Papal prerogatives

[mardukm]

I don’t understand how keeping one’s word,

Does anyone have a link to the treaty? I’d like to read it.
Did the Pope impose the same precription on ALL Eastern Catholics outside the US? Was this a unique and extenuating circumstance? Should one be bound to one’s word if one discovers later it might be a cause of scandal to others?

preserving tradition, and acting with charity

I would not at all preserve a tradition that would cause scandal. That would not be charitable. Recall St. Paul’s own exhortation - all things are profitable, but if it might scandalize one who is weak, better to discard that thing.

An explanation of history would dispel any appearance of scandal

Let’s just suppose the CC explained all this to the flock. The CC was in the midst of hostile territory (and still is). Protestants would take every opportunity to use such a change of discipline (even with explanation to the Catholic flock) to claim “look, the Catholic Church changes with the times.” I don’t know if you’ve EVER debated Protestants, but you should be aware that Protestants generally know next to nothing about the difference between traditions and Tradition. Do you seriously believe that married priests would not cause a scandal in the US, where the CC was a persecuted minority(Catholics could not even hold office at that time)? Further, the celibate priesthood was one of the readily observable DISTINGUISHING FACTORS between Catholicism and Protestantism. The Latin CC, I believe, was struggling as it was in a sea of Protestantism, without this added loss of witness to a non-Catholic world.

How is it OK to break one’s word because some ignorant by-stander not directly affected might think you didn’t act properly? If we all acted under those provisions, we couldn’t act at all!

Do you feel any change of mind at all given St. Paul’s exhortation? Should we not have care for that ignorant by-stander?

It is my opinion that doing the right thing and keeping one’s word, so long as it is not an objective sin, is more important than doing the wrong thing and breaking an oath but coming out looking good to casual observers.

It is not a matter of being accepted. Heck, the celibate priesthood was MUCH maligned by the Protestant Churches. So “looking good” would by far NOT have been the response of maintaining a celibate priesthood in the US.

What an opportunity there was for education and respect and instead a group of people’s rights were limited for no reason other than to not make the ignorant majority jealous. And the fruit was thousands of people in the east being scandalized and justifiably angered, disappointed, and losing their trust in Rome.

The scandal was not caused by the Pope’s decision, given out of genuine concern for a local Church in his patriarchal jurisdiction. It was caused by the prejudice of Abp Ireland and the schism of Fr. Toth. I humbly ask you to meditate, once again, on St. Paul’s words.

I can’t say I think it was a wise choice or within his jurisdiction.

No one doubts that the U.S. is in the Latin jurisdiction. The Latin Catholic Church were the first to evangelize all of North America. It was the blood of Latin Catholic martyrs who sowed the seeds of the Church in that region (though some parts of Alaska were evangelized first by the ROC). If you have only read some of the extreme tortures Latin priests went through to bring the Gospel to the natives, you might not be expressing any doubt about the matter.

I believe it was a wise choice given that the Catholic Church was yet a small island in a sea of anti-Catholic Protestantism.

I believe Pope Benedict should do some fancy footwork like he did with the Moto Proprio and say that the venerable traditions of the east were never forbidden with cum data feurit and to effectively recall it, officially recognizing that the authority rests with the heads of the Eastern Catholic Churches to make such decisions.

What does Pope Benedict have to do with this? Everyone knows that cum data fuerit was PROVISIONAL. It’s now a matter of the Eastern/Oriental Churches exercising their rights. Unfortunately, many are still in a papal mentality. I love it that these hierarchs have such a great love/ respect for the Pope, but the exercise of their rights, which the Pope has implictly supported by divesting himself of the title “patriarch of the West”, is certainly not mutually exclusive from that love/respect.

I wish brother Neil (Irish Melkite) would pop in and relate that incident between the Pope and an Eastern hierarch in the first part of the 20th century, when the Pope specifically exhorted the hierarch to “exercise your rights.” Neil was the one who responded to my inquiry when I asked this in the ByzCath forums (though I have forgotten his answer).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Woodstock]

Does anyone have a link to the treaty? I’d like to read it.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=5351

I’ll have to come back tomorrow or Monday for the rest. A blessed Sunday to you all!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Someone more informed of the situation of Eastern European Catholics will have to respond to you. I was just offering a possible answer to your question.

