Trinitarian Theologies of East and West -- reconciled at long last

  • Thread starter Thread starter whosebob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew P.:
Dear Steve,

Be advised that you are incorrect again. The “Orthodox” had not been in heresy.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
Click to expand...
Matthew,

How am I incorrect? My response to you was a result of what you said to me in the following. I assure you, I do read what you post.

"In 638, the emperor Heraklios and Patriarch Sergius tried to minimize the importance of differences in belief, and they issued an edict, the “Ekthesis” (“Ekthesis tes pisteos” or "Exposition of Faith), which decreed that EVERYONE accept the teaching of one will in the two natures of the Savior. In defending Orthodoxy against the “Ekthesis,” St. Maximus spoke to people in various occupations and positions, and these conversations were successful. Not only the clergy and the bishops, but also the people and the secular officials felt some sort of invisible attraction to him, as we read in his Life.

When St. Maximus saw what turmoil this heresy caused in Constantinople and in the East, he decided to leave his monstery and seek refuge in the West, where Monothelitism had been completely rejected. On the way, he visited the bishops of Africa, strengthening them in Orthodoxy, and encouraging them not to be deceived by the cunning arguments of the heretics."

The Fourth Ecumenical Council had condemned the Monophysite heresy, which falsely taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ there was only one nature (the divine). Influenced by this erroneous opinion, the Monothelite heretics said that in Christ there was only one divine will (“thelema”) and only one divine energy (“energia”). Adherents of Monothelitism sought to return by another path to the repudiated Monophysite heresy. Monothelitism found numerous adherents in Armenia, Syria, Egypt. The heresy, fanned also by nationalistic animosities, became a serious threat to Church unity in the East. The struggle of Orthodoxy with heresy was particularly difficult because in the year 630, three of the patriarchal thrones in the Orthodox East were occupied by Monothelites: Constantinople by Sergios, Antioch by Athanasios, and Alexandria by Cyrus.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=437136#post437136

Why do you say the Orthodox had not been in heresy after printing the above? I don’t understnad your point. The folks who cut out the tongue of Maximus WERE Orthodox, albeit heretical ones. Just like the patriarchs mentioned above are Orthodox, albeit heretical ones. BTW, where did you get this article ?
 
Matthew P.:
Dear Steve,

Be advised that you are incorrect again. The “Orthodox” had not been in heresy.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
Click to expand...
Matthew,

How am I incorrect? My response to you was a result of what you said to me in the following. I assure you, I do read what you post.

“In 638, the emperor Heraklios and Patriarch Sergius tried to minimize the importance of differences in belief, and they issued an edict, the “Ekthesis” (“Ekthesis tes pisteos” or "Exposition of Faith), which decreed that EVERYONE accept the teaching of one will in the two natures of the Savior. In defending Orthodoxy against the “Ekthesis,” St. Maximus spoke to people in various occupations and positions, and these conversations were successful. Not only the clergy and the bishops, but also the people and the secular officials felt some sort of invisible attraction to him, as we read in his Life.”

"When St. Maximus saw what turmoil this heresy caused in Constantinople and in the East, he decided to leave his monstery and seek refuge in the West, where Monothelitism had been completely rejected. On the way, he visited the bishops of Africa, strengthening them in Orthodoxy, and encouraging them not to be deceived by the cunning arguments of the heretics."

"The Fourth Ecumenical Council had condemned the Monophysite heresy, which falsely taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ there was only one nature (the divine). Influenced by this erroneous opinion, the Monothelite heretics said that in Christ there was only one divine will (“thelema”) and only one divine energy (“energia”). Adherents of Monothelitism sought to return by another path to the repudiated Monophysite heresy. Monothelitism found numerous adherents in Armenia, Syria, Egypt. The heresy, fanned also by nationalistic animosities, became a serious threat to Church unity in the East. The struggle of Orthodoxy with heresy was particularly difficult because in the year 630, three of the patriarchal thrones in the Orthodox East were occupied by Monothelites: Constantinople by Sergios, Antioch by Athanasios, and Alexandria by Cyrus."

