RC Church becoming more Eastern?

[dcointin]

Does anyone need help relating St. Palamas’ distinction between eternal energetic procession and eternal hypostatic procession to a possible resolution of the filioque issue with the Latins?

Blessings,
Marduk

I would also appreciate it if you would explain this in more detail. Thanks!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Ultimately, there is no reason why the Latin and Eastern Churches cannot have different theologies of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.

There have been numerous, well-intentioned attempts at trying to resolve this, all ending in utter failure.

Both Churches already and have always affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father while the Son is eternally Begotten from the Father. There is a real difference here which we cannot fathom with our limited human minds. That is fine - we are not meant to bring God “down to our level.”

The Latin Church did bring in the Filioque into the Creed and the issue of its right to do so in a Creed sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils (ratified by Roman Pontiffs) and intended to be universal with no changes is an important one.

If both sides could agree on the ORIGINAL Creed, that would remove one big hurdle before anyone even got to a Reunion Council.

And if both sides could agree on what exactly is meant by “Through the Son” and adopt it outside the Creed - we have a resolution to a 900+ year old problem.

Alex

 

[Vico]

Ultimately, there is no reason why the Latin and Eastern Churches cannot have different theologies of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.

There have been numerous, well-intentioned attempts at trying to resolve this, all ending in utter failure.

Both Churches already and have always affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father while the Son is eternally Begotten from the Father. There is a real difference here which we cannot fathom with our limited human minds. That is fine - we are not meant to bring God “down to our level.”

The Latin Church did bring in the Filioque into the Creed and the issue of its right to do so in a Creed sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils (ratified by Roman Pontiffs) and intended to be universal with no changes is an important one.

If both sides could agree on the ORIGINAL Creed, that would remove one big hurdle before anyone even got to a Reunion Council.

And if both sides could agree on what exactly is meant by “Through the Son” and adopt it outside the Creed - we have a resolution to a 900+ year old problem.

Alex

It is possible, although some of the Catholic dogma de fide are:

• In God there are two Internal Divine Processions.
• The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions, in both active and passive sense.
• The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration.
• The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception, was effected by the Three Divine Persons acting in common, and will never cease.
• God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men and although the blessed in Heaven posses an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence but it is also incomprehensible. The Immediate Vision of God, requires the light of glory, and transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural.

 

[Celticnovice]

I hate the thought of “de-Latinizing” parishes. The problem isn’t that the Mass is “too Latin” in the States! The problem is that it’s too Protestant and has turned too far from its roots in the traditional Mass. I’d like to see the Mass stay in English, but with more dignified and exalted verbage more akin to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Also, the priest needs to start facing the altar again, the people need to practice the traditional gestures of piety (i.e. bowing, pounding the chest, crossing themselves at the name of Christ or the Theotokos), INCENSE needs to return en force! The whole thing needs to be more sacred. I wish they’d throw in some Latin like the agnus dei or the pater noster, anything. They just need to get back to fundamentals.

This Mass does exist, but yeah, I share in your frustration in finding it. There is one in my neighborhood, but it is at an hour not very conducive to my work schedule most weeks.

 

[Bluegoat]

It is possible, although some of the Catholic dogma de fide are:

• In God there are two Internal Divine Processions.
• The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions, in both active and passive sense.
• The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration.
• The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception, was effected by the Three Divine Persons acting in common, and will never cease.
• God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men and although the blessed in Heaven posses an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence but it is also incomprehensible. The Immediate Vision of God, requires the light of glory, and transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural.

I’m not sure those are all correct from a Catholic perspective, specifically the third one. Usually when Catholics discuss this with the Orthodox, they say that the HG does NOT proceed from both as from a single principle.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Both East and West agree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and that this is different from the way the Son of God is eternally begotten of the Father.

Why not just leave it at that?

Alex

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Since we’re chasing down this rabbit hole…

How does the Son: “and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary” this seems odd to me in light of the filoque.

 

[DL82]

I’m not sure those are all correct from a Catholic perspective, specifically the third one. Usually when Catholics discuss this with the Orthodox, they say that the HG does NOT proceed from both as from a single principle.

The Holy Spirit does proceed from both as from a single principle, this is Catholic dogma, as cited in the reference above. The single principle issue isn’t obvious in the Western/Latin form of the Nicene Creed, just as the union of Father and Son in the principle of spiration isn’t obvious in the Greek form, but if we hold both in creative tension, we see the whole picture.

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m not sure those are all correct from a Catholic perspective, specifically the third one. **Usually when Catholics discuss this with the Orthodox, they say that the HG does NOT proceed from both as from a single principle. **

And if this is truly the case, then they are contradicting Catholic teaching. The CCC, in section 248, states:

At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

 

[Seamus_L]

The Latin Church has always been subject to Eastern influence, just as the Latin Church has had an influence on the East. Not a bad thing I might add. I prefer to focus on the common beliefs of the Universal Church rather than trying to see how different we can be.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What, in your opinion Seamus, have been the main influences that the Latin Church has had on the Orthodox?

The Latin Church has always been subject to Eastern influence, just as the Latin Church has had an influence on the East. Not a bad thing I might add. I prefer to focus on the common beliefs of the Universal Church rather than trying to see how different we can be.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And if this is truly the case, then they are contradicting Catholic teaching. The CCC, in section 248, states:

At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

Not contradicting, but wishing things to be clear. Does the Latin Church believe that both the Father and the Son are the Origin of the Holy Spirit equally and so accepts two Origins? No, it doesn’t, but the single Principle seems to suggest so.

