Orthodox and Roman Catholic differences part 1 by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick-ancient Faith Radio

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon_Mallory
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wandile said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except it was. Why do you think the Council of Florence insisted on using terms like cause and principle to describe the Son’s relation to the Spirit? As an intellectual exercise?
 
Cavaradossi said:
Except it was. Why do you think the Council of Florence insisted on using terms like cause and principle to describe the Son’s relation to the Spirit? As an intellectual exercise?
Click to expand...
Because the Greeks were the ones who pushed the issue. The Latins never even concerned themselves with the concept of ultimate origin. Only until the Greeks started mistakenly accusing the Catholics of confusing the Father and the Son did the Latins have to address this issue. Hence the language employed at Florence was to accommodate the Greeks. No Latin father had problems with the filioque. They all unanimously proclaimed the orthodoxy of the teaching. Its was part of the fabric of western tradition handed down from the fathers. The Greeks were the ones who made it an issue.

If you look at the debates at Florence between Mark Eugenikos and John of Montenero, John did not even mention the concept of ultimate origin. Only until Mark and his compatriots brought up the issue of how this property could only be attributed to the Father did John of Montenero address them on how they were mistaken in thinking the Latins create two principals and two spirations. This eased most if the concerns of the Greeks.

The monarchy of the father was never in question. When at Florence Mark Eugenikos proclaimed the monarchy of the Father, the Greeks all said “Amen” whole the Latins remained silent. This was scandalous to the Greeks but the reason the Latins never said anything is because for them it was a non-issue, it was a given. Once the Latins realized the Greeks concerns do you see the Latins using terms to comfort the Greeks in their suspicions. The decree would have been formulated very differently if the Greeks were not vocal about the point of ultimate origin.
 
Jon_Mallory said:
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.
Click to expand...
And who has been mistreating the Orthodox on this thread? I ask this question to Peter as well.
 
Rohzek said:
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.

Whether or not its the norm is immaterial. I generally ignore people’s zealotry on this issue. However, I figured taking you to task for heresy was the least one could do considering your uncharitable behavior towards Ghosty and Erich.
Click to expand...
I concur.
 
Wandile said:
Because the Greeks were the ones who pushed the issue. The Latins never even concerned themselves with the concept of ultimate origin. Only until the Greeks started mistakenly accusing the Catholics of confusing the Father and the Son did the Latins have to address this issue. Hence the language employed at Florence was to accommodate the Greeks. No Latin father had problems with the filioque. They all unanimously proclaimed the orthodoxy of the teaching. Its was part of the fabric of western tradition handed down from the fathers. The Greeks were the ones who made it an issue.

If you look at the debates at Florence between Mark Eugenikos and John of Montenero, John did not even mention the concept of ultimate origin. Only until Mark and his compatriots brought up the issue of how this property could only be attributed to the Father did John of Montenero address them on how they were mistaken in thinking the Latins create two principals and two spirations. This eased most if the concerns of the Greeks.

The monarchy of the father was never in question. When at Florence Mark Eugenikos proclaimed the monarchy of the Father, the Greeks all said “Amen” whole the Latins remained silent. This was scandalous to the Greeks but the reason the Latins never said anything is because for them it was a non-issue, it was a given. Once the Latins realized the Greeks concerns do you see the Latins using terms to comfort the Greeks in their suspicions. The decree would have been formulated very differently if the Greeks were not vocal about the point of ultimate origin.
Click to expand...
It’s good that you were there so we have some first hand knowledge of what transpired. Or it’s just conjecture and carries no more weight than anyone else’s imaginings.
 
I’m trying, to some extent at least, not to post on this thread … but I was struck just now by something that hasn’t been said, but really seems like it ought to be said.
Rohzek said:
If its any consolation to you, I also take part in the Catholic Eucharist whenever I find myself at a Catholic mass.
Click to expand...
Speaking as a Catholic, I don’t appreciate your using past-examples-of-intercommunion-with-us to provoke one of your fellow Orthodox. (Likewise, if I were to receive communion at an Episcopalian parish and then brought it up with a fellow Catholic to provoke him/her, then I believe that Episcopalians would have a right to be offended.)
 
Rohzek said:
This is slightly off-topic, but if you are curious about professional scholarship regarding the Late Antique and early medieval papacy, I highly suggest reading the following historiography by the acclaimed Thomas F. X. Noble:

Noble, Thomas F. X. “Morbidity and Vitality in the History of the Early Medieval Papacy.” The Catholic Historical Review 81, no. 4 (October, 1995): 505-540.

