Since the Eastern Orthodox Church is said to have valid Holy Orders, doesn't that indirectly mean that they have a valid Eucharist?

[Atreyu]

That was my whole opinion on my posts! And I said that if both sides of the Church wanted unity, they could do so in a matter of minutes. I just stated my opinion that they should take the opportunity to forge ahead with unification through the Eucharist and priesthood. I did not call for anarchy!

I’m not saying that you cannot have this opinion. What I am saying, is that you cannot act on this opinion, when the bishops of both Churches command you not to.

Make sense?

 

[Atreyu]

But there is no theological differences between the two churches on matters of the Eucharist.

No. But that does not mean we should have open Communion.

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **peary **
But there is no theological differences between the two churches on matters of the Eucharist.

No. But that does not mean we should have open Communion.

It’s frustrating! :banghead:

 

[Atreyu]

It’s frustrating! :banghead:

I know! And I agree. But all that we can do is to have faith in God and in our bishops that they will sort it out. God’s will be done.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Originally Posted by **peary **
But there is no theological differences between the two churches on matters of the Eucharist.

It’s frustrating! :banghead:

You got that right.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[jdnrite01]

Deacon Ed B said:

While the Eucharist is the source and foundation of all that is truly Catholic, there are theological differences between the two Churches reconciliation on doctrine and theology can be had only if one side agrees with the other. Doctrine cannot be compromised for the sake of unity.

I quite agree that doctrine cannot be compromised. However, the theological differences between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy (and for that matter Oriental Orthodoxy as well) are little more than semantic differences in expressing the same truth. For example, see North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Issues Agreed Statement on Filioque, a Question that Divided the Two Communions for Many Centuries Similar progress has been made with regard to the Oriental Churches. (I don’t have the cite immediately available, but the documents relating thereto are on the USCCB website.)

 

[Madaglan]

Deacon Ed B said:

I quite agree that doctrine cannot be compromised. However, the theological differences between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy (and for that matter Oriental Orthodoxy as well) are little more than semantic differences in expressing the same truth. For example, see North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Issues Agreed Statement on Filioque, a Question that Divided the Two Communions for Many Centuries Similar progress has been made with regard to the Oriental Churches. (I don’t have the cite immediately available, but the documents relating thereto are on the USCCB website.)

A good first step would be for the Latin Church to revoke the anathema of Lyon II on those who reject the proposition that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.

 

[jdnrite01]

Madaglan said:

A good first step would be for the Latin Church to revoke the anathema of Lyon II on those who reject the proposition that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.

This is in response to my assertion that theological differences regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit are illusory and merely semantic.

Here’s what was said at Lyon II regarding the matter:

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.

If I am right and the controversy doesn’t amount to a theological difference, but rather a consequence of language, who was subject to the general condemnation? “[Madaglan] doth protest too much, methinks.”

 

[Madaglan]

Madaglan said:

This is in response to my assertion that theological differences regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit are illusory and merely semantic.

Here’s what was said at Lyon II regarding the matter:

If I am right and the controversy doesn’t amount to a theological difference, but rather a consequence of language, who was subject to the general condemnation? “[Madaglan] doth protest too much, methinks.”

If you are right…

Lyon II condemns those who deny that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle.

The Eastern Orthodox do just that: they hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; the Father alone is principle in the Godhead. They reject the Father and the Son together as a single principle. Lyons II implicitly condemns the Greek expression of the Father as the single principle, and attempts to force on the Greeks the Latin expression of Father and Son as single principle as the orthodox expression. The fact that Lyons II condemns the Greek understanding (which by the Consultation is now understood as a different expression of the same truth, the same reality) is why many in the Consultation want this anathema revoked.

The Consultation and its decisions speak neither for the Catholic Church nor for the Orthodox Church.

It should be noted that the “it’s just a language problem” theory is rather novel and seems to run parallel with ecumenism. Many of the Church Fathers fought and suffered over words, which to them meant more than “a different way of expressing the same truth.”

There are scholars today who now claim that Nestorius really wasn’t a heretic; he simply was expressing his Christology in a different way, using words with meanings not properly understood by the orthodox bishops. Others, in the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue, claim that there is no area of essential disagreement between the Catholic doctrine of justification and the Lutheran doctrine of justification. What madness!

 

[bobzills]

Lyon II condemns those who deny that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle.

The Eastern Orthodox do just that: they hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; the Father alone is principle in the Godhead. They reject the Father and the Son together as a single principle. Lyons II implicitly condemns the Greek expression of the Father as the single principle, and attempts to force on the Greeks the Latin expression of Father and Son as single principle as the orthodox expression.

But why then in the creed of the Eastern Churches is it said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (period). Wouldn’t this then contradict the Council of Lyons. And if the Council of Lyons is infallible, then would it not be true that the positions of the Eastern Orthodox and RC are incompatible?

 

[kathielee]

Valid means the sacrament takes place.

Licit means it takes place legally.

We are indeed permitted to receive Communion at Orthodox churches, but we are also required (by the Catholic Church) to respect the disciplines of the Orthodox, which currently state that Catholics are NOT permitted to receive communion at an Orthodox church.

Recently I asked this very question of an Orthodox priest. He said the Rome has ideas that the Orthodox do not necessarily agree with. So it would depend on what Orthodox Church you want to attend…and the rule of thumb for both Catholic and Orthodox is if there is no chance on the face of the earth that a Catholic can’t attend a Liturgy under Rome…and an Orthodox cannot attend any Orthodox Church.

