Orthodox & Catholics: What Still Divides Us?

[Utmost]

…

I would say, personally, that there is a completely different mindset at play in both churches. In Orthodoxy, asceticism (fasting, prayer rule, spiritually etc) is much more emphasized than in Western confessions (Orthodox tend to lump Catholicism and Protestantism together because they are more alike than different). Ecclesiology is also very different, as is our idea on ‘doctrinal development’ (which we reject).

…

In Christ,
Andrew

I didn’t know that (“Orthodox tend to lump Catholicism and Protestantism together”). Alike in what way? Do you think that Catholicism is closer to uniting with Protestantism than Orthodoxy? How does this relate to the post below?

I will openly admit that if Catholicism and Orthodoxy reunited, that would be a great witness to Protestantism, and would probably be enough to get me to return to this Apostolic church. Right now, I see the CC and OC has both having equally valid claims to being the ancient church, and in schism from each other. I really cannot decide which one to be a part of if either. Reunification would show a willingness to address the issues that seperate the two communions (Purgatory, Filoque, Papal Jurisdiction etc…).

 

[RyanBlack]

I must withdraw from this discussion, at least for the next several days. I am very busy with end of the semester issues for my two classes, and this will also be a very busy two weeks at work. I have enjoyed the discussion and hope to return to it later.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, to the Orthodox, it’s not a thin argument at all, and it’s one with which I agree, to the extent that they argue that these verses address the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit into the world by Christ beginning with Pentecost and to the extent that I don’t believe that these verses provide particularly strong support for the filioque. On the other hand, making the argument-even if one does so convincingly-that they do not support the filioque, by no mean disproves the filioque.

Agee’d

I believe to put this in historical context we no doubt see how it came into play. Nonethless this doesn’t make it right or wrong, just badly worded. The purpose as we know was to combat heresy. Not to promote a heresy in itself. Though as we see this can easily be misinterpreted as such. And rightfully so.

The question to answer is, why hasn’t this been corrected? I wouldn’t know as we don’t know many mysteries of the church which perplex us in many regards. Though I can’t in all good consciousness claim this is some great bone of contention which should keep the churchs not in communion. And this does seem to continue to be the Grand Issue we keep coming around to.

Personally I believe when the more difficult issues are addressed in regards to Papal issues, and how the East correctly fits into this scheme, this and other issues will fall by the wayside. Obviously should there be a communion then another ecumenical council would be eminent. Here is where we will see resolution IMHO.

God Bless, Gary

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks for your great contributions to it, Ryan! Good luck with your semester!

I must withdraw from this discussion, at least for the next several days. I am very busy with end of the semester issues for my two classes, and this will also be a very busy two weeks at work. I have enjoyed the discussion and hope to return to it later.

 

[RyanBlack]

I had said earlier today that I must withdraw from this thread for about a week. However, I was able to find a little time to do a little additional reading (from Early Christian Doctrines, Second Edition, by J.N.D. Kelly, pp. 258-263) So, I have a few points to add.

There already had been explicit teachings of the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father prior to Constantinople. St. Athanasius the Great had explicitly taught it, and had helped secure that teaching by the Council of Alexandria in A.D. 362. Furthermore, St. Gregory of Nazianzus had taught the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father prior to 381. St. Gregory’s treatment of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, which no doubt influenced the adoption of that language in 381, was most certainly concerned primarily about questions of origin and the relationship of the three persons. When he wants to be explicit about consubstantiality, he explicitly uses the actual term “consubstantial.”

The reason for the need to be address questions of the relationship of the members of the Trinity and the means by which the unoriginate Father originates both the Son and the Holy Spirit was exactly because of questions being raised about that very matter. When the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit was explicitly taught prior to the Council in 381, opponents (Arians and Semi-Arians) then began to respond that this amounted to teaching that there are two Sons of the Father (which is clearly unacceptable, since Holy Scripture and the prior witness of the Fathers are consistent in teaching that there is only one Son of the Father).

