Eastern Orthodoxy is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. They accept the Pope’s primacy but not in his supreme authority. They believe in the Trinity, however do not believe in the subordination caused by the insertion of the “filioque” in the original Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed.I am totally confused regarding which Eastern Churches are in Communion with the Church of Rome. My confusion is with some people placing both the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches under the same umbrella. So which do and which do not accept the Pope as infallible nor the Doctrine of the Trinity held by the Roman Catholic Church?
Thanks so much. I am assuming by “subordination” you mean the doctrine of the Holy Spirit progressing from both the Father and Son? Not the Arien notion that the Son was subordinate to the Father?Eastern Orthodoxy is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. They accept the Pope’s primacy but not in his supreme authority. They believe in the Trinity, however do not believe in the subordination caused by the insertion of the “filioque” in the original Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed.
Eastern Catholic were once a part of the the Eastern Orthodox church but went back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church around 1450.
Hope this helps.
You are correct. The Eastern Orthodox have rejected the Arien heresy.
So does this mean the only difficulty between reconciling the Eastern and Western Churches is the declaration by the Bishop of Rome of his infallibility regarding Faith and Dogma?
Amadeus,
Not all Eastern Catholics were once a part of the Eastern Orthodox. The Maronites were not.
Apologies…, when I read the original post, the first thought of Eastern Catholics were the Byzantine Catholics. That’s what I was writing relative to.
Not the only difficulty, but the major one. The addition and theology of the filioque is also an issue, as are Western “developments,” such as Purgatory, indulgences, and the Marian dogmas.
I’ve heard some say the former, and others the latter.
Just a matter of wording, but your wording is ambiguous and could be read as suggesting that the filioque was in the original text of the N-C Creed. I know that’s not what you mean, but I thought it should be made clear that it was a latter insertion into the N-C Creed, not an insertion into the original text at the time of its composition.
Boo!!! Your snowman looks cold
A little of both I would speculate, but I am not omniscient.I think this is the main problem because there can be no question of error on the Latin side of things. You can question the Greeks and Russians and every other tradition and say they are false but the tradition of Rome can not be questioned. How can there possibly be a discussion when one side comes into the discussion with the preconception that it is infallible and all its statements are true?
Jimmy, perhaps this is an over-simplification, but I have to say bluntly and point blank that it boils down to a concept of infailability and indefectability on the part of the Body of Christ. If we are willing to believe that much of it is a great unknown, from there we can just throw of this supposed or alleged yoke of “the Latins” and debate until the end…
But there can be. St. Thomas Aquinas thought that Mary wasn’t immaculately conceived. Pope Nicholas I “spoke as if baptism were valid, when administered simply in our Lord’s Name, without distinct mention of the Three Persons”. (Quote taken from newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section9.html )
The problem is not that certain saints have made errors but that Rome specifically claims infallibility. How can the east and west discuss the IC doctrine if it is already a forgone conclusion that the doctrine is infallible? I think that without infallibility many of the other differences become less of a problem simply because there would be some snese of equality of views between east and west. The concept of the IC could exist side by side with the perspective of the Greeks.
I think they are both a part of the same problem though. I do object to the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception but it is a whole spirit of dogmatism that I am objecting to. There is a conscious attempt to define dogma. It is one thing if there is a problem in the Church that is tearing it apart but another for random definitions. Take for example the movement to define the Mediatrix of All Graces. There are people who are sending petitions in to the pope hoping that he will define it. What is the purpose? They are doing nothing but fosilizing the faith and destroying any sense of mystery within the the Church. It seems that there is a need for more dogma. They must have everything laid out for them. The west has associated knowledge of God and the faith with the intellect and they have rellegated the experience of Grace to an inferior place.