: All three persons share the same essence. The Father begot the Son from his person. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father’s person. As for the “through the Son/ per Filium” part, there are various understandings if I remember correctly. At the end of the day, if you are further curious, I really suggest reading that book. It is top-notch scholarship, especially historically. And in my experience, historical theology tends to lack a lot of polish in its historical aspect.

 

[pablope]

Hi Pablope,

(Btw, I’m always curious if the names people choose on here are their real ethic names or if they are made up for some unknown reason–I myself wonder sometimes why I chose Patricius Not that your name is any more unusual than the next person’s name on here. Actually your name may be more usual than the average.

Anyway,

That article you referenced looks really interesting and I am trying and probably will try more to read it,

But it is long and I have trouble processing things so complicated.

Would you be able to summarize it in your own words, by chance, as an aid to studying it?

Either way, thank you,

Pat

Hahaha…Hi pat…it is my real name, in the vernacular…

The article is illuminating of the history of the East/West divide, looking at historical events, and removing the usual polemics from either side.

It looks at how the Church governance was set up by the Apostles, among other things…and looks at the role the Bishop of Rome played.

From the Article:

One thing is securely established, namely, that the Byzantine Church did not intend to question the primacy of Rome in the Church. In spite of what happened, Rome continued to be regarded as the superior of Constantinople and as the first See in the Church. The conflict can be explained by the clash of two principles in the organization of the Church—accommodation to the secular situation and the apostolic origin. The failure of the Chalcedonian Fathers to find a compromise between these two principles marks the beginning of a long struggle over the apostolicity, which became the source of new bitterness in the relations between East and West. It is symptomatic that Canon Twenty-eight was officially accepted in the West only at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, when the See of Constantinople was occupied by a Latin Patriarch, following the conquest of the city by the Latins.20 This, of course, did not contribute to a better understanding between the Orthodox and the Latins.

 

[commenter]

How do you define “many”?
There have only been a handful of married priests of other denominations who have converted to Catholicism and remained as priests, while the Eastern Catholics make up less than half a percent of the Catholic Church and not all in the ranks of the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic rites are married.

I am not sure if raw numbers are as significant as the fact that married clergy now are accepted for some situations - and this is mostly new. Eastern Catholics determine their Rite regardless of what percent of the Catholic Church they make up.

But looking at Orthodox, my understanding is that bishops and members of religious orders - priests, brothers, and sisters - are celibate. I believe that if a married EO priest becomes a widower, he cannot marry, though I seek correction if that is incorrect. So celibacy is a somewhat significant factor in EO.

 

[patricius79]

Hi Rohzek,

Hi pat,

Sorry I didn’t reply earlier. But to add to Cav’s statement, understanding the the Filioque is a difficult thing to do since the exact beliefs regarding the Filioque have changed over time. A good example of this is the first Latin defense of the Filioque made by Alcuin of York and Theodulf of Orleans in the 8th century. They argued that the persons of the Trinity did not derive their personhood from the person of the Father, but rather from the divine essence.

I don’t understand that at all.

The Orthodox rejected this interpretation because it leads to Sabellianism. Correctly, the later Latins also rejected this notion. But notably, at the Council of Florence, it was proclaimed that the Holy Spirit came from both the Father and the Son, but as one cause/spiration. Even this to Orthodox is problematic, because again the Latins seem to be confusing divine essence with personhood, although they reject this assertion.

I would think that Florence was expressing the shared Infinite Being of the Father and the Son. I think one can express the unity of the Father and Son without confusing their Persons.

I avoided intitially getting into all these details, because it is a very prickly issue. The Orthodox believe the following: All three persons share the same essence. The Father begot the Son from his person. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father’s person. As for the “through the Son/ per Filium” part, there are various understandings if I remember correctly.

Is there a consensus of understanding among the Orthodox as to the meaning of their belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

At the end of the day, if you are further curious, I really suggest reading that book. It is top-notch scholarship, especially historically. And in my experience, historical theology tends to lack a lot of polish in its historical aspect.

Thanks Rohzek. I have more that I can read right now. (I’m an extremely slow reader). But what book are you referring to?

Thanks,

Pat

 

[patricius79]

Hahaha…Hi pat…it is my real name, in the vernacular…

The article is illuminating of the history of the East/West divide, looking at historical events, and removing the usual polemics from either side.

It looks at how the Church governance was set up by the Apostles, among other things…and looks at the role the Bishop of Rome played.

From the Article:

One thing is securely established, namely, that the Byzantine Church did not intend to question the primacy of Rome in the Church. In spite of what happened, Rome continued to be regarded as the superior of Constantinople and as the first See in the Church. The conflict can be explained by the clash of two principles in the organization of the Church—accommodation to the secular situation and the apostolic origin. The failure of the Chalcedonian Fathers to find a compromise between these two principles marks the beginning of a long struggle over the apostolicity, which became the source of new bitterness in the relations between East and West. It is symptomatic that Canon Twenty-eight was officially accepted in the West only at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, when the See of Constantinople was occupied by a Latin Patriarch, following the conquest of the city by the Latins.20 This, of course, did not contribute to a better understanding between the Orthodox and the Latins.

Hi Pablope,

Yeah, the names on here are very unusual, which is fine since I think we need to be more creative with baby names, too.

I think I read in the “Primacy of Peter” book by the EO scholar Meyendorff, Schmemann, et al, that the EO rejection of the Papacy was not based on a clear ecclesiology but on a feeling of distrust for the West.

Thanks for the quotation. That helps.

 

[wynd]

Hi Rohzek,
Thanks Rohzek. I have more that I can read right now. (I’m an extremely slow reader). But what book are you referring to?

I believe he meant:

Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

 

[Rohzek]

Hi Rohzek,

I don’t understand that at all.

Most of the early church fathers believed argued in favor of a concept known as the monarchy of the Father. They understood this monarchy within the Trinity as deriving from the personhood of the Father, and that this means that the Father is the cause so to speak of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. So therefore, if Alcuin, Theodulf, etc all wish to argue that the divine essence (which all 3 share) begot the persons, then it would undermine the concept of the monarchy of the Father. The Father cannot properly be said to be the cause if the cause truly lay within the divine essence, because at that point one could say the Son begot himself and the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself. It would also suggest that the 3 persons of the Trinity are not really 3 persons in 1 god, but rather a god with just 3 different faces.

I would think that Florence was expressing the shared Infinite Being of the Father and the Son. I think one can express the unity of the Father and Son without confusing their Persons.

Is there a consensus of understanding among the Orthodox as to the meaning of their belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

No, there is no clear consensus on the understanding of “per Filium” in the Orthodox communion. However, most agree that “Filioque” and “per Filium” convey two different meanings, especially when converted over into Greek.

Thanks Rohzek. I have more that I can read right now. (I’m an extremely slow reader). But what book are you referring to?

Thanks,

Pat

See wynd’s post.