I don’t think Catholics or Orthodox will ever agree on this so it is better to say they are both right! The Catholic is right because the Holy Spirit is sent to the world by the Father through the Son. The Orthodox is right because the Holy Spirit is proceeding eternally by the Father within the relationship of the Trinity. So in either case they are both right!
So say it. If that’s what’s meant, say it plainly. Quit beating around the bush. Say “from the Father through the Son” or go back to the actual Creed which says “from the Father.” If if means what Rome now claims it means, then the simplest thing in the world to do is to go back to the actual Nicean-Constantinopolitan creed. Rome won’t do that though, because they’d have to admit that maybe the addition was ill-advised at best, and at worst against the canons. Want to show humility? Don’t worry about the “Pope/Bishop of Rome” distinction, go back to the Creed we share. It’s the winter simplest thing in the world.
If you have read my post more properly the Church of Rome as I was presenting was to see the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit into this world which is not what I meant when I said that eternally within the Trinity that it is the Orthodox formula that works. It is obvious that the eternal relationship within the Trinity works with the Orthodox model and I will prove it. When the Incarnation had taken place it was the Holy Spirit that had come from the Father to incarnate the Lord Jesus in the womb of Mary. Since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father how could the Holy Spirit incarnate the Lord Jesus if He is proceeding from both? So I am not disagreeing with you brother I am agreeing with you. What I had said from the post was about the temporal mission which the Catholic Church tends to talk about. They like to say that the Lord Jesus sends the Holy Spirit into this world. Why do they do this? It is because the Catholic Church emphasizes the external missionary work of the Church. This outward missionary work is what they mean when they say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Orthodoxy emphasizes the internal missionary work of the Church which is reflective to the inward work of the Trinity. In my opinion it seems both Churches are right when they are talking about what mission they are emphasizing. In other words I believe the Eastern Church was correct in maintaining the role of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity. The Holy Spirit must incarnate the Lord Jesus in order for the Lord Jesus to send this same Holy Spirit to us. So in effect the Orthodox model works to incarnate the Lord Jesus and the Catholic model works for the Lord Jesus to send the Holy Spirit to us.
It was the Holy Fathers Augustine, Tychonius, and Optatus who argued that the sacrament of baptism depended not on who performed it, but rather God alone and that it was done in the name of the Trinity. Now please explain to me how the other form of grace, the Eucharist, is different. They all acknowledged that receiving the sacraments outside the universal church was not ideal, but they did not dismiss their validity.
To be honest, I sometimes wonder if *any *major churches or denominations will ever really agree with each other.
I’m not an Orthodox, but for what it is worth, the main reason I have not been posting much on these topics recently is the (shall we say) atypical polemics that I have been seeing against you and some other Orthodox, not just on this thread but other threads as well. I sincerely hope that this is not a “new normal”.
Jesus also made that same statement when He prayed may they all be one. It seems the Lord knew in time divisions would occur about the nature and practise of His church. The problem though stems from the fact we will not see in each other the way the Lord sees us. If we will only step a back to actually see why God has given certain strengths to each Church even certain weaknesses we will come to this knowledge we are in need of each other. To be honest no one Church is complete unto itself. Each Church is actually incomplete needing the other to help complete it. This is true for the Church of Rome as it is true for the Eastern Churches. We were made to complete each other.
I was hoping there would be more polemics against Rome in this thread. It was not my intent to create a thread in which the Orthodox feel mistreated.
But does there have to be one or the other?
You’re making the definition of Donatism exceptionally broad. St. Augustine would not have encouraged his flock to receive the baptism and Eucharist of the Donatists, even if they were valid, because to do so would be to participate in their illicit misuse of the sacraments outside of the Church. The idea of degrees of communion, it being non-ideal but somehow licit to receive heterodox sacraments (which are illicit), etc., are not original to the Fathers, but date to the 20th century. I’m sorry to say this, but you simply don’t get to scream Donatist at everybody who opposes you on this issue. It’s both illogical and unseemly behavior, especially since the principle error of the Donatists was in rejecting ex opere operato, not in asserting that one should not receive the sacraments outside of the Church.
I’ll admit that my definition is broad. I also never said that one should receive heterodox sacraments. I in fact stated that it wasn’t preferable. However, people have differing personal circumstances. That being said, inter-communion and degrees of such are not 20th Century ideas. Intercommuion goes back to the split resulting from Chalcedon and has always continued, whether condemned or not ( myriobiblos.gr/texts/documents/northamerican_4.htm ). Also, the Church Fathers clearly did lay out details and arguments as to why sacraments are licit in heterodox churches. Professing the truth of the Trinity was one of them.
If one would rather discuss the issue not based upon the legitimacy of the other’s Eucharist, and instead upon the disciplinary and solidarity issues involved, then feel free. However, then we easily fall into the stark legalisms that Orthodox so often accuse Catholicism of.
That hardly makes it right. That Arianism is just as old is hardly a ringing endorsement for it. Neither, then, is the amount of time that people have been intercommuning, often, as you yourself concede, despite any condemnations against the practice.
Validity, not liceity. Heterodox Sacraments were certainly valid to St. Augustine, but not licit. Also, the view of St. Augustine to that effect was certainly not a universal one. The East in particular differed from what you proposed above as being attributable to “the Church Fathers”. For example, Arian baptisms with proper form were accepted according to several canons, and furthermore, some followed primarily the ancient canons (handed down from the Ancient Authorities, according to St. Basil) which reject the baptisms of all heretics.
I would just like to chime in that, for me, the fact that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church take conservative stances with respect to intercommunion is … well, pretty much all I need to know.
Surely you know that the particular sense of εκπορευομαι referring to procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father as Cause (which only gains currency in the 4th century) is not meant in Revelation (being written several centuries before that term acquires such a sense).
And the condemnations are not universal across all Orthodox churches. Intercommunion occurred long after the schism in the Levantine Latin Crusader states. Furthermore, Archbishop Athenagoras Kokkinakis openly advocated and permitted intercommunion under circumstances for Orthodox Christians in our present time: greekcatholicmalta.com/2013/09/the-thyateira-confession/
This is true, and it is my point that the East was wrong.
The nuances of that word have never been a concern of the Latin fathers and western tradition. The Holy Spirit goes forth from the throne of God and the Lamb is scriptural. That’s is, he proceeds from both. This is the testimony of the fathers. Anyway my point of the quote was to show that the Catholic understanding the passage is patristic and correct. The river of life I the Holy Spirit.