I believe the Pope has that right in places outside the traditional territories of the Patriarchs (because those territories are traditionally considered part of the Latin Patriarchate). I do not believe he has such a right within the canonical territories of the Patriarchs.

When he has less chance of getting away with it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So can the Melkite patriarch tell the pope that there aren’t to be any celibate priests in the Latin parishes in his canonical territory to avoid confusing the faithful? He should be able to if it is an issue of territory.

Touche.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

It’s not a matter of approaching the Pope. It is part of Canon law. A balance between kindness and obedience to Tradition must be maintained. Canon law states bishops are required to accomodate those in their territory who may be of other rites. If ENOUGH Latin Catholics exist in his territories, he should give them a celibate priest according to their Tradition (if they ask for it). The same if enough Eastern/Oriental Catholics exist in a Latin diocese - he should give them the option of having a married priest (if they ask for it).

In any case, if there were any Latin parishes that existed in the Melkite territory, they would probably be there because they were allowed in the first place by the Melkite Patriarch, or they were already in place from before the union (unlikely(?)). It would be within the Melkite Patriarch’s rights to abolish those Latin parishes (since they would have been set up by his authority in the first place).

Or they were set up by the Crusaders. Remember up until recently, Antioch also had a Latin patriarchate, whose territory was where?

In Antioch, St. Peter’s grotto, the first Church, is a Latin shrine.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Let me explain be rewording your first sentence in the second paragraph: "So he could allow or disallow them in his territory, but he couldn’t tell them what to do if they were already there before his canonical territory was established. This is ONLY assuming that the Pope chose to keep those churches under his omophorion. However, this has never happened, to my knowledge. When the canonical territories of the Catholic Patriarchs were established (basically, along the same lines as those established by the Ecumenical Councils of the first millenium), there were no Latin Catholics in those territories. If there WERE Latins in those territories, he would be obliged by the evangelical law of charity to provide for them according to their own rite if those Latin Catholics requested it at the time.

Could he choose to violate the evangelical law of charity? I suppose he could, but that might cause a schism.

That being said, I hope you can appreciate the tremendous problem and danger of drawing conclusions based on mere possibilities of things happening. It certainly goes against the Lord’s exhortation to worry only about today, for tomorrow has troubles of its own. This, IMHO, is the meat of non-Catholic polemics against the papacy.

Does that answer your question?

No, since it is not a theory but a practice. Several Latin rite parishes exist in Antioch, Jerusalem ONLY has a Latin patriarchate, and in Alexandria and Constinople Latin parishes also operate. I’ve been to numerous ones in all four patriarchates.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t follow this.

From within what…the Eastern churches themselves…or within the United States of America?

Sounds like the tyranny of the majority to me, how about you?

I think that after a few decades of this, the only candidates considered for bishop in the Byzantine-Slavonic Catholic churches of North America were pro-Mandatory Celibacy (some of the older ones still are) and favoring other Latinizations as well, but that is not how it started out. The first bishops were appointed by Rome, but from European candidates who knew the tradition, and the promises.

Around the world we can find examples of predominately Roman Catholic Conferences of Bishops petitioning Rome to somehow restrain and control the Eastern Catholics. You know this too…it happened in the USA, Poland, Italy and probably a lot of other places.

It seems to me that the promises and assurances made to the Orthodox Catholic bishops considering submission to Rome were written on worthless paper.

What do you think?

Michael

that the idea that you have to refer to the terms of union is absurd.

We Orthodox, I admit, have terms of union: I believe in One God, the Father…

No treaties of union between the 16 autocephalous Churches. How in the world are we able to maintain communion? (hint: it’s not of this world).

This is how you get organizations like this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Society_of_Saint_Josaphat

I love the idea of a traditionalist uniate organization fighting to preserve Latinization. Why not go all the way West?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Here is my sincere belief.

The Pope acted properly and rightly. It was in his Patriarchate, he respected the rights of local heirarchs (which were the Latin hierarchs) by not imposing anything until it was requested, and he made the prescription according to the needs of the local Church (there was a genuine question of scandal, especially since the Protestant churches all permitted married ministers). Further, in keeping with the evangelical law of charity, the Pope decreed that the prescription was only temporary.

