What does Eastern Orthodoxy offer that Eastern Catholicism doesn't?

[joe371]

Dear brother MichaelinMD,

Just remember that what the Latin Catholic Church teaches about filioque is not the same thing as what certain Orthodox THINK the filioque teaches.

There are certain (a better descriptive would probably be “many”) Orthodox who think filioque means that the Son is the Source of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. But that is not what filioque means. Filioque was used by the Latins to denote the common Essence of the Trinity, not the Origin of the Trinity (or any of the Persons thereof). Easterns, on the other hand, believe the relevant line in the Creed is a reference to the Origin of the Trinity (i.e., the Father).

Now, Latins do teach that the Father is the Source of the Trinity. It’s just that they do not think that line in the Creed is particularly teaching that specific dogma.

Likewise, Easterns do teach the consubstantiality of the Persons, It’s just that they do not think that line in the Creed is particularly teaching that specific dogma.

Look at it this way. The original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecum in adding that relevant line to the Creed was to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

The Latins approached the defense of the HS’s divinity by stressing the consubstantiality of the Persons, and that was particularly suited to their theology, and thus interpreted that line of the Creed as teaching that. So according to the original intention of the Second Ecum, the Latins are perfectly orthodox.

The Easterns approached the defense of the HS’s divinity by stressing the divine Origin of the Spirit, and that was particularly suited to their theology, and thus interpreted that line of the Creed as teaching that. So according to the original intention of the Second Ecum, the Easterns are perfectly orthodox.

The Latin theology of filioque is perfectly orthodox. And your acceptance of that theology (without having to actually recite it) would not make you any less orthodox than the Easterns who have approached their defense of the divinity of the HS in another way.

Blessings

As always, another great post! Once you clear up the fact that two different issues are being discussed e.g. the origin of the Godhead versus consubstantialty, the problem simply goes away.

 

[sharpag]

As always, another great post! Once you clear up the fact that two different issues are being discussed e.g. the origin of the Godhead versus consubstantialty, the problem simply goes away.

That was a very knowledgeable defense from mardukm; I disagree with it for the “usual” reasons (monarchy of the Father, differentiation of persons, structure, etc.), but I see no reason to belabor the point.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

General notice:
Hot Topic for the week of 3/31.
Please remain on topic.