Although it is a shame that the Great Schism took place, as the Orthodox priest told me…better to pray for those who have fallen away from the faith than to pray the two get back together.

kathie

 

[Madaglan]

But why then in the creed of the Eastern Churches is it said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (period). Wouldn’t this then contradict the Council of Lyons. And if the Council of Lyons is infallible, then would it not be true that the positions of the Eastern Orthodox and RC are incompatible?

The Eastern Churches in their Creed say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father because that’s what is in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed–because it is the faith of the Church.

The Council of Lyons is not an ecumenical council and is not infallible. The Eastern Orthodox reject this council.

 

[Madaglan]

Recently I asked this very question of an Orthodox priest. He said the Rome has ideas that the Orthodox do not necessarily agree with. So it would depend on what Orthodox Church you want to attend…and the rule of thumb for both Catholic and Orthodox is if there is no chance on the face of the earth that a Catholic can’t attend a Liturgy under Rome…and an Orthodox cannot attend any Orthodox Church.

Although it is a shame that the Great Schism took place, as the Orthodox priest told me…better to pray for those who have fallen away from the faith than to pray the two get back together.

kathie

Why not pray for both?

 

[jdnrite01]

Madaglan said:

The Eastern Orthodox do just that: they hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; the Father alone is principle in the Godhead. They reject the Father and the Son together as a single principle

The Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit originates in the Father alone, and that there is not a dual genesis of the Holy Spirit. That is precisely what Lyons II said:

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.

The distinction is important. The Latin word processio is used in two senses, originating - which the Spirit does from the Father alone - and proceeding , which the Spirit does from the Father and the Son, or through the Son. This was the understanding of SS. Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus, who all embraced it.

Procession of the Holy Spirit by the “Father and the Son” to the Latins is exactly the same as procession of the Holy Spirit by the origination of the Father through the Son as a conduit. Rome never said that the originator of the Holy Spirit was Christ; instead, Christ, as the conduit, sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles as evidenced in John 20:21-23:

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

 

[Madaglan]

The Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit originates in the Father alone, and that there is not a dual genesis of the Holy Spirit. That is precisely what Lyons II said:

Not only originates in the Father alone but proceeds from the Father alone. This is the Orthodox belief.

Lyons claims that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle. Thus, according to the logic of Lyons, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from the Father, but from the divine essence shared by the Father and the Son. The Orthodox understand that Lyons is not openly supporting a dual genesis of the Holy Spirit, but the formulation of Lyons is still problematic.

 

[Madaglan]

The distinction is important. The Latin word processio is used in two senses, originating - which the Spirit does from the Father alone - and proceeding , which the Spirit does from the Father and the Son, or through the Son. This was the understanding of SS. Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus, who all embraced it.

Procession of the Holy Spirit by the “Father and the Son” to the Latins is exactly the same as procession of the Holy Spirit by the origination of the Father through the Son as a conduit. Rome never said that the originator of the Holy Spirit was Christ; instead, Christ, as the conduit, sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles as evidenced in John 20:21-23.

What is the difference between originating and proceeding? Really? It’s like saying “The Son is begotten of the Father, but He is born of the Father and the Holy Spirit.”

If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through (per) the Son, then why is this not what Lyons says? Instead, it says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from a single principle. The Holy Spirit, according to this, proceeds not from one person in the Trinity, but from either two persons (in which case there would be two principles of the Holy Spirit, which Lyons attempts to guard against) or from that which is shared by the two persons, their common divine essence.

 

[bobzills]

The Council of Lyons is not an ecumenical council and is not infallible.

I thought that the RCC say that it was infallible. If the RCC say that it is infallible and the EO say that they will not accept its teachings, then how can there ever be a reunion between the two Churches?

 

[Alethiaphile]

To stray off-topic though, how does it make you feel, Luke, that the only other examples of Apostolic Christians - being the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches - have exactly the same doctrine as the Catholics? Other than the Supremacy of the Pope I mean, and a few cosmetic differences. The Orthodox would reject Protestant doctrines such as:

• the rejection of the priesthood
• the rejection of the Real Presence
• the rejection of the authority of the Church
• the rejection of Tradition
• sola fide
• sola scriptura

as being mere innovations which cannot be found in the historical Church and were not taught by the apostles. You would think that if Protestantism had any claims to authenticity, that these things would be found somewhere among historical Christians at some place or other in some time or other.

I will turn this around on you. If the Orthodox, in rejecting the universal jurisidction and infallibility of the Pope, have rejected the head of the Church, and placed themselves “outside the Catholic Church” (as someone on this thread said), how is it they have maintained belief in the seven sacraments, and all the othe teachings of the First Millenium Church; why haven’t they apostazised substantially from the Faith? Joe

 

[jdnrite01]

Madaglan said:

What is the difference between originating and proceeding? Really? It’s like saying “The Son is begotten of the Father, but He is born of the Father and the Holy Spirit.”

I don’t think your analogy is appropriate. Equating the procession of the Holy Spirit to an incorrect theory of dual parenthood of Christ is just incorrect. By example, think of it this way: Bill owns a book which he gives to John, who in turn, gives it to Mike. Although the originator of the ultimate transfer of the book is Bill, the process includes John as the conduit to Mike. Thus, while John is not the originator of the transaction, he is nevertheless intimately involved in the transfer of the Book to Mike. In that sense, the book proceeds to Mike from Bill and John. It would likewise be appropriate to say that the book came to Mike from Bill through John. There is no difference.

 

[Madaglan]

I thought that the RCC say that it was infallible. If the RCC say that it is infallible and the EO say that they will not accept its teachings, then how can there ever be a reunion between the two Churches?

The Latin Church regard Lyons as only a local council.