On the other hand, Archbishop Ireland did NOT act rightly because it is obvious from all the documentation that his impetus was not concern for the possibility of scandal but because he was prejudiced against the Eastern Catholics. Further, he did NOT act properly because he violated the divine, evangelical and canonical law of charity.

That being said, I don’t believe Father Alexis Toth (eternal memory) acted properly when he led thousands of Catholics into schism. NO ONE IS PERMITTED TO BREAK COMMUNION ON AN ISSUE OF MERE DISCIPLINE. Have the Orthodox not learned the lessons of the incident of Pope St. Victor and the Easter controversy? I can greatly appreciate his love for his Tradition, but he had absolutely no right to break the communion of the Church. I find Eastern Orthodox praise of Fr. Toths actions while simulataneously criticizing Pope St. Victor as one of the more egregious displays of hypocrisy in their arguments against the Catholic Church.

St. Alexis led no one into schism.

He just restored full communion and restored them to full Catholic unity. Translated to Reunion.

Isn’t that how it is phrased when they date the origin of the various unia, when it returned to full communion and Catholic unity? Of course, they are talking about traffic in the other direction.

St. Alexis remsembles bishop Polycrates of Asia. Nothing of the arrogance and overbearing demenor of Pope Victor nor Bishop Ireland. Where’s the hypocrisy?

Sic semper tyrannis.

Disciple was only St. Alexis’ epiphany, when the scales fell from his eyes.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Hesychios,

I pray brother Aramis does not mind my responding to a post directed to him.

In terms of doctrine on faith and morals, the will of the majority has no bearing. But on a matter of discipline, the will of the majority is indeed the determining factor. I suppose one can accuse the majority of tyranny, but one can also accuse the minority of a lack of humility.

Were the European candidates Eastern Catholics? If so, it seems everything you write here supports brother Aramis’ assertions that the Latinizations were mostly internal.

Everything seems to be getting better in the United States regarding celibacy (though other innovations might be introduced, from an Eastern perspective).

I’m not aware of the situation in Poland. Can you tell me more?

I recall the Italian conference made a fuss. What was the result of that?

All the Popes in the past century have encouraged the Eastern Catholic Churches, so don’t blame the Pope. It is partly a matter of the Eastern Catholic hierarchs asserting themselves, as a Pope in the early 20th century told an Eastern Catholic hierarch. I forget the names, but the Eastern hierarch asked the Pope about a situation, and the Pope responded, “exercise your rights.”

In any case, I sense part of the reason Eastern Orthodox don’t appreciate the situation of Catholics is because of its inherent jurisdictionalism. Eastern Orthodox seem more concerned with jurisdiction rather unity in that regard. Though jurisdictionalism exists in the Catholic Churches, it is very muffled and nowhere near as divisive as in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. It is also the ecclesiology of the EO that, to me, presents a problem. If there is a group of people that disagree with something, EO ecclesiology, which permits lay persons to rebel against their bishops, encourages such rebellious behavior, even if it is only a matter of discipline. I have found that there is more humility and respect for the hierarchy in the Catholic Church (and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, for that matter) in this regard, the proper attitude enjoined by the Church of the Ecumenical Councils.

I assume Mardukm (I don’t know if I have seen you state it) that you are in the US or Australia. In Egypt, and for that matter all of Africa, there are no jurisdictional problems among the Orthodox, except solving the Chalcedon issue.

The fact is that there is NO country in the world where there is not a Latin hierarchy, except Eritrea. That includes in the Eastern countries, including all four of the patriarchates. So the few thousand Eritreans should feel special.

The Orthodox do see multiple patriarchates in Antioch and Alexandria, all under Rome. Jerusalem alone has one patriarch, a Latin one.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Does anyone have a link to the treaty? I’d like to read it.
Did the Pope impose the same precription on ALL Eastern Catholics outside the US? Was this a unique and extenuating circumstance? Should one be bound to one’s word if one discovers later it might be a cause of scandal to others?

I would not at all preserve a tradition that would cause scandal. That would not be charitable. Recall St. Paul’s own exhortation - all things are profitable, but if it might scandalize one who is weak, better to discard that thing.