The Cappadocian Fathers responded to this by replying that the Son is generated by the Father, and that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father in a different manner. St. Basil taught that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father “as the breath of His mouth,” while St. Gregory of Nazianzus taught that it was by procession, which he admits that he cannot precisely explain, but that it is distinct from the relation between Father and Son, which is by begetting. St. Gregory of Nyssa explained, like St. Gregory of Nazianzus, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but added that he receives from the Son. He also taught that the members of the Holy Trinity are distinct according to their origin: the Father is cause, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are caused. The Son is caused directly by the Father, and is rightly called “Only-begotten,” while the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

 

[RyanBlack]

Dear brother Gary,

Sorry for being unclear. I’m not referring to the relatively late debate between East and West which only started with St. Photius. What I was asking for was the identity of the heretics in the fourth century that caused the addition of the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father” as meaning “originates from the Father.” What I mean is, someone must have been denying that the Spirit originated from the Father, if that was the intention of the Constantinopolitan Fathers for adding that phrase. AFAIK, not even the Pneumatomachi/Macedonians denied that the Spirit originated from the Father. So – to repeat – who were these heretics that denied that the Spirit originated from the Father, if, as you claim, that was the original intention of adding the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father” to the Creed?

Can you quote ANY orthodox Catholic Father from the Fourth century who were combatting any heretics who denied that the Spirit originated from the Father?

Blessings,

Marduk

Yes, there were heretics in the Fourth Century who were denying the origination of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and it was in response to those heretics that the Cappadocian Fathers articulated distinctions of relations among the Three members of the Trinity. The Father alone is agennetos, or unoriginate. The Son’s relation to the Father is that He takes His origin from the Father through the Father’s begetting of Him, while the Holy Spirit’s relatition to the Father is that He takes His origin from the Father (and the Son) through the His procession from the Father (through the Son).

St. Gregory on Nazianzus’s Fifth Theological Oration shows clearly that he was grappling with heretics who questioned the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Here’s the argument he had to combat: only the Father is Unbegotten, only the Son is Begotten, within the Godhead there are only Unbegotten and Begotten, therefore, the Holy Spirit is either Begotten, and therefore a “twin” of the Son, or he is not a member of the Godhead. Neither of these two options is acceptable-both are heterodox. The Holy Spirit is clearly God, and the Son, who is also God, is the Only-Begotten. It was in this context that St. Gregory articulated the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father by His procession (ekporeuetai) from the Father. This is clearly about questions of relationship among the Divine Persons and questions of origin from the Father.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I thought you were bowing out of this thread, Ryan? You got the bug, dog! You’re hooked!

Yes, there were heretics in the Fourth Century who were denying the origination of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and it was in response to those heretics that the Cappadocian Fathers articulated distinctions of relations among the Three members of the Trinity. The Father alone is agennetos, or unoriginate. The Son’s relation to the Father is that He takes His origin from the Father through the Father’s begetting of Him, while the Holy Spirit’s relatition to the Father is that He takes His origin from the Father (and the Son) through the His procession from the Father (through the Son).

St. Gregory on Nazianzus’s Fifth Theological Oration shows clearly that he was grappling with heretics who questioned the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Here’s the argument he had to combat: only the Father is Unbegotten, only the Son is Begotten, within the Godhead there are only Unbegotten and Begotten, therefore, the Holy Spirit is either Begotten, and therefore a “twin” of the Son, or he is not a member of the Godhead. Neither of these two options is acceptable-both are heterodox. The Holy Spirit is clearly God, and the Son, who is also God, is the Only-Begotten. It was in this context that St. Gregory articulated the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father by His procession (ekporeuetai) from the Father. This is clearly about questions of relationship among the Divine Persons and questions of origin from the Father.

 

[joemccarron]

What else divides?

1. What about all the councils since the schism(s)? Vatican one would likely be the most problematic – (papal infallibility lead to all sorts of statements from the Popes that Orthodox would all of a sudden have to agree with?) But there are of course councils with all sorts of statements being made. How could the teachings of these councils be viewed? Must they be believed to be infallible by the orthodox? Will Catholics soften their view on these teachings allow some freedom of conscience in these matters?
2. Remarriage after divorce is I think correctly seen as a big obstacle. Can people in this category receive communion or not?
3. Use of contraception? Will one side or the other change?
   I think if we can work those out the filioque and married priests will be a breeze. I would think the above numbered issues are really what we have to start trying to address.

This is an address by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew made at Georgetown University in 1997. If you want to understand what really separates us, at least from our perspective, this is probably the best explanation I’ve read. I highly recommend it.

Text

I really don’t think anything he said about how the church should work would be disagreeable to Catholics. To the extent he thinks what he describes only happens in the Orthodox faith, I think he may have too narrow a view of the Catholic Church. There are many different types of Catholics.

The use of reason should not be a barrier. Many Church fathers and even Paul would use reason to help people live the gospel.

