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

[patricius79]

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.

Hi Rohzek,

Thanks. That’s what I don’t understand about the division between Catholics and Orthodox on this issue. Both believe that the Father is Personally the Cause of both the Son and the Spirit.

And both acknowledge that the 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.

That’s interesting. Maybe there is no clear consensus because proceeding through the Son means that the Son is a secondary Cause of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s interesting. Maybe there is no clear consensus because proceeding through the Son means that the Son is a secondary Cause of the Holy Spirit.

The latter does not seem to be a logically necessary necessary conclusion of the former, if we are to believe St. Maximus’ epistle to Marinus.

 

[patricius79]

The latter does not seem to be a logically necessary necessary conclusion of the former, if we are to believe St. Maximus’ epistle to Marinus.

Hi Cav,

Maybe Maximus denied that the Son was a Cause in the sense of a Primacy Cause. The Father is the only Primary cause.

As I understand it, the East only used the word “cause” for primary causes.

Also, didn’t Maximus defend the Filioque and say that the Church of Rome had supreme power of binding and loosing over all the churches of the world?

But if the Son is not a Secondary Personal Cause, then what would “proceeding rom the Father through the Son” mean?

Peace,

Pat