Let’s just suppose the CC explained all this to the flock. The CC was in the midst of hostile territory (and still is). Protestants would take every opportunity to use such a change of discipline (even with explanation to the Catholic flock) to claim “look, the Catholic Church changes with the times.” I don’t know if you’ve EVER debated Protestants, but you should be aware that Protestants generally know next to nothing about the difference between traditions and Tradition. Do you seriously believe that married priests would not cause a scandal in the US, where the CC was a persecuted minority(Catholics could not even hold office at that time)? Further, the celibate priesthood was one of the readily observable DISTINGUISHING FACTORS between Catholicism and Protestantism. The Latin CC, I believe, was struggling as it was in a sea of Protestantism, without this added loss of witness to a non-Catholic world.

Do you feel any change of mind at all given St. Paul’s exhortation? Should we not have care for that ignorant by-stander?

It is not a matter of being accepted. Heck, the celibate priesthood was MUCH maligned by the Protestant Churches. So “looking good” would by far NOT have been the response of maintaining a celibate priesthood in the US.

The scandal was not caused by the Pope’s decision, given out of genuine concern for a local Church in his patriarchal jurisdiction. It was caused by the prejudice of Abp Ireland and the schism of Fr. Toth. I humbly ask you to meditate, once again, on St. Paul’s words.

No one doubts that the U.S. is in the Latin jurisdiction. The Latin Catholic Church were the first to evangelize all of North America. It was the blood of Latin Catholic martyrs who sowed the seeds of the Church in that region (though some parts of Alaska were evangelized first by the ROC). If you have only read some of the extreme tortures Latin priests went through to bring the Gospel to the natives, you might not be expressing any doubt about the matter.

I believe it was a wise choice given that the Catholic Church was yet a small island in a sea of anti-Catholic Protestantism.

What does Pope Benedict have to do with this? Everyone knows that cum data fuerit was PROVISIONAL. It’s now a matter of the Eastern/Oriental Churches exercising their rights. Unfortunately, many are still in a papal mentality. I love it that these hierarchs have such a great love/ respect for the Pope, but the exercise of their rights, which the Pope has implictly supported by divesting himself of the title “patriarch of the West”, is certainly not mutually exclusive from that love/respect.

I wish brother Neil (Irish Melkite) would pop in and relate that incident between the Pope and an Eastern hierarch in the first part of the 20th century, when the Pope specifically exhorted the hierarch to “exercise your rights.” Neil was the one who responded to my inquiry when I asked this in the ByzCath forums (though I have forgotten his answer).

Blessings,
Marduk

If I remember correctly, something that hasn’t been brought up already. Both St. Alexis Toth’s wife and son were ALREADY DEAD.

If you read the exchange between St. Alexis and Ireland was that the saint HAD been married.

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

I don’t recall Protestants being scandalized by this by any Orthoodox Priest.

It did however make things easier for the Orthodox that they wouldn’t join a uniate parish by mistake (it happended because of things like filioque etc not being there to make the distinction. Someone posted a month ago about doing it now). Many I know say that there parents, grandparents were told in the Old Country that they should never go to a Church until they met the priest’s wife (and therefore knew the Church was Orthodox).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

If I remember correctly, something that hasn’t been brought up already. Both St. Alexis Toth’s wife and son were ALREADY DEAD.

If you read the exchange between St. Alexis and Ireland was that the saint HAD been married.

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

I don’t recall Protestants being scandalized by this by any Orthoodox Priest.

It did however make things easier for the Orthodox that they wouldn’t join a uniate parish by mistake (it happended because of things like filioque etc not being there to make the distinction. Someone posted a month ago about doing it now). Many I know say that there parents, grandparents were told in the Old Country that they should never go to a Church until they met the priest’s wife (and therefore knew the Church was Orthodox).

I don’t think you quite understand what I have posted.

I stated that the Pope was acting rightly and properly out of concern for a local Church which might be scandalized by seeing married ministers.

I also stated that Abp Ireland was NOT acting rightly nor properly because he was acting out of prejudice.

