New possible obstacle for Catholic-Orthodox unity on the sight

[KathleenGee]

I already want to disengage. So we are not baptized and are heretics. Bunk. Read that one on another site regarding Orthodoxy and Catholics.

Nothing will appease just endless put downs.

 

[Peter_J]

Not many Eastern Catholics

You are correct, Greek and Oriental Catholics make up a very small percentage of Catholicism.

Western-Rite Orthodox make up an even smaller percentage of Orthodoxy, so … I’m not too sure what point you’re making.

 

[Peter_J]

I already want to disengage.

Impossible … I’ve tried. Once a discussion forum gets into someone’s blood, there’s no way to break the habit.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is fascinating, thanks for this.

Do you have any helpful links you can point me to please?

Happy Advent Louie 1983.

Here is a thread link that covers all of the above subjects by many of the learned Catholic and Orthodox posters here at CA that give additional links for your immediate research.

Following this thread from the beginning to end will be helpful for you, It gives both Catholic and Orthodox views; forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=921729&page=12

 

[Kmon23]

I am encouraged that you have the Latin Church at least in the beginning with Peter and Paul and not the entire western Europe.

Hello, the barbarians were all converted by our Latin martyrs and saints which includes popes. Look today who is still standing from the barbarian attacks, they became Catholics at the cost of Catholic saints blood and witness.

Debatable

When did the Church ever council to proclaim and dogmatize that the Holy Spirit proceeds in “Eternity” from only the Father and NOT the Son? Can you answer my question?

Allow me to recap your Orthodox view of a filioque; The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in eternity, the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father in eternity, then your Orthodox filioque teaches that “the holy spirit proceeds from the Father” TEMPORARILY through the Son.

Your Orthodox view of the filioque is a MONSTER in the making and your Orthodox filioque is never from the apostolic Catholic faith.

Your new invention of the filioque falls immediately under heresy and creates a monster of the second person of the Trinity.

The filioque as expressed within the Nicene Creed proclaims that Jesus is God incarnate period. The filioque as expressed within the Nicene Creed never adds rigid terms outside of what is professed within the Nicene Creed.

Your Orthodox filiqoue invention is expressed outside of the Nicene Creed and adds rigid terms of eternity, and temporary status to an infinite God head, which immediately falls into heresy, that limits God and mocks the second person of the Trinity as a created being.

If the 2016 Orthodox council is based on a subject of a monster filioque invented by Orthodox Church’s which is never a Catholic teaching are in need of being informed of a correct interpretation of the correct filioque as expressed within the contenxt of the Nicene Creed.

Your Orthodox view of the filioque be it pro and con is never Catholic.

The filioque professes Jesus is God incarnate. Your Orthodox filiqoue creates a heretical monster of the second person within the Godhead of the blessed Trinity.

I would just like to say that I very much disagree with your charge that the Orthodox pneumatology in regards to procession is a “monster, heresy, etc.” For one thing, to view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son temporally is not a universal dogma of the Orthodox Church and neither is the view that the Latin filioque is heresy. Some Orthodox think the filioque is Orthodox, some think it is acceptable as theologumen. We don’t necessarily unanimously think the filioque is heresy.

And to charge that our theology is a monster and heretical I have to disagree with. If that were so, then the Vatican would charge us with heresy but instead say we are only in schism.

Furthermore our use of referring to the Spirit proceeding from the Father alone is in context of the fact that this was what was stated in the 1st council of Constantinople. Procession as in the creed in this council is in context of ultimate origin (ekporeusis) and in scripture which uses the same verb in John 15:26.

The Latin creed does not use the same verb for proceeds instead using procedit in ex Patre procedentum. This is not equivalent to the meaning employed in the creed as defined by that council.

Catholic theologians do not reject the meaning of the creed as used by Orthodox as they are using it in the context of the original meaning ekporeusis in the council of Constantinople, and fully affirm that the Father is the sole cause of the Spirit in terms of aitia, ultimate origin.

This is why eastern Catholics do not use the filioque as it would be heretical in the context of what they mean by “proceeds” when they say the creed, and only have to affirm the filioque as true in its true context in the Latin expression of its theology.

So both Catholics and Orthodox affirm the Procession of the Holy Spirit as solely from the Father in terms of ekporeusis. The point of disagreement is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as a secondary cause ontologically (filioque) or temporally.

And the affirmation that Procession from the Son is only temporal is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, and there are mixed views regarding the view of the filioque. The only thing we positively affirm is the meaning of proceeds as employed in the language of the council of Constantinople, which Catholics also affirm as true.

