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

[GaryTaylor]

I use to do the same with electric guitars… US made. I still keep an eye open because I still play.

So, the sacraments and mysteries, I think from being raised in the latin rite what’s overlooked in both the EO and EOC is its view of divinization and a ascetic way of life. I find this admirable, so my cynical outlook is perhaps better understood from this point. Between the EO and EOC I don’t know how you would see any difference in this aspect?

 

[MichaelinMD]

I use to do the same with electric guitars… US made. I still keep an eye open because I still play.

So, the sacraments and mysteries, I think from being raised in the latin rite what’s overlooked in both the EO and EOC is its view of divinization and a ascetic way of life. I find this admirable, so my cynical outlook is perhaps better understood from this point. Between the EO and EOC I don’t know how you would see any difference in this aspect?

From the little I actually do understand, I see no difference whatsoever between the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic views of “divinization”, aka “theosis” in the Eastern churches.

 

[Nine_Two]

As a kid I collected maps. Mostly AAA road maps, but others as well. Unfortunately, that never panned out to me being a collector of antiquarian maps, etc. Anyway, point is, maps take up much less space than globes.

Maps take up less space if you roll them, but not if you display them.

I collected maps for a bit, every time I went on a trip I’d buy a map. Never really bought anything locally (other than useful road maps). They just didn’t interest me.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

So, the sacraments and mysteries, I think from being raised in the latin rite what’s overlooked in both the EO and EOC is its view of divinization and a ascetic way of life. I find this admirable, so my cynical outlook is perhaps better understood from this point. Between the EO and EOC I don’t know how you would see any difference in this aspect?

I’m not aware of any difference between Orthodox & Eastern Catholic understanding of theosis.

Eastern Catholics used to be Orthodox, so many of their traditions & beliefs would naturally be exactly the same.

I was just beginning to look into when Ruthenian Catholics left Orthodoxy, when Melkite Greek Catholics left Orthodoxy, etc. I am interested to learn more about the When & even more especially the WHY from each of their Rite or Churches’ point of view they left Orthodoxy for Catholicism. Maybe I’ll start a thread in the Eastern Catholic Area of this forum to learn more?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Maps take up less space if you roll them, but not if you display them.

I collected maps for a bit, every time I went on a trip I’d buy a map. Never really bought anything locally (other than useful road maps). They just didn’t interest me.

I like globes, too! Most especially the old-fashioned looking ones.

 

[joe371]

I’m not aware of any difference between Orthodox & Eastern Catholic understanding of theosis.

Eastern Catholics used to be Orthodox, so many of their traditions & beliefs would naturally be exactly the same.

That’s very true. For example: the filioque. They can retain their traditional beliefs that the HS proceeds from the Father…which means this really is no longer a dividing point…

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s very true. For example: the filioque. They can retain their traditional beliefs that the HS proceeds from the Father…which means this really is no longer a dividing point…

That seems rather untrue. That would be to deny the teaching of Florence. At least on paper, they must assent to this dogma in order to remain in good standing with the Roman church, even if they do not recite it in the creed.

 

[josie_L]

That seems rather untrue. That would be to deny the teaching of Florence. At least on paper, they must assent to this dogma in order to remain in good standing with the Roman church, even if they do not recite it in the creed.

You keep bringing up Florence and you are wrong about what Florence teaches.

 

[MichaelinMD]

That’s very true. For example: the filioque. They can retain their traditional beliefs that the HS proceeds from the Father…which means this really is no longer a dividing point…

Except for those who choose to use it as such.

 

[MichaelinMD]

That seems rather untrue. That would be to deny the teaching of Florence. At least on paper, they must assent to this dogma in order to remain in good standing with the Roman church, even if they do not recite it in the creed.

Do you have a source for that?

 

[joe371]

Except for those who choose to use it as such.

 

[joe371]

That seems rather untrue. That would be to deny the teaching of Florence. At least on paper, they must assent to this dogma in order** to remain in good standing with the Roman church, even if they do not recite it in the cree**d.