Despite listing what I think are the really big problems I am optimistic. I think progress can be made on these points. But I think people will have to change their established views and recognize that maybe just maybe the Holy Spirit does not always act exactly how we would like to describe.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

Yes, I think we are talking past each other because we are each approaching this from two different premises, basically a misunderstanding.

It seems what you are arguing for is the idea that the Spirit originates from the Father per se. You seem to think that I am denying this basic dogmatic principle of the Trinity when I say that the primary purpose of adding “ekporeusai from the Father” was to stress the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father, instead of His origination from the Father. You will be glad to know that I am not denying that in the least.

Your misunderstanding of my intentions is all on me. My statements are borne of a much larger context of debate on this issue. I’ve never debated this matter with you, and it was my fault for assuming you knew where I was coming from. So permit me to explain more clearly.

When I assert that the purpose of the 2nd Ecumenical Council in adding the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father” was to stress the consubstantiality of the Spirit from the Father, instead of the origin of the Spirit of the Father, what I am actually saying is:
The phrase was added to the Creed to stress the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father, not for the purpose of affirming the monarchia of the Father in relation to the Spirit.

That is what the debate on filioque has always been about.

What I am saying is:

1. The argument made by St. Photius that the Latins were denying the monarchia of the Father by adding “and the Son” was a novelty.
2. The Fathers of the Council added “ekporeusai from the Father” not to affirm the monarchia of the Father, but to stress the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father.

I hope you can see that I was simply equating the idea of the monarchia of the Father with the idea of the Father as originating principle. In my mind, they were perfectly and exclusively equivalent principles, but, in fact, they are not.

NO ONE in the early Church denied the monarchia of the Father. So it is an anachronism for EO apologists to claim that this was the intention of the early Fathers for adding “ekporeusai from the Father” to the Nicene Creed.

The rest of my rhetoric remains the same - i.e., the purpose of adding “ekporeusai from the Father” was to denote the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father - it was ALL ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE. Thus, adding “and the Son” would not be heretical in the mind of the Fathers of the Second Ecum. To this end, I will provide numerous quotes for you, even from St. Gregory Nazianzen, that the contention against the Pneumatomachi was not about the monarchia of the Father, but about the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father. Hence, “ekporeusai from the Father” was indeed added by the Fathers of the 2nd Ecum to denote consubstantiality, not monarchy.

Btw, you are correct that there were some heretics who denied that the Father was the originating principle of the Holy Spirit, thus necessitating the addition of “ekporeusai from the Father.” But, once again, I must affirm that the addition of the phrase was not for the purpose of defending the monarchia of the Father (which no one doubted), but rather simply to distinguish the Son from the Holy Spirit in their consubstantiality with the Father. To repeat, it was ALL ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE."

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t disagree with you that the language of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, that is to say, that the Father, who alone in unoriginate, originates the Holy Spirit by way of procession ultimately means that they are consubstantial. What I disagree with is the assertion that the primary purpose of the statement of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is not that He originates from the Father by way of procession, as opposed to by way of generation, which is the way in which the Son receives His life from the Father), but that the primary purpose is to say that He is consubstantial with the Father. The consubstantiality is obviously (at least from my perspective) implied by the totality of the statements made in the article on the Holy Spirit. I’m beginning to think that we’re talking past each other. However, based on all the sources I’ve read (and please don’t take offense, because I mean none, but I’ll continue to accept them as being more authoritative then you, since I don’t even have a real name to attach to who you are), the primary meaning of the language of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is to explain the manner or the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father, both in the sense of affirming that the Holy Spirit does indeed originate from the Father (which I agree does show consubstantiality) and in the sense of showing that the manner in which the Holy Spirit takes his life from the Father is distinct from the manner in which the Son takes his life from the Father.

 

[JohnVIII]

(You all see what I mean when we get into the filioque then this issue becomes all consuming! - Oh well…)

About the Arians, Brother Marduk is absolutely right! I gave a quote & reference once about this from the ancient canons of the Church some time ago but I can’t reference it right now, but the stated reason the Church condemned the heresy was because it introduced degrees into the Godhead. Arians eventually even changed the wording at baptism, it went something like this, “In the name of the Father the greatest, and of the Son the lessor, and of the Holy Spirit the least”. So this does fit in well with Brother Marduk’s argument.