Furthermore, the Eastern Father’s never really speak of or affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son ontologically in any form if much at all, except maybe St. Cyril. The filioque understanding comes primarily comes from the Latin Father’s (although Orthodox would say even the Latin Father’s are speaking of an economic Procession, not ontological, but that is a whole another topic). Nevertheless to accuse the Orthodox of having a heretical view of the Holy Spirits Procession is problematic since we just believe we are keeping the teaching as expressed by the majority of the Eastern Father’s.
I’m not here to affirm/reject the filioque as that is above my paygrade, but only wish to respond to your accusations that our view of Procession is a monster that mocks the Trinity.
That’s all.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I’m hearing you. Most of these debates are about who is “right” not genuine discourse.

I’m home where I belong and frankly more concerned about our relationship with our Protestant brethren.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Kmon23;13490156]I would just like to say that I very much disagree with your charge that the Orthodox pneumatology in regards to procession is a “monster, heresy, etc.”

This is why eastern Catholics do not use the filioque as it would be heretical in the context of what they mean by “proceeds” when they say the creed, and only have to affirm the filioque as true in its true context in the Latin expression of its theology.

Please allow me to clarify your confusion;
Vaseljen is proposing to force the Latin expression of the filioque (as expressed within the confines of the Nicene Creed) with a Greek interpretation of the procession of the Spirit, which I stated creates a monster.

As you posted it is very important for SOME of the Orthodox members to respect the Latin Expression of faith of the divine economy procession as revealed by Jesus followed by the early Church Fathers and as it is professed within the Nicene Creed.

Once you move the Latin expression of the filioque from the Nicene Creed with rigid terms and a Greek philosophy of the Essence of God, which the filioque does not address, you create a monster and a created being of the second person of the Trinity in procession.

My comment is addressed specifically to Vaseljen’s view and proposal of a accepted filioque;

Orthodox are willing to tolerate Filioque only if pope teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son temporarily for the salvation of the People on earth.

Allow me to recap your Orthodox view of a filioque; The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in eternity, the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father in eternity, then your Orthodox filioque teaches that “the holy spirit proceeds from the Father” TEMPORARILY through the Son.

Your Orthodox view of the filioque is a MONSTER in the making and your Orthodox filioque is never from the apostolic Catholic faith.

My recap comment reveals, an Orthoodox misunderstanding of the Latin Expression of the filioque. And it forces and unwanted Orthodox philosophy pertaining to divine Essence which never proceeds, instead of relating the filioque to the divine economy of an eternal procession in presence, in what is consubstantial with the Father and the Son the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds.

When ever an Orthodox tries to force a philosophical expression of Essence into the divine economy of procession in divine presence as expressed in the filioque, it creates a monster.

That said, the monster complex a false Orthodox view of the filioque, does not touch in what the Church has already taught and professed in Trinity divine economy and divine Essence which does not come down to us.

Furthermore, the Eastern Father’s never really speak of or affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son ontologically in any form if much at all, except maybe St. Cyril.

St. Hilary whom I consider the one who finds common ground and blends both the Orthodox and Latin expression of the Catholic faith as one. St. Hilary who quotes Christ himself teaches the filioque as the Latin expresses the filioque within the Nicene Creed is a biblical faith, not a philosophical view.

In short remove the filioque outside of the Nicene Creed you create a monster. Keep the filioque as expressed with in the Nicene Creed we follow the revelation of Jesus Christ.

We the Latin Church do not use the filioque either, when we continue to use the original Apostles Creed which predates the Nicene Creed. The filioque professed within the Nicene Creed defeats all heretics and heresies that rejects the divinity of Christ.

I would agree with you the filioque is not a subject that should be feeding into the tension of the schism, especially in the 2016 Orthodox council. Yet the memo of the filioque as accepted by some informed Orthodox theologians has either fallen on deaf ears or some have not gotten the memo yet.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m hearing you. Most of these debates are about who is “right” not genuine discourse.

I’m home where I belong and frankly more concerned about our relationship with our Protestant brethren.

It’s true, most of us giving witness of our Catholic faith, are not professional debater’s or expert communicators.

One thing for sure is, we the Catholic laity Church was passive for over 500 years and allowed the poison of heresies and heretics go uncontested or without a defined Catholic response to stand for TRUTH.

We are called to give an account for our faith.

When our faith is contested and is misconstrued by false interpretations by those of other faith’s, we cannot afford to be passive for another 500 years.

It’s time now to correct and inform the world, that has been mislead by false teachers and false accusations against the Roman Catholic Faith.

When we get tired of running the race, take a break and allow another to give witness of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[KathleenGee]

I remember in my archdiocesan class a question I raised and asked the instructor if the sequence was deliberate: One, holy, catholic apostolic. So our sacred unity is the most important? He did not answer.

But in the next class he did, that our unity is most important.

I see so much alike with the Orthodox and then I compare our worship to that of many Protestants and we are so different from the latter.

Our first vocation as Christians is to enter into communion with the Holy Trinity, not winning debates per se.