Abp Ireland knew that having Fr Toth there would not have any detrimental affect on ANYONE. So he should not have rejected Fr. Toth.

However, the Pope was not acting on the basis of Fr. Toth’s situation, brother. He was acting on the basis of the scandal that could be caused by people seeing future married ministers in the Catholic Church? So he gave a PROVISIONAL decree that until people would no longer be scandalized by that situation - no doubt having in mind a time when Eastern/Oriental Catholicism established itself more fruitfully in North America - priests in North America should not be married.

The Pope was acting out of genuine concern for the Church - Abp Toth was not.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

I don’t think you quite understand what I have posted.

I stated that the Pope was acting rightly and properly out of concern for a local Church which might be scandalized by seeing married ministers.

I also stated that Abp Ireland was NOT acting rightly nor properly because he was acting out of prejudice.

Abp Ireland knew that having Fr Toth there would not have any detrimental affect on ANYONE. So he should not have rejected Fr. Toth.

However, the Pope was not acting on the basis of Fr. Toth’s situation, brother. He was acting on the basis of the scandal that could be caused by people seeing future married ministers in the Catholic Church? So he gave a PROVISIONAL decree that until people would no longer be scandalized by that situation - no doubt having in mind a time when Eastern/Oriental Catholicism established itself more fruitfully in North America - priests in North America should not be married.

The Pope was acting out of genuine concern for the Church - Abp Toth was not.

Blessings,
Marduk

Seems the uniates were scandalized. Perhaps they didn’t merit concern by Rome.

How were they to establish themselves? Ireland spefically said his plan was to assimilate them to the Poles.

The Latin priests in the East scandalized the uniates there. But no problem.

St. Alexis acted out of genuine concern for the Church. Hence Orthodox.

 

[Heracleides]

St. Alexis acted out of genuine concern for the Church. Hence Orthodox.

Troparion

O righteous Father Alexis,
Our heavenly intercessor and teacher,
Divine adornment of the Church of Christ!
Entreat the Master of All
To strengthen the Orthodox Faith in America,
To grant peace to the world
And to our souls, great mercy!

Kontakion

Let us, the faithful, praise the Priest Alexis,
A bright beacon of Orthodoxy in America,
A model of patience and humility,
A worthy shepherd of the Flock of Christ.
He called back the sheep who had been led astray
And brought them by his preaching
To the Heavenly Kingdom!
.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa.

Seems the uniates were scandalized. Perhaps they didn’t merit concern by Rome.

So are you saying that when St. Paul was exhorting that people should let go of their practices to accomodate those with a weak conscience that he was wrong? Please respond.

Are you saying that the proper response of the hearers of St. Paul should have been, “I am scandalized that you should expect us to let go of our practices just to accodomate others of a weak conscience. You are wrong, St. Paul”? Please respond.

Are you saying that Eastern/Oriental Christians are the ones with the weak consciences in the matter, and not the Latin Christians (at the time)? Please respond.

How were they to establish themselves? Ireland spefically said his plan was to assimilate them to the Poles.

Obviously, the bishop of Rome did not agree with Abp Ireland, for he stated that the prescription was only PROVISIONAL (i.e., TEMPORARY).

The Latin priests in the East scandalized the uniates there. But no problem.

How so? Unless you are saying that priestly marriage is MANDATORY? If the East truly understood that priestly marriage/celibacy was not mandatory, then they would not be scandalized by seeing celibate priests, would they? Doesn’t your argument expose another hypocrisy in the Eastern polemic?

St. Alexis acted out of genuine concern for the Church. Hence Orthodox.

By what rationale could you conclude that breaking the unity of the Church to maintain a small “t” tradition is more important than the unity of the Church? Please explain. Once again, have not the Eastern Orthodox learned the lessons of the incident regarding Pope St. Victor and the Eastern controversy?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Saint Alexis was no dummy, he was well educated, experienced and connected to an uncle in the Uniate hierarchy. He was close to the inner circle of Greek Catholic church leadership in the Hungarian kingdom. He absolutely knew the relationship between Rome and his church, he knew the theology and all of the promises, kept or broken. He knew the history of his people.

