Orthodox Catholics split up because of this?

[Paris_Blues]

I was at our RCIA group thing on Sunday and the deacon was going over the Creeds.

He then told us that the Catholic Orthodox kinda split apart from Roman 'cause they didn’t like the part where it talks about *"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, *who proceeds from the Father and the Son…" and he was explaining to us that the Orthodox didn’t like something about adding the Son on or something? I can’t remember what he exactly said but I know it was something about the Holy Spirit. He also mentions some Latin word that described it, think it started with an “f” or something.

Anyone know?

If that’s the case, why the heck do people keep splitting apart from the CC just because they don’t like something?

That brings me to another question: is Roman Catholic the TRUE Catholic identity so to speak?

 

[Contarini]

Filioque. It means “and from the Son.” Many early Christian theologians taught that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. In the West this became accepted as the orthodox position (some Eastern theologians had taught it as well but it didn’t catch on as much there). Because of theological controversies in the West, some Western churches (first in Spain I believe) started using it in the Creed. The Pope (around 800) resisted this, not because he thought the doctrine was heretical but because he didn’t want to mess with the Creed. Centuries later (11th century), a later Pope reversed the earlier Pope’s decision and added the phrase to the Creed (some would say that this was because the Papacy had ceased to be dominated by Greeks and southern Europeans, as it had back in the 8-9th centuries, and had come to be dominated by folks from areas north of the Alps such as France and Germany, who had been pushing for the filioque for centuries). The Eastern churches saw this as a heretical and unjustified addition to the Creed established by the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Beyond the theological issues, which are very abstruse, it’s a question of authority. Did the Pope have the right to add a phrase to the Creed without the consent of a Council? This action went along with a huge growth in papal claims of authority (part of what are called the “Gregorian Reforms” under Popes such as Gregory VII).

The Orthodox would say that they didn’t split, but rather that the Western Church chose to split from the Orthodox Church by adding a phrase to the Creed and then excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople for not going along with it (the reality was much more complicated than that).

Edwin

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Paris Blues:

I was at our RCIA group thing on Sunday and the deacon was going over the Creeds.

He then told us that the Catholic Orthodox kinda split apart from Roman 'cause they didn’t like the part where it talks about *"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, *who proceeds from the Father and the Son…" and he was explaining to us that the Orthodox didn’t like something about adding the Son on or something? I can’t remember what he exactly said but I know it was something about the Holy Spirit. He also mentions some Latin word that described it, think it started with an “f” or something.

Anyone know?

If that’s the case, why the heck do people keep splitting apart from the CC just because they don’t like something?

That brings me to another question: is Roman Catholic the TRUE Catholic identity so to speak?

There are several problems with what was posted.

“He then told us that the Catholic Orthodox kinda split apart from Roman 'cause…”

There is no such thing as a “Catholic Orthodox”. The Orthodox split over many different things at many different times. They split from Catholic unity, not the Roman Catholic Church.

"they didn’t like the part where it talks about *"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, *who proceeds from the Father and the Son…" and he was explaining to us that the Orthodox didn’t like something about adding the Son on or something? "

The specific word is **And the Son. **The Eastern Church holds a slightly different view of the relationship of the persons of the Trinity then the Western (Roman). Different but not incorrect. Some Eastern Churches felt adding the “Filioque” to the Creed was wrong, some didn’t. Splits over the teachings of earlier Councils also caused small splits with some of the Eastern Churches that were healed. Adding this term did not oppose the Eastern idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Son but through the Son.

 

[Paris_Blues]

Br. Rich SFO:

There are several problems with what was posted.

“He then told us that the Catholic Orthodox kinda split apart from Roman 'cause…”

There is no such thing as a “Catholic Orthodox”. The Orthodox split over many different things at many different times. They split from Catholic unity, not the Roman Catholic Church.

"they didn’t like the part where it talks about *"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, *who proceeds from the Father and the Son…" and he was explaining to us that the Orthodox didn’t like something about adding the Son on or something? "

The specific word is **And the Son. **The Eastern Church holds a slightly different view of the relationship of the persons of the Trinity then the Western (Roman). Different but not incorrect. Some Eastern Churches felt adding the “Filioque” to the Creed. This did not oppose the Eastern idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Son but through the Son.

Okay, how about Christian Orthodox? Does that sound better? I guess I was thinking Catholic and thought that the Orthodox came apart from the CC, etc. who knows what the heck I was thinking when I wrote that.

 

[Topher]

Contarini:

Filioque. It means “and from the Son.” Many early Christian theologians taught that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. In the West this became accepted as the orthodox position (some Eastern theologians had taught it as well but it didn’t catch on as much there). Because of theological controversies in the West, some Western churches (first in Spain I believe) started using it in the Creed. The Pope (around 800) resisted this, not because he thought the doctrine was heretical but because he didn’t want to mess with the Creed. Centuries later (11th century), a later Pope reversed the earlier Pope’s decision and added the phrase to the Creed (some would say that this was because the Papacy had ceased to be dominated by Greeks and southern Europeans, as it had back in the 8-9th centuries, and had come to be dominated by folks from areas north of the Alps such as France and Germany, who had been pushing for the filioque for centuries). The Eastern churches saw this as a heretical and unjustified addition to the Creed established by the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Beyond the theological issues, which are very abstruse, it’s a question of authority. Did the Pope have the right to add a phrase to the Creed without the consent of a Council? This action went along with a huge growth in papal claims of authority (part of what are called the “Gregorian Reforms” under Popes such as Gregory VII).