It’s 20 years old, but it still is a valid assessment of the field today. If you have trouble finding it, pm me.
Click to expand...
I read the article and I was struck more by the absence of the topics it treated than by the topics it was most concerned about. He argues against a linear reading of papal history that is too often simplistic. Indeed, the Popes from Gregory the Great to those of the ninth century say nothing regarding Papal primacy and Supremacy. Their actions also do not even align with those dogmas. They were primarily concerned with their local ecclesiastical responsibilities and saw themselves as upholders of orthodoxy and not formulators of doctrines. Theologians did not go to the Pope to gain approval for their ideas. Roman Catholicism did not even exist back then because if those same Popes were alive today, they would not recognize their Church because its functions have drastically changed since the early medieval period. This hearkens back to what Fr. Damick said about Roman Catholicism not being “backwards compatible” although I disagree that Rome today would consider the early medieval Popes “heretics” if they existed today.

What also struck me was that back then, there was no such thing as a universal right to appeal to Rome to decide some issue or another. Neither could he depose bishops. These powers only began to be attributed to the Pope beginning with the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, forged documents. Where is the Roman Catholic Church in the Church of Rome back in the early medieval period?

He does mention that the modern views of the Papacy are most often and rightly attributed to Pope Leo the Great but he does not expound on it. He also seems to take an Orthodox view of Pope Gregory the Great’s distaste of the term “ecumenical”.
 
Peter_J said:
I’m trying, to some extent at least, not to post on this thread … but I was struck just now by something that hasn’t been said, but really seems like it ought to be said.

Speaking as a Catholic, I don’t appreciate your using past-examples-of-intercommunion-with-us to provoke one of your fellow Orthodox. (Likewise, if I were to receive communion at an Episcopalian parish and then brought it up with a fellow Catholic to provoke him/her, then I believe that Episcopalians would have a right to be offended.)
Click to expand...
And demanding a Catholic report the name of a priest so he can tattle-tale to the bishop isn’t a provocation? I don’t appreciate a fellow Orthodox taking a dump on Catholics, especially since I once was one. If he doesn’t want to be provoked himself, then let him stop provoking others.

I’m with josie on this one. Point to me where exactly Orthodox have been mistreated in this thread. All I see is pushback against certain claims of us Orthodox. And while it could possibly send the thread down a rabbit hole because of each topic’s depth, none of them are in a particularly disrespectful tone. If anyone has been mistreating others, it has been one Orthodox poster in particular who calls sources cited by some Catholics “protestant” as a means to slight its legitimacy, while also saying people have been wasting their lives for ten years on a forum explaining complicated Catholic theology.
 
Jon_Mallory said:
I read the article and I was struck more by the absence of the topics it treated than by the topics it was most concerned about. He argues against a linear reading of papal history that is too often simplistic. Indeed, the Popes from Gregory the Great to those of the ninth century say nothing regarding Papal primacy and Supremacy. Their actions also do not even align with those dogmas. They were primarily concerned with their local ecclesiastical responsibilities and saw themselves as upholders of orthodoxy and not formulators of doctrines. Theologians did not go to the Pope to gain approval for their ideas. Roman Catholicism did not even exist back then because if those same Popes were alive today, they would not recognize their Church because its functions have drastically changed since the early medieval period. This hearkens back to what Fr. Damick said about Roman Catholicism not being “backwards compatible” although I disagree that Rome today would consider the early medieval Popes “heretics” if they existed today.

What also struck me was that back then, there was no such thing as a universal right to appeal to Rome to decide some issue or another. Neither could he depose bishops. These powers only began to be attributed to the Pope beginning with the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, forged documents. Where is the Roman Catholic Church in the Church of Rome back in the early medieval period?

He does mention that the modern views of the Papacy are most often and rightly attributed to Pope Leo the Great but he does not expound on it. He also seems to take an Orthodox view of Pope Gregory the Great’s distaste of the term “ecumenical”.
Click to expand...
Yep, that about summarizes it. Only thing I would caution on is the issue of the Pseudo-Isidorean decretals. Those decretals would not have been successful if it were not for some prior tradition of appealing to Rome. That being said, the tradition is often overblown by many Catholics. As for Noble himself, he never really takes a big stance on the issue of the papacy. I don’t know what religion he is. I highly recommend reading his first book to learn more about the early medieval papacy in order to gain a better understanding:

Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
 
Rohzek said:
Yep, that about summarizes it. Only thing I would caution on is the issue of the Pseudo-Isidorean decretals. Those decretals would not have been successful if it were not for some prior tradition of appealing to Rome. That being said, the tradition is often overblown by many Catholics. As for Noble himself, he never really takes a big stance on the issue of the papacy. I don’t know what religion he is. I highly recommend reading his first book to learn more about the early medieval papacy in order to gain a better understanding:

Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.
Click to expand...
I believe he is Roman Catholic but he is honest about the history concerning the papacy. I just downloaded 30 of his lectures on the papacy so I am listening to them now. Personally, as an RCIA candidate, I lean more to the Catholic understanding of the papacy. the doctrines surrounding the Petrine office can be found in Pope Gelasius and his predecessor Pope Leo the Great. There is also some evidence for it in Pope Stephen. Is the evidence in any way conclusive regarding that these beliefs were held by all the bishops of Rome and prelates of the Western Church? Far from it and I would even say not at all–but the evidence for the tradition is there and that is for certain. I also believe in doctrinal development or else what is the need for councils in the first place? I have read Pope Gelasius and he has a strong view of papal supremacy.