The filioque can be defined as orthodox and the Roman Church has done this. But that is not good enough for me. If you say all apples are not red, and then you define that to meant that most apples are red, someone who has not heard of the correct definition might assume that all apples are not red means that most apples are green. Proceeds from the Father and the Son is defined as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial. But if you don’t know the definition you might think it means that there are two sources that the Holy Spirit proceeds from. Also, “proceeds from the Father and the Son” somehow fights Arianism BETTER than “one in essence with the Father”?! We’re supposed to believe that the Creed wasn’t worded good enough to refute Arianism, but now with the addition of the filioque it is now officially good enough. I don’t think it creates any sort of balance in the divinity of the 3 persons of the Godhead, rather it has been proven over time to create an imbalance. If it is so much better why not change “one in essence with the Father” to “begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit”?

There are some Churches that not only think that when the Creed was first finished that it settled the heresy of Arianism, but that it settled all heresies for all time. I think one of those Churches is the Coptic Church, am I wrong? Surely what was worked out in the 4th century, with the help of the Holy Spirit, is as good as it can get to fight Arianism. And how in the world could saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son do squat to fight Arianism anyway?!

Because of how Rome defines the filioque I’m NOT going to call it a heresy, but I do consider it’s addition to the Creed a mistake that ranks right up there with when the Pope creating a schism in Antioch and thus being out of communion with the true head of the Church of Antioch which was in attendance at the 2nd Ecumenical and the reason Rome took centuries to confirm that counsel! The Pope can make mistakes, after all, he’s not infallible!

 

[gmcbroom]

What still divides us? Ego.

 

[RyanBlack]

Dear brother Ryan,

Yes, I think we are talking past each other because we are each approaching this from two different premises, basically a misunderstanding.

It seems what you are arguing for is the idea that the Spirit originates from the Father per se. You seem to think that I am denying this basic dogmatic principle of the Trinity when I say that the primary purpose of adding “ekporeusai from the Father” was to stress the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father, instead of His origination from the Father. You will be glad to know that I am not denying that in the least.

No, I am not, nor have I at any time been concenred that you are denying the basic dogmatic principle of the Trinity that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father.

Your misunderstanding of my intentions is all on me. My statements are borne of a much larger context of debate on this issue. I’ve never debated this matter with you, and it was my fault for assuming you knew where I was coming from. So permit me to explain more clearly.

When I assert that the purpose of the 2nd Ecumenical Council in adding the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father” was to stress the consubstantiality of the Spirit from the Father, instead of the origin of the Spirit of the Father, what I am actually saying is:
The phrase was added to the Creed to stress the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father, not for the purpose of affirming the monarchia of the Father in relation to the Spirit.

I continue to disagree. The question of the consubstantiality was certainly a concern and needed to be affirmed, but it had been addressed by St. Athanasius and St. Gregory of Nazianzus and the Council of Alexandria, and was, to an extent, settled (using the actual term “consubstantial”) as far as the Church was concerned prior the Second Ecumenical Council. The teachings of the Cappadocians clearly demonstrate that they (who greatly influenced the work of the Second Council) articulated the teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit not as a matter of teaching consubstantiality (which they did affirm), but to combat the binitarian heresy that the only relations within the Godhead are those of Begetter and Begotten, which exclude the Holy Spirit from the Godhead (so yes, the procession of the Holy Spirit is indeed related to he consubstantiality, but that is not the precise emphasis of the articulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is actually to show how his origin from the Father is distinct from that of the Son.

 

[RyanBlack]

That is what the debate on filioque has always been about.

What I am saying is:

1. The argument made by St. Photius that the Latins were denying the monarchia of the Father by adding “and the Son” was a novelty.
2. The Fathers of the Council added “ekporeusai from the Father” not to affirm the monarchia of the Father, but to stress the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father.

I agree with 1, but only the first phrase of 2.

I hope you can see that I was simply equating the idea of the monarchia of the Father with the idea of the Father as originating principle. In my mind, they were perfectly and exclusively equivalent principles, but, in fact, they are not.

NO ONE in the early Church denied the monarchia of the Father. So it is an anachronism for EO apologists to claim that this was the intention of the early Fathers for adding “ekporeusai from the Father” to the Nicene Creed.

I have never questioned your orthodoxy on the monarchia of the Father or the Father as the originating principle, and I am aware that the monarchia of the Father was not a controversy in the Early Church. I also agree that the insertion into the Creed of the procession of the Spirit from the Father was not for the sake of informing the Father’s monarchia. However, I still insist that it was for the purpose of distinguishing his means of origination from the Father from that of the Son (which, among other things in the Creed, helped to affirm His consubstantiality, but is not in and of itself and explicit statement of consubstantiality-an explicit statement of consubstantiality is exactly that and uses the actual term).