And yes, if there are mis understandings that keep us apart, we should speak out.

 

[Art321]

I remember in my archdiocesan class a question I raised and asked the instructor if the sequence was deliberate: One, holy, catholic apostolic. So our sacred unity is the most important? He did not answer.

But in the next class he did, that our unity is most important.

I see so much alike with the Orthodox and then I compare our worship to that of many Protestants and we are so different from the latter.

Our first vocation as Christians is to enter into communion with the Holy Trinity, not winning debates per se.

And yes, if there are mis understandings that keep us apart, we should speak out.

Do you remember that thread that you have been referring? The name of it? Even you can, I wouldn’t mind looking for those quotes. You’ve actually sparked my interest!

 

[KathleenGee]

HI Art, not tonight. But will try later. Actually I thought the course too small and may write to the Abbot to repeat the seminar but this time with more sessions. We only got to 300 AD, not 600.

I think Gabriel is stating one of the reasons why we had the Great Schism, and from what I have been told, it all happened over mistranslation. The higher ups know this but it is many laity and if their positions are not just their own, it could be their bishops.

I think there is much need for the Orthodox to forgive us. At the same time I have read it is also very important for the Latins to be very humble before the Orthodox. I see strength and weakness in both. If only we could be one and draw on each other’s strengths to be one, how glorious our witness would be to the world and I believe, thinking of Christ’s words at the Last Supper…our unity would then cause the world to believe.

So it pains me very much to read the going back and forth and I am very limited in what I know of Orthodoxy.

In one seminar, an early pope excommunicated a bishop in his dealing of an apostate slave. This pope was a former slave. The bishop was standing up for the orthodox way the Church handled apostates. Then entire Christian world totally accepted the pope’s decision, this indicating the universal acceptance of his primacy. And then later…several bishops approached the pope and then the bishop was reinstalled. The pope in regards to the former apostate was acting as pastor. And likewise, every bishop has the same power as the pope over believers in his own diocese.

Again, there is no more doctrines or dogmas to define. Nada. Only pastoral practices in dealing with needs as they come along. And I read that 70% of the American bishops did not go along with some of the ideas that came up at the Synod on marriage and the pope criticized them. But they wouldn’t budge. The Church is as a living sacrament…I see the pope and his position with the bishops as a dynamic one, not set in stone.

 

[KathleenGee]

Art…it could be between pages 41 back to mid December, 2014…so I will look in this area some more…non Catholic forum.

 

[Kmon23]

I think Gabriel is stating one of the reasons why we had the Great Schism, and from what I have been told, it all happened over mistranslation. The higher ups know this but it is many laity and if their positions are not just their own, it could be their bishops.

Again, there is no more doctrines or dogmas to define. Nada. Only pastoral practices in dealing with needs as they come along.

Could you just explain what you mean by “no more doctrines/dogma to define?” You have mentioned it before, but I just want yourself to clarify for me what you mean, because such a statement feels as if its in conflict with what I’ve learned during my time learning Catholicism in college.

And in some form yes, there was mistranslation/misunderstanding of the filioque. But nevertheless, it’s still a problem now considering it’s become dogma of the Catholic church, and it as a dogma is frankly problematic considering we don’t hold to it as dogma (like said previously, it is acceptable and orthodox maybe in some form, or maybe only as theologumen, and some think it heretical). Especially in the first millenium where honestly it was very messy (tons of local councils with their own canons, jurisdiction issues, sometimes intrusion of the emperor, etc.) it most definitely can be tolerable for the filioque when it came about in the Third Council of Toledo, since it was just a local council. But of course, it becomes a serious issue when it then becomes dogma binding on the entire church equal to the ecumenical councils.

Furthermore, I do think the charge of Ephesus and its preventing the creation of new creeds as charged by Orthodox to not be a great argument, and that Catholics do have a better argument here. However it would definitely go against the Orthodox view of the Council of Chalcedon of I Constantinople clarifying what is in the creed, with Orthodox viewing the filioque not as a clarification but as changing the substance of the creed. Although then it gets complicated with the Latin word Procedit vs. the greek word ekpoureusis, but that’s another topic.

We the Latin Church do not use the filioque either, when we continue to use the original Apostles Creed which predates the Nicene Creed. The filioque professed within the Nicene Creed defeats all heretics and heresies that rejects the divinity of Christ.

It is true and commendable to fight all heresies, and it is true the filioque was used to fight the arian heresy in the West. However, Orthodox would say using such a teaching that itself may be problematic is a problem. And of course that leads to whether the problem can be resolved through its interpretation, etc. which we have already discussed, and above my pay grade.

 

[commenter]

Since posters have been discussing the “Filioque” issue, I ask permission to do just a minor detour. How do Protestants regard the Filioque? I realize no one position sums up Protestantism on most doctrines, but I wonder how they address this one. If they address it at all, are they closer to RCC or EO?