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=437136#post437136

I don’t understnad your point. The folks who cut out the tongue of Maximus WERE Orthodox, albeit heretical ones. Just like the patriarchs mentioned above are Orthodox, albeit heretical ones. Sergius & the emporer decreed that EVERYONE accept this heresy. BTW, where did you get this article ?
 
steve b:
The folks who cut out the tongue of Maximus WERE Orthodox, albeit heretical ones. Just like the patriarchs mentioned above are Orthodox, albeit heretical ones. BTW, where did you get this article ?
Click to expand...
None of them were Orthodox. They were Catholics.

Roman Catholic teaching is that there was **no Orthodox Church ** in existence until approx 1054.

Up until then, the Pope exercised the petrine office over both East and West.
 
Dear Father and Steve,

Forgive me for saying so, but you are both wrong, moreso Father Ambrose. It is not right to state that these heretical bishops were Orthodox any more than to say that these heretical bishops were Catholic. There was no such division in the first millennium. I say that Father Ambrose is even more wrong because his argument is based not only on a misconceived attribution of titles to heretics, but also because he realizes this and still has the gall to claim that these bishops were Catholic. Sorry, Father, but this is hypocrisy pure and simple.

With regards to the topic at hand:

Dear Father,

I will attempt to address the problems with your posts that others have not yet addressed.
  1. How in the world is the attribution of the title “defender of the faith” to Henry VIII even closely comparable to a statement of faith solemnly accepted by the Eastern Churches?
  2. Please give us any evidence for your statement that the filioque issue was “simmering for centuries” in the Church before Photius. Do you mean to tell us that the filioque was an issue that threatened to divide orthodox Catholics for centuries? You certainly have a gift for evading the issue. It is a FACT OF HISTORY that the filioque was not contested among orthodox Catholics until Photius came around. This should not be regarded as a knock on Photius – it is merely history.
  3. St. Maximus’ expression about Rome is no more nor less relevant than St. Paul stating that if he or any of the Apostles, or an angel of God, should bring or teach any other Gospel, they should be rejected. It is ONLY a statement that reflects the primary and primordial importance of the Gospel over and above anything else on this earth; the Church SERVES the Gospel, a truth the Catholic Church wholeheartedly teaches and exclaims. St. Paul was NOT saying that there was a possibility that the Apostles would actually lead the Church astray. According to your invalid reasoning, we should therefore reject St. Paul and the other Apostles for the POSSIBILITY that they might have given us false teachings. According to your invalid reasoning, the Apostles were NOT infallible because of what St. Paul stated. If you reject this interpretation of St. Paul, then you are not far from rejecting your current interpretation of St. Maximus’ statement about Rome.
  4. Your request for an apology for the loss of Celtic Christianity is downright polemic. For an Irishman, you certainly display little knowledge of Irish Church history (or perhaps your knowledge of history is flavored by Orthodox bias). Pope Hadrian IV’s Bull given to Henry II was provided due to the deplorable condition of the Irish Church. Please do read about Ireland’s tumultuous history in the early 12th century, and you will get a better understanding of the state of the Church- rather, the state of the country! – during that time. The intent of Pope Hadrian’s Bull was pure and holy. In any case, Pope Hadrian died in 1159, but Henry II did not utilize the authority of the Bull – and this for his own political purposes – UNTIL 1168. Even then, its use was not instigated by Henry himself, but by an appeal of an Irish warlord against a rival who had deposed him. Tell us again what exactly Pope Hadrian should apologize for?
  5. Your complaint that conversations between Catholic and Orthodox always eventually leads to the issue of contraception seems uncharacteristically self-incriminating of you, as it is in fact YOU who brought up the issue of Orthodox contraception in post#90.
(continued)
 
(continued)
  1. Perhaps you are using a different dialect than Americans and English are, but “whither” means exactly what “whence” means. Thus, St. Cyprian did indeed claim that no errors flowed from the Chair of Peter. Perhaps you are confusing the word “whither” with the word “whether?” It is almost inconceivable that you could claim that “whither” is the opposite of “whence.”
  2. Finally, you have yet to give any specifics on why you believe the Clarification is opposed to the Council of Florence that have not already been answered by the Clarification. You refuse to see what is in front of your eyes, as have other Orthodox who have read it (which I am certain are not many,* as not even you were aware of the Clarification when we first brought up the issue a couple of months ago*,* nor have any of the Orthodox, both Oriental and Eastern, who I have had the pleasure of meeting in person or over the internet*).
Please permit the following (name removed by moderator)ut from me, though WhoseBob’s explanation should really have been sufficient. Your only objection seems to be with regards to the term “productive power.” The easiest way to explain it to you is this: the term “productive power” WAS NOT USED BY THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE. IT WAS USED BY ANOTHER SOURCE TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE DECREES OF FLORENCE. For you to understand what Florence meant, you must first of all stop using extraneous definitions and interpretations as if they were gospel. Just read the Council of Florence along with the official Clarification (and the response by the Metropolitan), and all will be well.

In truth, I am not sure what “productive power” means either. If we take the standard English definition (though I am not certain, as noted above, if we are truly on the same page with regards to certain English words), “productive” would mean “fruitful” or “effective.” Thus, “productive power” must mean a power that is always effective or fruitful for the one who wields it. If you are trying to define “productive” to imply the creation of something, I suppose it could mean that, but it is highly unlikely – nay, IMPOSSIBLE – that that is what the Catholic Encyclopedia intended.

But with regards to the Florentine definition itself, perhaps it is not as strikingly dissimilar from the Clarification as you perceive. Note that the Florentine Decree distinguishes the Father (as distinct from the Son) as FIRST CAUSE, the principaliter, the monarchia. The Son is indeed cause of the Holy Spirit (as Florence stated), NOT as principaliter or monarchia, however, but as a divine conduit, so to speak, of the Father’s will, what the Metropolitan called a secondary principaliter. Perhaps you can understand this concept from a loose analogy with John 1:1-3 and Genesis 1:1-2. Christians normally proclaim that the Father created the world through the Son by or through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is also wholly orthodox in both an ideological and theological sense to proclaim that the world was created by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But Christians properly give the title Creator ONLY to the Father, not to the Son, nor to the Holy Spirit. Does this mean that we as Christians deny that the Son and the Holy Spirit had a role in the creation? Of course not, the title, however, merely denotes that the Father is FIRST PRINCIPLE of creation.

If you understand what I have just written, you are not far from understanding the Catholic perspective on the issue of the Filioque, even from the Florentine decree (BTW, Steve B was correct that you did not take into account the FULL context of the Florentine decree – the “context” you offered failed to include the statement about the Father as FIRST CAUSE).

(continued)
 
(continued)

From the Florentine decree, it cannot be argued that the filioque confuses the Persons of Father and Son, because the decree explicitly distinguishes the Father as FIRST CAUSE, principaliter, and monarchia, in distinction from the Son.

Now, I want to address another issue you brought up: does not the Catholic teaching make the Holy Spirit His own cause? You have acquired this misconception due to a belief that Catholic Church teaches that the Procession through the Son is a merely “natural” consequence of consubstantiality; that is, there is no “conscious will” involved in the Procession. You theorize that if the Procession is merely a “natural” consequence of the fact of consubstantiality, then there is nothing to prevent one from stating that the Holy Spirit is a cause unto Himself apart from the Father – I have even heard the argument by Orthodox that this notion would not prevent anyone from stating that the Son or the Holy Spirit is the Cause of the Father, or that the Holy Spirit is the Cause of the Father or the Son, or that the Son is the Cause of the Father.

First of all, you must understand that though the filioque is taken by Catholics as a statement of Trinitarian consubstantiality, the doctrine involved does not make any statement whatsoever with regards to the mechanism of Procession (whether by divine will or mere “natural” consequence). Thus, the Orthodox have no grounds by which to artificially impose on the doctrine something it does not state or intend to cover.

Secondly, understand that even since Tertullian, Latins have always proclaimed the Father as the FIRST CAUSE of the Trinity. Thus, the Orthodox have no grounds, once again, to accuse Catholics of confusing the Son or the Holy Spirit as Cause of the Father based merely on their consubstantiality. This fact also dictates that the Holy Spirit cannot be a Cause unto Himself apart from the Father. At this point, it may still be asked, “does not the Catholic teaching confuse whether the Son is the Cause of the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit the Cause of the Son?” This brings us to the third point.