It seems to me that the Holy Spirit was at work, Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre had a great epiphany subsequent to his visit with Archbishop Ireland. He made the transition from institutional unity to a unity in Faith, a great leap indeed.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

However, the Pope was not acting on the basis of Fr. Toth’s situation, brother. He was acting on the basis of the scandal that could be caused by people seeing future married ministers in the Catholic Church? So he gave a PROVISIONAL decree that until people would no longer be scandalized by that situation - no doubt having in mind a time when Eastern/Oriental Catholicism established itself more fruitfully in North America - priests in North America should not be married.

The Pope was acting out of genuine concern for the Church - Abp Toth was not.

Well, the Pope’s concern for scandal caused so much scandal that literally tens of thousands of Catholics in the United States, together with their parishes and priests, abandoned the Catholic Church and joined Orthodoxy! It was the Pope’s decision which caused the greatest scandal.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, the Pope’s concern for scandal caused so much scandal that literally tens of thousands of Catholics in the United States, together with their parishes and priests, abandoned the Catholic Church and joined Orthodoxy! It was the Pope’s decision which caused the greatest scandal.

Abandoned the Catholic Church? Perish the thought!

They rejoined her.

 

[mardukm]

Well, the Pope’s concern for scandal caused so much scandal that literally tens of thousands of Catholics in the United States, together with their parishes and priests, abandoned the Catholic Church and joined Orthodoxy! It was the Pope’s decision which caused the greatest scandal.

Oh yeah. When many left Jesus because of his teaching on the Eucharist in John 6, it was Jesus’ fault. OOOOOOkay. Nice rationale, but it doesn’t work.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Saint Alexis was no dummy, he was well educated, experienced and connected to an uncle in the Uniate hierarchy. He was close to the inner circle of Greek Catholic church leadership in the Hungarian kingdom. He absolutely knew the relationship between Rome and his church, he knew the theology and all of the promises, kept or broken. He knew the history of his people.

It seems to me that the Holy Spirit was at work, Saint Alexis of Wilkes-Barre had a great epiphany subsequent to his visit with Archbishop Ireland. He made the transition from institutional unity to a unity in Faith, a great leap indeed.

Michael

So I guess you would condemn St. Basil for being in communion with BOTH Pope St. Damasus AND St. Meletius. People were accusing St. Meletius of Arianism, but St. Basil knew better. St. Basil exemplifies the true attitude of the Catholic Church, NOT the Eastern Orthodox Church. St. Basil saw through all the misunderstandings and bigoted accusations. He saw the importance of VISIBLE UNITY, DESPITE misunderstanding, with a concurrent zeal to heal that misunderstanding.

In this regard, the Catholic Church has carried on the heritage of St. Basil; the Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, has betrayed it.

EVERY EASTERN AND ORIENTAL CATHOLIC WHO CAN SEE THROUGH ALL THE MISUNDERSTANDING AND BIGOTED ACCUSATIONS IS CARRYING ON THE HERITAGE OF ST. BASIL.
Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

So I guess you would condemn St. Basil for being in communion with BOTH Pope St. Damasus AND St. Meletius. People were accusing St. Meletius of Arianism, but St. Basil knew better. St. Basil exemplifies the true attitude of the Catholic Church, NOT the Eastern Orthodox Church. St. Basil saw through all the misunderstandings and bigoted accusations. He saw the importance of VISIBLE UNITY, DESPITE misunderstanding, with a concurrent zeal to heal that misunderstanding.

In this regard, the Catholic Church has carried on the heritage of St. Basil; the Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, has betrayed it.

Blessings,
Marduk

To say that St. Basil being in communion with both St. Meletius and St. Damasus is similar to the eastern Catholics being in communion wtih Rome and trying to maintain eastern theology is a very big confusion. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church do not hold the same faith. The Eastern Orthodox reject the idea of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son. This is the foundation of the filioque. The declaration of Florence says the procession is eternal through the Son.

Now my question is, does the idea of the Energies/Essence distinction offer a way for reconciliation between East and West? I think that Lossky mentions that even though the Energies are Gods action in the world they are not created. It seems that with this distinction you could possibly allow an eternal procession in some sense. Maybe not at the level of the Essence of God but at the level of the Energies(I have heard that the procession is at the level of the Energies from eastern Christians).