If I were to look for a religion to join based on the purity of its history, the cut and dryness of its development, I would probably pull my hair out and give up in despair. You can’t see history through rose tinted glasses.
 
Jon_Mallory said:
I believe he is Roman Catholic but he is honest about the history concerning the papacy. I just downloaded 30 of his lectures on the papacy so I am listening to them now. Personally, as an RCIA candidate, I lean more to the Catholic understanding of the papacy. the doctrines surrounding the Petrine office can be found in Pope Gelasius and his predecessor Pope Leo the Great. There is also some evidence for it in Pope Stephen. Is the evidence in any way conclusive regarding that these beliefs were held by all the bishops of Rome and prelates of the Western Church? Far from it and I would even say not at all–but the evidence for the tradition is there and that is for certain. I also believe in doctrinal development or else what is the need for councils in the first place? I have read Pope Gelasius and he has a strong view of papal supremacy.

If I were to look for a religion to join based on the purity of its history, the cut and dryness of its development, I would probably pull my hair out and give up in despair. You can’t see history through rose tinted glasses.
Click to expand...
Where did you find his lectures, if I might ask? Also, I agree about the history of religion and doctrinal development.
 
Peter_J said:
So … you decided that you should be offensive to Catholics yourself?

🤷
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself. Everything I do and get incensed about to is of my own accord and convictions. You should follow the same principle.
 
Jon_Mallory said:
I believe he is Roman Catholic but he is honest about the history concerning the papacy. I just downloaded 30 of his lectures on the papacy so I am listening to them now. Personally, as an RCIA candidate, I lean more to the Catholic understanding of the papacy. the doctrines surrounding the Petrine office can be found in Pope Gelasius and his predecessor Pope Leo the Great. There is also some evidence for it in Pope Stephen. Is the evidence in any way conclusive regarding that these beliefs were held by all the bishops of Rome and prelates of the Western Church? Far from it and I would even say not at all–but the evidence for the tradition is there and that is for certain. I also believe in doctrinal development or else what is the need for councils in the first place? I have read Pope Gelasius and he has a strong view of papal supremacy.

If I were to look for a religion to join based on the purity of its history, the cut and dryness of its development, I would probably pull my hair out and give up in despair. You can’t see history through rose tinted glasses.
Click to expand...
But I think that’s the thinking that Noble is trying to escape, which is why his paper emphasizes the need to apply historical criticism to our reading of papal documents rather than reading them in a teleological fashion.
 
PatrickC said:
It’s good that you were there so we have some first hand knowledge of what transpired. Or it’s just conjecture and carries no more weight than anyone else’s imaginings.
Click to expand...
All you need to do is read up on Florence, the context before and after and the actual debates to know what I’m talking about…
 
My apologies but I haven’t read the entire thread but I wanted to share a interesting article on this very issue from the Orthodox point of view. I noticed the article is ten years old but nevertheless it is a good read for any that wish to read it. My own thoughts are that while I loved hearing the concerns of our fellow Orthodox brothers and sisters, I couldn’t help notice that there are a bit misunderstood issues in terms of Latin theology. Now, I’m far from an expert myself as I’m still learning, but from what I know of our theology it differs from some of the objections that were raised here. I’ve heard it’s been said because it’s a west vs east kind of thing but heck if I know what that means! :o

orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php#a
 
Art321 said:
My apologies but I haven’t read the entire thread but I wanted to share a interesting article on this very issue from the Orthodox point of view. I noticed the article is ten years old but nevertheless it is a good read for any that wish to read it. My own thoughts are that while I loved hearing the concerns of our fellow Orthodox brothers and sisters, I couldn’t help notice that there are a bit misunderstood issues in terms of Latin theology. Now, I’m far from an expert myself as I’m still learning, but from what I know of our theology it differs from some of the objections that were raised here. I’ve heard it’s been said because it’s a west vs east kind of thing but heck if I know what that means! :o

orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php#a
Click to expand...
Perhaps our differences were ordained by God in order for us to come together. Instead of each Church insisting on the other Church to change we need to let the other Church to be. If we work by this platform unity will come overnight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top