Thirdly, and this reason exposes the utter inconsistency in the Orthodox argument, if it is argued that the Holy Spirit can be the Cause of the Son by a “natural” consequence of their consubstantiality, then it can be argued just as strongly that the Son can be the Cause of the Father by a “natural” consequence of their consubstantiality. For certainly, THE STATEMENT OF BELIEF THAT THE FATHER GENERATES THE SON ETERNALLY IS PROFESSED IN VIRTUE OF THAT SELFSAME CONSUBSTANTIALITY!!! If the Father and Son were not consubstantial, the Son would be a creature. What use then, is the Orthodox tirade against the Catholic and patristic doctrine against the filioque based on the consubstantiality of the Persons? If the profession that the Father generates the Son based on their consubstantiality does not deny the personal and willful generation of the Son by the Father, then it cannot be denied that the Procession of the Spirit from the Father through/and the Son is likewise a result of a personal and willful action by the Father through/and the Son, and not merely by a “natural” consequence of their consubstantiality, though that selfsame consubstantiality is the reason that the Son has a role in the Procession of the Spirit.

God bless.

Greg
 
Dear John,

With regards to the credit card analogy, according to Christ, you should. Don’t appeal to human sensibilities, for that is not the basis of the narrow path. The question is not, “what would you do,” but rather, “what would Christ do.” Yeah, we don’t live in a perfect world, but many Eastern Orthodox seem to give way too much accommodation to the ways of the world.

God bless,

Greg
 
40.png
GAssisi:
Perhaps you are using a different dialect than Americans and English are, but “whither” means exactly what “whence” means. Thus, St. Cyprian did indeed claim that no errors flowed from the Chair of Peter. Perhaps you are confusing the word “whither” with the word “whether?” It is almost inconceivable that you could claim that “whither” is the opposite of “whence.”
Click to expand...
Oh my poor language! What are they doing to you in the States?!

“Whither” and “whence” do not mean the same at all. They are directionally the very opposite in meaning. It is entirely inconceivable that you would claim they have the same meaning. 😦

Whither means “to where” -“to what place”

…whither shall we wander

Whence means “from where” - “from what place”

…whence have you come

So Saint Cyprian is saying exactly what I said he was saying.

The word “whether” has no connection with motion and none with either “whither” or “whence” and I don’t understand how anybody could confuse “whither” and “whether.”
 
40.png
GAssisi:
Your complaint that conversations between Catholic and Orthodox always eventually leads to the issue of contraception seems uncharacteristically self-incriminating of you, as it is in fact YOU who brought up the issue of Orthodox contraception in post#90
Click to expand...
Excuse me, old chap, but you are entirely wrong. It was Traditional Ang who introduced the contraceptive issue in message #89 - something he quoted from Pope Paul VI.

Do you see what I mean about the way you bring up mountains of inconsequential minutiae which waste time on the threads but which you phrase in such a way that they need a response. You were not content with asserting, wrongly, that I brought up the contraceptive issue but you had to place a sting in your statement by accusing me, wrongly, of being “uncharacteristically self-incriminating.”
 
40.png
GAssisi:
Don’t appeal to human sensibilities, for that is not the basis of the narrow path. The question is not, “what would you do,” but rather, “what would Christ do.”
Click to expand...
Our Lord said:
“Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. But beware of men. For they will deliver you up in councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues.”
Matthew 10
 
Dear Father,

Whither and whence may be used interchangeably in some instances. For example:

“I go whither I came” or “I go whence I came” have the same meaning. Besides, even given your restrictive definition, the Catholic understanding of St. Cyprians’ statement stands. Whether (no pun intended) or not heresy comes FROM the Chair of Peter, or heresy goes TO the Chair of Peter, it is certain that no heresy will ever infect the Chair of Peter, nor will heresy ever proceed from the Chair of Peter because no heresy can infect it in the first place. N’est pas?

As regards your attribution of the discussion about Orthodox contraception to Michael, please do show us exactly where Michael mentioned Orthodoxy in his post? Not only did Michael NOT mention Orthodoxy in relation to contraception in his post, but, judging from his subsequent posts, he indeed meant the prophecy to apply only to the Western circumstances. Please stop blaming someone else other than yourself for something you complained about.

I didn’t catch the relevance of you quote from Matthew. Can you explain?

God bless,

Greg
 
40.png
GAssisi:
Whither and whence may be used interchangeably in some instances.
Click to expand...
They can’t. The first example you gave arouses only confusion (except, I suppose, in the minds of those for whom “whither” and “whence” are already confused 😃 )

Imagine someone publishing “Quo Vadis” and giving it the English subtitle “Whence Are You Going”? :banghead:

I believe you are of the Latin Rite? Go back to Latin basics - UNDE VENIS? QUO VADIS?
 
40.png
GAssisi:
didn’t catch the relevance of you quote from Matthew. Can you explain?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The Orthodox have suffered miserably from the Catholics in many countries and at many times, the last being the extermination of around 700,000 Serbs in the Second World War 1944-46 (the figure is not accurately calculated.)

We are willing to forgive that. But then people naively urge us to also forget it. We cannot do that. If we try then memories begin to stir… we remember that Catholic mistreatment of Orthodox Christians has been a consistent feature of Catholic history - Constantinople, the Greek Islands, Jerusalem, Poland, the Ukraine, Lebanon, even the States where our first martyrs died at Catholic hands, etc., etc.

So it would be foolish of us to forget this. The tendency to harm the Orthodox is too well established in historical fact and history is not yet rolled up and finished. It may happen again. So it would be foolish to forget this history, to purge our memories as the PC phrase puts it, and expose ourselves to future harm.

Wise as serpents - remembering the lessons of history and being prepared for the future

Simple as doves - forgiving what has been done to us in the past, hoping that our separated brethren have purged themselves of the tendency to persecute.
 
Dear Father,

I give you an instance when whither and whence can be used interchangeably, and you attempt to refute me by not refuting my example, but by simply giving another example. Nice bit of evasion Father. And your appeal to Latin is likewise a no brainer to a linguist (not saying that I am one, though I am fluent in five languages, and well-read in three others) who understands the relevance of idiomatic usage in different languages or even different dialects of the same language.

With regards to the quote from Matthew and your example, I understand your position, but I cannot sympathize with it since I myself come from a persecuted people who get along quite well now with those who persecuted us in the recent past. So your constant appeal to those instances in the past don’t sound like forgiveness AT ALL, especially to one whose people have gone through the same thing. I certainly remember the history of my people, and my parents have vivid memories they have told me of WWII and their persecution by Japanese. But you know what? My best friend in high school was Japanese and my parents welcomed him with open arms. THAT is forgiveness, Father. Don’t dare to pretend for one instance to one such as myself (and many others in my shoes) that the Orthodox use of the past as a REASON to separate themselves from the Catholic Church is merely an issue of remembering. There is no forgiveness there, Father. Spare me the empty platitudes! You insult the experience of my people and our capacity for forgiveness by attempting to even claim that what you are doing has anything to do with forgiveness.

If you and other Orthodox really were forgiving, you would NOT use those sins of the past - sins which the Orthodox themselves are guilty of, mind you - as a BASIS FOR SEPARATION. Remember them, yes, but don’t use that memory to separate yourselves from other Christians. As I’ve constantly maintained, these discussions should only be focused on theological issues, not on who did what to whom and when so many centuries ago.

God bless,

Greg
 
Fr Ambrose:
Roman Catholic teaching is that there was **no Orthodox Church **in existence until approx 1054.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. It was a gradual term change, where [o]rthodox became [O]rthodox as a proper name.

newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm
Fr Ambrose:
Up until then, the Pope exercised the petrine office over both East and West.
Click to expand...
He still speaks for all Christians even though many won’t listen or even reject him.

%between%
 
40.png
mtr01:
Wait a minute Father, is that an admission? 😉
Click to expand...
In your dreams 🙂

It was written within the whole context of “let’s imagine for the sake of this argument that the Roman Catholic understanding of the history of the Church is true.”
Thus saith the Lord: “Stand at the crossroads, and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls.” -Jeremiah 6:16
 
Fr Ambrose:
In your dreams 🙂

It was written within the whole context of “let’s imagine for the sake of this argument that the Roman Catholic understanding of the history of the Church is true.”
Thus saith the Lord: “Stand at the crossroads, and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls.” -Jeremiah 6:16
Click to expand...
Hey, you can’t blame a guy for trying 😃
 
Fr Ambrose:
In your dreams 🙂

It was written within the whole context of “let’s imagine for the sake of this argument that the Roman Catholic understanding of the history of the Church is true.”
Thus saith the Lord: “Stand at the crossroads, and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls.” -Jeremiah 6:16
Click to expand...
but it is! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top