The rest of my rhetoric remains the same - i.e., the purpose of adding “ekporeusai from the Father” was to denote the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father - it was ALL ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE. Thus, adding “and the Son” would not be heretical in the mind of the Fathers of the Second Ecum. To this end, I will provide numerous quotes for you, even from St. Gregory Nazianzen, that the contention against the Pneumatomachi was not about the monarchia of the Father, but about the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father. Hence, “ekporeusai from the Father” was indeed added by the Fathers of the 2nd Ecum to denote consubstantiality, not monarchy.

As I have made clear with specific reasons, I disagree with your ongoing assertion about denoting consubstantiality. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is among those attributes of the Holy Spirit that support it, but is not, in and of itself, a direct statement of consubstantiality. Those statements had already been made by St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Council of Alexandria, using the actual term. Procession shows that the origin of the Holy Spirit is from the Father, but by a means distinct from that of the begetting of the Son, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus shows in his Fifth Theological Oration, where he also affirms the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, using the actual term “consubstantial.”

Btw, you are correct that there were some heretics who denied that the Father was the originating principle of the Holy Spirit, thus necessitating the addition of “ekporeusai from the Father.” But, once again, I must affirm that the addition of the phrase was not for the purpose of defending the monarchia of the Father (which no one doubted), but rather simply to distinguish the Son from the Holy Spirit in their consubstantiality with the Father. To repeat, it was ALL ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE."

Not to distinguish the Son and the Spirit in their consubsantiality with the Father (consubstantiality, as I have repeatedly stated is demonstrated with the actual term “consubstantial” being used of both the Son and the Holy Spirit), but to distinguish to Son and the Holy Spiritr in the means of their origin from and relationship to the Father within the inner life of the Trinity.

 

[hazcompat]

Rivers of living water.

peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

What else divides?

1. What about all the councils since the schism(s)? Vatican one would likely be the most problematic – (papal infallibility lead to all sorts of statements from the Popes that Orthodox would all of a sudden have to agree with?) But there are of course councils with all sorts of statements being made. How could the teachings of these councils be viewed? Must they be believed to be infallible by the orthodox? Will Catholics soften their view on these teachings allow some freedom of conscience in these matters?
2. Remarriage after divorce is I think correctly seen as a big obstacle. Can people in this category receive communion or not?
3. Use of contraception? Will one side or the other change?
   I think if we can work those out the filioque and married priests will be a breeze. I would think the above numbered issues are really what we have to start trying to address.

I really don’t think anything he said about how the church should work would be disagreeable to Catholics. To the extent he thinks what he describes only happens in the Orthodox faith, I think he may have too narrow a view of the Catholic Church. There are many different types of Catholics.

The use of reason should not be a barrier. Many Church fathers and even Paul would use reason to help people live the gospel.

Despite listing what I think are the really big problems I am optimistic. I think progress can be made on these points. But I think people will have to change their established views and recognize that maybe just maybe the Holy Spirit does not always act exactly how we would like to describe.

This is more aligned with where I see the problems today and of course the BVM.

Lets face it the EO is in agreement with the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. While we can debate semantics, the elect of the EO has no issue with these early councils.

Really its the Catholic Church who is reseaching “Dominus Iesus” which is complex. But the Bishop of Rome is defined at Nicaea and Chalcedon as the “proto” and “first among equals”. And of course Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch. This is automatically acceptable to the EO, the EO upholds the first 7 councils.

So the real falling away comes from the 8th to the 21st.

God Bless, Gary

 

[JohnVIII]

St. Gregory on Nazianzus’s Fifth Theological Oration shows clearly that he was grappling with heretics who questioned the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Here’s the argument he had to combat: only the Father is Unbegotten, only the Son is Begotten, within the Godhead there are only Unbegotten and Begotten, therefore, the Holy Spirit is either Begotten, and therefore a “twin” of the Son, or he is not a member of the Godhead. Neither of these two options is acceptable-both are heterodox. The Holy Spirit is clearly God, and the Son, who is also God, is the Only-Begotten. It was in this context that St. Gregory articulated the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father by His procession (ekporeuetai) from the Father. This is clearly about questions of relationship among the Divine Persons and questions of origin from the Father.

This is a very important point, and I am so glad you so clearly explained this! Thank you RyanBlack!

 

[Beloved2010]

I’m not sure all of us here have a full understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches on the Holy Spirit. Of course this is a mystery that can never be understood by our minds, but nonetheless we should all read what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Summa Theologica concerning this theology. He can say it better than all of us.

Here it is:
newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm