The Various Orthodox Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter In_Hoc_Signo312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thephilosopher6 said:
I disagree. The filioque can be found among even the earliest Latin Fathers and possibly among some of the Greek Fathers. Clearly the theological plurality concerning the issue of procession of the Holy Spirit was in the early Church. Later though, many in the east tried making this a theological issue when it’s really not. Today some eastern Christians still try to make it a a huge issue. But it’s not.
Click to expand...
The Latin Christian understanding of the Filioque fluctuated over time. For example, most Frankish theologians from the 8th century forward believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son because it originated from their essence, not their persons. This position would clearly be condemned under both Catholic and Orthodox dogma today.

Maximus the Confessor, in conference with papal legates and Greek bishops, helped to solve an early controversy over the issue by stating that what the Latins truly meant by “Filioque” was that the Latin language had many usages for the word “procedere” and that the Latins meant that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father as the sole principle in origin but is sent through the Son temporally. This position was agreed upon by both the Latins and the Greeks and the Filioque issue was dropped. It was precisely this understanding that was put forth when Patriarch Tarasius used the phrase “per Filium” at II Nicaea to suit Latin sensibilities. This consensus on the matter was rejected ultimately at Florence many centuries later with the doctrine of both the Father and Son being one principle. This idea was clearly rejected by Maximus and the Latins centuries earlier. In fact, when Maximus’ position was brought to the table as a potential compromise, it was explicitly rejected by the Latins.

Please also that the issue of eternally proceeding through the Son was an option that was hardly ever spoken about.
 
Considering that the issue of filioque is extremely complex and has many sides to it, so much so that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox cannot fully address the issue as sometimes it’s unclear what the issue even is, I leave to you what I have said and may provide more links to more articles concerning the issue of the filioque later.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
Here is a very detailed article concerning the issue
catholicbridge.com/orthodox/catholic_orthodox_filioque_father_son.php
Click to expand...
This is the context in which the Catechism of the Catholic Church is speaking (as quoted above by Cyril Quattrone) when it asserts that the Spirit “has His nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principal and through one spiration.” That one Principal of the Spirit is the Father, and the Father alone. It is only in the collective sense of the Personal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son that the Spirit proceeds from both.
Click to expand...
The problem with this interpretation of Catholic dogma, as the author presents, is that there is no communal procession from the essence, which is what he is speaking of when he considers the “consubstantial communion between the Father and the Son.” Procession, historically and biblically, has only to do with the divine persons not the essence (except for the Carolingians of course). The formula is incoherent and the interpretation presented by the author is even moreso.

Again, I cannot stress Siecienski’s book enough. It possess great historical insight and a strong ecumenical spirit.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
People in the Church sin, but the Church is still the Church and does not condone such actions. When the Pope at the time found out about what happened, he excommunicated those who took part in the sacking.
Click to expand...
Where did the Pope order the crusaders to return the huge wealth and precious relics looted from Constantinople over a period of years, which Rome ultimately profited from?
 
thephilosopher6 said:
The Latin rite Normans were transforming the Byzantine churches into Latin rite churches in southern Italy. This angered Patriarch Michael who claimed the Latin’s Eucharist was invalid and started persecuting Latin Christians in the east. The Pope sent delegates to Constantinople to try and get Michael under control but he was very hostile to the delegates. Michael could not be controlled and was basically going on a rampage, so the Pope had him excommunicated. Michael excommunicated him back.
Click to expand...
What a caricature. First, when the legates delivered a letter from Pope Leo, Patriarch Michael found the seal had been tampered with, so he refused to have any further dealings with them. Second, the bull of excommunication appears to have been written by Cardinal Humbert, not by Pope Leo Third, a council was held in Constantinople which excommunicated Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine and Peter of Amalfi but did not name Pope Leo.
 
I’m adding to my original post here. What’s up with the “Church of the East,” and how are they different?
 
thephilosopher6 said:
As for union between all three Churches? Well, the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox could easily unite. There is no real theological difference separating them besides their misunderstanding of each other. For the Catholic Church to unite with them they would have to accept the universal authority of the Pope. Though that’s really it. Western theology on things such as purgatory and original sin would not be imposed on the Eastern Churches. Indeed, Eastern Catholics theology on these issues is the same as Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The issue of the Pope is really the only thing separating us. I hope this helped! 🙂
Click to expand...
My understanding is that they would need to accept both Purgatory and Original Sin, because the Eastern Catholic churches all accept these doctrines. These aren’t negotiable doctrines, they have to be accepted.
 
prodromos said:
What a caricature. First, when the legates delivered a letter from Pope Leo, Patriarch Michael found the seal had been tampered with, so he refused to have any further dealings with them. Second, the bull of excommunication appears to have been written by Cardinal Humbert, not by Pope Leo Third, a council was held in Constantinople which excommunicated Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine and Peter of Amalfi but did not name Pope Leo.
Click to expand...
Not a caricature at all, but a very good summary. It should also be noted that Cerularius died in prison awaiting trial for heresy and treason.
 
Tomdstone said:
Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer to reunion than are Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
Click to expand...
Perhaps.
But the OO are separated from the EO by the findings of an ecumenical council on the matter of a Christological heresy. There has been no such finding that separates the EO and CC. I suppose that the EO can always repudiate Chalcedon, but then what is left of the Church of the seven councils?
 
dvdjs said:
Not a caricature at all, but a very good summary. It should also be noted that Cerularius died in prison awaiting trial for heresy and treason.
Click to expand...
Why should that be noted? What heresy was he claimed to have fallen into? On what basis was the charge of treason brought against him? Wasn’t he just one more in a distinguished line of Patriarchs who got on the wrong side of the emperor?
 
prodromos said:
Why should that be noted? What heresy was he claimed to have fallen into? On what basis was the charge of treason brought against him? Wasn’t he just one more in a distinguished line of Patriarchs who got on the wrong side of the emperor?
Click to expand...
Actually, it was quite the other way around. He was after the emperor. I am surprised that this this question is even raised.
 
prodromos said:
The Orthodox clergy involved in the joint statement represent a tiny minority in North America. The statement itself has been politely ignored by a great many learned people in the Orthodox Church worldwide. Get over it.
Click to expand...
The Internet mavens are also tiny minority, with far lass theological training. As to who ignores what - Crete will be illuminating. .
 
prodromos said:
The Orthodox clergy involved in the joint statement represent a tiny minority in North America. The statement itself has been politely ignored by a great many learned people in the Orthodox Church worldwide. Get over it.
Click to expand...
The Internet mavens are also tiny minority, with far lass theological training. As to who ignores what - Crete will be illuminating. .
 
dvdjs said:
Actually, it was quite the other way around. He was after the emperor. I am surprised that this this question is even raised.
Click to expand...
He helped Isaac become emperor. Now you claim he was ‘after’ him. On what basis do you make these claims?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top