The Spirit only proceeds “through the Son” or “from the Son passively.”

The Latin Church can and should be “Latin.” There is no reason to keep the Filioque in the Creed simply because it is an expression of Latin Trinitarian theology in a Creed intended for the universal Church, East and West.

The Latin Church needs to overcome the tension it still experiences between what is specifically “Latin” in its theological and canonical traditions and what is “universal” (without being Latin).

The CCC is a Latin Catechism and can be critiqued as such.

Alex

 

[Vico]

And if this is truly the case, then they are contradicting Catholic teaching. The CCC, in section 248, states:

At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

It is two internal Divine processions.

Fr. John Hardon elucidates on Procession:

The origin of one from another.

A procession is said to be external when the terminus of the procession goes outside the principle or source from which it proceeds. Thus creatures proceed by external procession from the triune God, their Primary Origin.

An internal procession is immanent; the one proceeding remains united with the one from whom he or she proceeds. Thus the processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit are an immanent act of the Holy Trinity. An internal, divine procession signifies the origin of a divine person from another divine person (Son from the Father), or from other divine persons (the Holy Spirit from Father and Son) through the communication of numerically one and the same divine essence.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35811

Dogma de fide from Council of Lyons II:

On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith

1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.
   papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum14.htm

 

[kitkatty]

The Latin Church has always been subject to Eastern influence, just as the Latin Church has had an influence on the East. Not a bad thing I might add. I prefer to focus on the common beliefs of the Universal Church rather than trying to see how different we can be.

And I couldn`t agree with you more.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ll ask the same question since you agree with his sentiment, kitkatty. What influences do you think the Western Latin Church has had on Eastern Orthodoxy?

And I couldn`t agree with you more.

 

[bkovacs]

It seems to me that perhaps the RC church is becoming more Eastern or at least expressing the eastern view of items such as confession/penance, purgatory, and sin, etc I have viewed these from a popular lay catechism, articles, radio shows, and homilies.
I wonder if this a deliberate attempt to attract converts or a natural growth from the influence of the EC’s.
Another possibility is that it’s always been there and the RC has never really held any one-single position on these issues and have always allowed a plurality of positions on these doctrines – and I am just recognizing when I see them since visiting sites like this and learning more of the “eastern” distinctives?
I am speaking only of America here – can’t speak for rest of world that may be on an entirely different trajectory.

Hardly!!. The East has a rich liturgical and theological tradition that is unchanging. The West changes as the times change, to keep the seculars happy, even if the Pope says no to modernization. Most in the West ignores him.

 

[twf]

A couple posters have asked how the Latin Church has influenced the East…well the obvious example would be the countless times that the East turned to Rome as the standard of orthodoxy during the various Christological and other theological disputes of the first millennium (eg. The Tome of Leo). But in terms of discipline/practice, off the top of my head, I believe that antidoron, for example, actually developed in the West, was adopted in the East, and then fell into disuse in the West. More importantly, didn’t the practice of private confession (as opposed to the ancient practice of public penance before the entire community) develop in the West and gradually spread to the East? That being said, it goes without saying that the East has and does have a great influence on the West. I have rarely come across a modern Latin book that doesn’t reference Eastern saints or fathers in one way or another…

 

[Bezant]

It seems to me that perhaps the RC church is becoming more Eastern or at least expressing the eastern view of items such as confession/penance, purgatory, and sin, etc I have viewed these from a popular lay catechism, articles, radio shows, and homilies.
I wonder if this a deliberate attempt to attract converts or a natural growth from the influence of the EC’s.
Another possibility is that it’s always been there and the RC has never really held any one-single position on these issues and have always allowed a plurality of positions on these doctrines – and I am just recognizing when I see them since visiting sites like this and learning more of the “eastern” distinctives?
I am speaking only of America here – can’t speak for rest of world that may be on an entirely different trajectory.

I don’t know if I agree, but if that’s so, I like it

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I was of the understanding that the Orthodox for centuries have believed in a Cyprianic approach to Sacraments and grace?..the idea that they can tell us where grace “is” not where “it is not.” This is the sentiment I have read? It doesn’t seem to be a new idea?

I don’t see the Orthodox becoming more Western in anything except using pews?

I was talking about pews with my ROCOR priest this week. They appear mostly in Greek churches. Since many of the converts are joining Antiochian or OCA churches, I suspect that pews are actually becoming rarer in the Orthodox world, at least in North America.

Having spent my first Lent in an Orthodox church, I now get the lack of pews. How can one do the Presanctified and other Lenten liturgies that require prostrations with pews?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I went again to the Serbian Orthodox Church today. They have pews. I sat down probably three times today, for about five-ten minutes tops. One time I sat was during the sermon when everyone else sat, the other time I got a little tired and sore. I have planter-fasciatis, not fun to stand and I’m actually not supposed to.

I was talking about pews with my ROCOR priest this week. They appear mostly in Greek churches. Since many of the converts are joining Antiochian or OCA churches, I suspect that pews are actually becoming rarer in the Orthodox world, at least in North America.

Having spent my first Lent in an Orthodox church, I now get the lack of pews. How can one do the Presanctified and other Lenten liturgies that require prostrations with pews?