My guess is that they rarely address it at all, but I don’t know. Since the OP is mentioning something for 2016 that might potentially be an obstacle to Catholic-Orthodox unity, I would appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut as to how this might affect EO/Protestant unity.

 

[Kmon23]

Since posters have been discussing the “Filioque” issue, I ask permission to do just a minor detour. How do Protestants regard the Filioque? I realize no one position sums up Protestantism on most doctrines, but I wonder how they address this one. If they address it at all, are they closer to RCC or EO?

My guess is that they rarely address it at all, but I don’t know. Since the OP is mentioning something for 2016 that might potentially be an obstacle to Catholic-Orthodox unity, I would appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut as to how this might affect EO/Protestant unity.

Protestants of the Evangelical/Pentacostal type just disregard it as irrelevant to the Gospel message primarily.

More mainline denominations don’t think much of it, but if they had to give an answer would affirm the filioque since they came from Catholicism post-filioque.

 

[Micosil]

Since posters have been discussing the “Filioque” issue, I ask permission to do just a minor detour. How do Protestants regard the Filioque? I realize no one position sums up Protestantism on most doctrines, but I wonder how they address this one. If they address it at all, are they closer to RCC or EO?

My guess is that they rarely address it at all, but I don’t know. Since the OP is mentioning something for 2016 that might potentially be an obstacle to Catholic-Orthodox unity, I would appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut as to how this might affect EO/Protestant unity.

I was reading up on Lutheranism a bit before to see what some of our brothers and sisters in Christ believe, and it seems they confess the same as the Western Church:

Lutherans are Trinitarian. Lutherans reject the idea that the Father and the Son are merely faces of the same person, stating that both the Old Testament and the New Testament show them to be two distinct persons.[100] Lutherans believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.[101] “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.”[102]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism#Trinity

More info here:

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.filioque.html

 

[Wildgraywolf]

I don’t know if that’s what the Orthodox Church wants, but if it’s true, they’ll have to explain away all the Patristic writers that recognized the Primacy of the Petrine See.

That very same thought went screaming through my mind as well.

 

[Kmon23]

That very same thought went screaming through my mind as well.

Well we do. But we say primacy =/= supremacy.
That’s all.

 

[KathleenGee]

There are no more doctrines in defining Christ. The last was done by the Church, not the bible at the Council of Nicea.

Regarding dogmas…there is the first that a pope can propose a dogma drawing from the long held practices of faith held by the laity, and he would consult with all the bishops before declaring such a dogma.

So the first point of infallibility is that a pope cannot define a dogma out of the blue. It must be a belief of the people long held and he must consult with all the bishops in communion with him before defining such a dogma.

So after this first point, the papacy in conjunction with the faith of believers and with the bishops in communion with him, declared that Mary was conceived without sin, Mary full of grace Mary the Immaculate Conception whose feast day is today.

The third dogma is regarding Mary conceived without sin and thus not deserving the wages of death. Pope Pius XII declared Mary’s assumption into heaven as the third dogma in 1950.

Note the word, ‘assumption’. We can only assume Mary was gloriously taken into heaven, whether she was asleep or died.

Likewise I don’t see a conflict with Orthodox understanding of Mary either.

But the Latin Church with Peter holding the keys to heaven is universal and deals with all sorts of people. We have the experience of approved apparitions by Mary coming to those that reflect their particular culture.

Beyond these 3 dogmas, there is no long standing faith tradition of believers to define as dogma. That is all.

And the final note is that the attitude and posture of pope and bishops is that of Servants of God.

So the Latin Church because of its charism of universality has to define and have clear doctrines for the many kinds of people. I understand Orthodox cultures to be more homogenous and so your devotions and practices are more specific to most people. Ours are not.

Finally the pope is to represent the unity of all Christian faiths. John Paul II came to the conclusion that there is no way any of us can leave our own faith traditions, so we must be tolerant.

I see the Russian Orthodox Church farthest away geographically from us and likewise see particular attitudes but have tremendous respect for the Church there and am so happy they are being restored and there are new Russian churches built for the local people…my friend there says they are using pre fab methods to rebuild so many churches that were destroyed under communism.

And please note I have read and it doesn’t surprise me that a mystic said some day Russia would adore God the most.

 

[Peter_J]

My guess is that they rarely address it at all, but I don’t know. Since the OP is mentioning something for 2016 that might potentially be an obstacle to Catholic-Orthodox unity, I would appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut as to how this might affect EO/Protestant unity.

The Orthodox are pretty unecumenical toward pretty much everyone – in particular, toward Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinists, Baptists, and Pentecostals. The only ones they’re really ecumenical toward are the Oriental Orthodox.