The Orthodox would say that they didn’t split, but rather that the Western Church chose to split from the Orthodox Church by adding a phrase to the Creed and then excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople for not going along with it (the reality was much more complicated than that).

Edwin

And if you read the writtings of the early Church fathers this was not the first time that Papal Primacy was exercised in the Chruch. From the time of St. Clement of Rome, we see very clearly that the Church of Rome and its bishop were not only the center of unity but the Bishop of Rome was always the final earthly authority in the Church. The Bishop of Rome was always the final court of appeal and the fathers always argued that this was becasue of his seat as the successor of Sts. Peter and Paul. The only time Church fathers every argued against papal primacy, and this was rare, was when they didn’t like the decision that a Pope made. Sounds like protestantism doesn’t. Don’t like what the church did so I’ll argue against her authority. Even St. Crysostem, who was noterious for this, actaully was obedient the Pope when push came to shove. You must realize that the papacy didn’t start with gregory. It goes back to Peter.

 

[St_Benedict]

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church -** for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.**” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

(MY BOLD)

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/817.htm

It’s a very complicated and sad story but if you want a very simple explanation, East and West had been becoming estranged for a long period of time, communications not being what they are in modern times. In 1054 matters came to a head with not particularly good behaviour by the then Patriarch of Constantinople and the Papal envoy, a Cardinal. Even after this, a full break in communion was not made for a couple of more centuries.

About the Orthodox

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1399.htm

 

[RobNY]

Topher:

And if you read the writtings of the early Church fathers

This reminds me, question to Contarini:

Did you get your doctorate yet?

Paris Blues:

Yeah, from what I’ve read on the Eastern Christianity forums here, some of the differences have to do with the different languages we use, and different ways we form our theologies between East and West. Currently, in the Eastern formula the filioque is considered heretical, while it wouldn’t be so from the Western formula. The underlying words that are used also seem to cause some consternation. All I can say is that, after reading debates over this type of thing, you want to bang your head against the wall.

Perhaps reading the ‘Fathers Know Best’ tract on the filioque could help you a bit.

 

[jco2004]

Br. Rich SFO:

There is no such thing as a “Catholic Orthodox”. The Orthodox split over many different things at many different times. They split from Catholic unity, not the Roman Catholic Church

First of all, the Orthodox defintely do consider themselves to be Catholic, as in preserving the wholeness (Catholicity) of the Faith.

Second, your statement is inaccurate if only because it was Rome who first excommunicated the Orthodox patriarch of Constanitnople, not the other way around. Joe

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

jco2004:

First of all, the Orthodox defintely do consider themselves to be Catholic, as in preserving the wholeness (Catholicity) of the Faith.

Second, your statement is inaccurate if only because it was Rome who first excommunicated the Orthodox patriarch of Constanitnople, not the other way around. Joe

I’m sure some Orthodox do consider themselves Catholic, But that does not make them so. If they are not in union with the Pope, the Successor of Peter and reject his jurisdiction and authority then they are NOT Catholic.

Rome did not excommunicate the Patriarch of Constanitnople. The Pope did as head of the Catholic Church.

 

[Topher]

jco2004:

First of all, the Orthodox defintely do consider themselves to be Catholic, as in preserving the wholeness (Catholicity) of the Faith.

First of all, even if they consider themselves Catholic, this does not make them Catholics. They are seperated from the unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

jco2004:

Second, your statement is inaccurate if only because it was Rome who first excommunicated the Orthodox patriarch of Constanitnople, not the other way around. Joe

They were brought back into unity at the council of Florence but then decided to ignore the council and remain in schism. Therefore, they remain, by their own choice, separted from the Church established by Jesus Christ and as they have remainde separated they have continued to descend into heresy over matter such as authority, the indissolubility of marraige, the filioque, etc.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

Filioque. It means “and from the Son.” Many early Christian theologians taught that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. In the West this became accepted as the orthodox position (some Eastern theologians had taught it as well but it didn’t catch on as much there). Because of theological controversies in the West, some Western churches (first in Spain I believe) started using it in the Creed. The Pope (around 800) resisted this, not because he thought the doctrine was heretical but because he didn’t want to mess with the Creed. Centuries later (11th century), a later Pope reversed the earlier Pope’s decision and added the phrase to the Creed (some would say that this was because the Papacy had ceased to be dominated by Greeks and southern Europeans, as it had back in the 8-9th centuries, and had come to be dominated by folks from areas north of the Alps such as France and Germany, who had been pushing for the filioque for centuries). The Eastern churches saw this as a heretical and unjustified addition to the Creed established by the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Beyond the theological issues, which are very abstruse, it’s a question of authority. Did the Pope have the right to add a phrase to the Creed without the consent of a Council? This action went along with a huge growth in papal claims of authority (part of what are called the “Gregorian Reforms” under Popes such as Gregory VII).

The Orthodox would say that they didn’t split, but rather that the Western Church chose to split from the Orthodox Church by adding a phrase to the Creed and then excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople for not going along with it (the reality was much more complicated than that).

Edwin

Which means that the difference about who (if anyone) split from whom, depends on one’s perspective - and that means there may be more than one answer. Since Christ is Lord of the Church, why can’t the issue of authority rest there, with all human bishops being fellow-workmen under Him; rather than attempting to dominate over another ? It seems like such unChurchly behaviour - and doesn’t the mission of the Church matter far more than such in-fighting? How can disputes be healed, if the disputants unchurch one another ?​