Saint Mark of Ephesus and Eastern Catholicism

[IrishRush]

You know, I was hesitant to ask the question in the first place because I was afraid this thread would be derailed like this.
My apologies BVMFatima.

 

[kotim]

The father is eternal, the son is eternal and the spirit is eternal, whether you wish to say through or by is irrelevent, it in fact must be both if we are talking about coming from. We are here talking about semantics. The catholic Church has always said the Father is origin, but the difficulty comes in with the mode of expression.

If there was never a time when the Father was not begetting/sending the son and if there was never a time when the Father was not sending the Holy Spirit via/through the son, then in effect we can say that in a subordinate sense the Son does send the Spirit, because the son is of one with the Father from the beginning with no beginning.

If we wish to maintain in some or in fact any sense 3 seperate identities within the trinity without any being created and all three being co-eternal then we know from the scriptures without doubt that the Son in his distinction must participate in the sending of the Spirit.

To get to the point that we can definitively say that the son has no part in the sending of the spirit from eternity, opens up the creed or our understanding of it to many possibilites.

 

[Aramis]

He isn’t accepted as a saint by the Catholic Church, so I don’t know if he is considered a saint or not?

He’s mentioned in some Byzantine Rite calendars.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Only issue I see is he’s used too much for polemical purpose. Pretty contrary to his closing statement of Florence. He believed in ecumenical dialogue or he wouldn’t have been there. Something to consider for those who do-not believe in ecumenical dialogue.

 

[BVMFatima]

You know, I was hesitant to ask the question in the first place because I was afraid this thread would be derailed like this.
My apologies BVMFatima.

No worries

 

[Peter_J]

Only issue I see is he’s used too much for polemical purpose. Pretty contrary to his closing statement of Florence. He believed in ecumenical dialogue or he wouldn’t have been there. Something to consider for those who do-not believe in ecumenical dialogue.

Well said.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Straight from the horses mouth, here is a document from the Vatican explaining the Catholic teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit: The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity

 

[Peter_J]

Straight from the horses mouth, here is a document from the Vatican explaining the Catholic teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit: The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity

+1

Quite frankly, I’ve never understood why anyone would prefer to read a web-discussion-thread on the topic, rather than a superb exposition on it like the one you linked.

 

[Schism_hater]

No it doesn’t give me a pause because the filioque is Church teaching, no matter what the Orthodox Churches say, who left the Catholic Church due to Eastern Heresies such as Iconoclasm etc.
.

Iconoclasm had been defeated well before the Schism.

 

[Rawb]

+1

Quite frankly, I’ve never understood why anyone would prefer to read a web-discussion-thread on the topic, rather than a superb exposition on it like the one you linked.

It can sometimes be beneficial to talk to real people, to discuss what a church actually believes versus what it says it believes. That’s true of many issues.

 

[Peter_J]

It can sometimes be beneficial to talk to real people, to discuss what a church actually believes versus what it says it believes. That’s true of many issues.

That’s makes sense. In fact, several years ago when I was new to this forum (and web-discussion-forums in general) I probably would have been pretty keen on getting involved in a thread about the filioque. But the thing is, I’ve found from experience over the years that such threads tend to be pretty awful.

Something that comes to mind is the old criticism (cliche?) of someone trying to be “more Catholic than the pope”. I bring that up because if you look at The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity, you won’t find several of the tired arguments that Catholics like to trot out over and over in threads like this. So you have to wonder, why do we (Catholics) keep trotting those arguments out? Are we trying to be “more Catholic than the pope”?

 

[theistgal]

Saint Mark of Ephesus of the Eastern Orthodox Church states

" The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creedfilioqueand confess the Creed as we do."

What do Eastern Catholics think of this quote?

I’d say that I think St. Mark would have been a lot of fun to have on this forum.

 

[Zekariya]

I’d say that I think St. Mark would have been a lot of fun to have on this forum.

I don’t know… I see him doing something more refined like blogging.

 

[BVMFatima]

Hmm, he probably would try converting us Latins

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

It can sometimes be beneficial…to discuss what a church actually believes versus what it says it believes.

I think it can be beneficial to give churches (or individuals) the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they believe what they say they believe. If, for example, I can’t even allow you to articulate your own beliefs, but feel the need to tell you what you really believe, then the foundational respect for conversation is lacking.

 

[Rawb]

I think it can be beneficial to give churches (or individuals) the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they believe what they say they believe. If, for example, I can’t even allow you to articulate your own beliefs, but feel the need to tell you what you really believe, then the foundational respect for conversation is lacking.

That’s just it - the point was “why are we going to a web forum instead of reading Vatican documents?” I said I want to know what people believe. I do believe people believe what they say they believe. I also believe that there is often a discrepancy between what the hierarchy of a Church says they believe and what the laity of a Church say they believe. It’s helpful to know both.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

That’s just it - the point was “why are we going to a web forum instead of reading Vatican documents?” I said I want to know what people believe. I do believe people believe what they say they believe. I also believe that there is often a discrepancy between what the hierarchy of a Church says they believe and what the laity of a Church say they believe. It’s helpful to know both.

Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood. I agree that the perspective of the laity is important and often not entirely inline with episcopal teaching. I’ve in the past made the mistake of considering EP Bartholomew’s statements as somehow representative of Orthodoxy; speaking with Orthodox faithful has disabused me of that misconception.

On another note, I do hope some Eastern Catholics will explain how they regard figures like Mark of Ephesus or Photios…

 

[Peter_J]

That’s just it - the point was “why are we going to a web forum instead of reading Vatican documents?” I said I want to know what people believe. I do believe people believe what they say they believe. I also believe that there is often a discrepancy between what the hierarchy of a Church says they believe and what the laity of a Church say they believe. It’s helpful to know both.

Okay, that’s fair … just so long as you realize that there is a difference between what’s said on e.g. CAF and official Catholic documents.

 

[kotim]

The laity are always wrong historically, it does not matter which church.The reason being is that historically most laity and even now are so bereft of actual theological understanding ( I include myself relative to theologans) becasue they either could not or did not get a basic education. let alone theological training of some sort. The laity in general are much easier to con.

Now this cannot be said of all laity, but it is so, certainly for the vast majority of laity, irrespective of Church.

 

[Rawb]

The laity are always wrong historically, it does not matter which church.The reason being is that historically most laity and even now are so bereft of actual theological understanding ( I include myself relative to theologans) becasue they either could not or did not get a basic education. let alone theological training of some sort. The laity in general are much easier to con.

Now this cannot be said of all laity, but it is so, certainly for the vast majority of laity, irrespective of Church.

Oh I heartily disagree. Have you ever tried to convince an academic of an alternative view? An educated person is always willing to consider nuance and technicality as equalizers, always willing to reconsider history “in light of the latest findings” and always willing to revise - it’s the nature of academia.

Ever tried to convince an illiterate grandmother that olive oil won’t prevent stretch marks? Tell your great-uncle that according to your underwater camera and depth tracker that this new spot is better for fishing? That the younger generation know more about an issue than theirs? Ever been able to convince an average person to act or believe contrary to their what they hold sacred? It doesn’t happen nearly so easily. Remember, it was the yia-yias and nuns who destroyed Iconoclasm in the East.

That is changing, though, with the advent of greater education and mass media. Nowadays people do not want to appear to be so close minded as to have convictions.