Perhaps I am wrong. Source?

 

[Wandile]

Perhaps I am wrong. Source?

Cavaradossi is right. All Catholics must believe in the filioque even if its not recited in their creed

 

[joe371]

Cavaradossi is right. All Catholics must believe in the filioque even if its not recited in their creed

I stand corrected.

 

[MichaelinMD]

Cavaradossi is right. All Catholics must believe in the filioque even if its not recited in their creed

Okie dokie! Don’t get me wrong…I believe it, and I pretty much share Mary Warfield’s opinion (in another thread) about the whole filioque discussion. And……if there’s a source that says just that (what you’ve highlighted above), can you cite it, please, for future reference?

Many thanks!

In Christ,
MinM

 

[Nine_Two]

Okie dokie! Don’t get me wrong…I believe it, and I pretty much share Mary Warfield’s opinion (in another thread) about the whole filioque discussion. And……if there’s a source that says just that (what you’ve highlighted above), can you cite it, please, for future reference?

Many thanks!

In Christ,
MinM

I’m sure someone could find the actual decision from Florence, nonetheless this is from Catholic Encyclopedia:

The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[MichaelinMD]

I’m sure someone could find the actual decision from Florence, nonetheless this is from Catholic Encyclopedia:

That’ll work. Thanks!!

 

[mardukm]

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

That’ll work. Thanks!!

 

[sharpag]

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.

I agreed with a great deal of what you said; however, I must disagree with your claim that the filioque does not address the origin of the Trinity. Procession is most definitely a term of origination. I don’t think it’s fair to say this is just the Easterners being Eastern. While the filioque does address the essence of the Trinity (as you rightly pointed out), it also addresses the economic origin. In what other circumstance is the procession of the Holy Spirit mentioned without applying to the economy of the Trinity or to origination? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the filioque seems to be the only time procession means something it doesn’t mean every other time. If the filioque really is about the unity of the Trinity why is it 1) in an economic phrase and 2) after the Son is already said to be of the same being as the Father as He is “true God of true God”?

 

[mardukm]

Dear sharpag,

I agreed with a great deal of what you said; however, I must disagree with your claim that the filioque does not address the origin of the Trinity. Procession is most definitely a term of origination. I don’t think it’s fair to say this is just the Easterners being Eastern. While the filioque does address the essence of the Trinity (as you rightly pointed out), it also addresses the economic origin. In what other circumstance is the procession of the Holy Spirit mentioned without applying to the economy of the Trinity or to origination?

The sending of the Holy Spirit is not thought of in terms of origin in the Latin Tradition. The sending occurs, in the Latin Tradition, not because the Son is origin, but because the Spirit shares what the Son has from the Father. It is a matter of sharing, not a matter of originating.

The concept of originating is a peculiarly Eastern theological principle that should not be imposed on the Latin concept simply because later Latin authorities had to make a definition to explain the matter in terms of origin for the benefit of the Easterns.

To the Latins, the phrase “Proceeding from the Father” was a statement about the consubstantiality. Hence, to them, it was perfectly fine to add “and the Son” because the Spirit is, in the fullness of orthodox Truth, consubstantial with the Father AND the Son. This is perhaps why a some Latins would have accused the Easterns of heresy in denying filioque. To Latins, it would mean denying the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father AND the Son. Of course, those particular Latins would have misunderstood that the Easterns were coming from a different theological presupposition - namely, that “proceeding from the Father” was a statement about origination, not consubstantiality.

Correct me if I’m wrong,

Not correcting, just explaining.

If the filioque really is about the unity of the Trinity why is it 1) in an economic phrase

That is imposing an Eastern outlook on the Latin paradigm. Unlike the Eastern paradigm, the Latins do not make a distinction between Essence and Energy. The Energetic economy is not conceived of separately from the Essential divinity in the Latin Tradition. So to speak of the Economic procession as something distinct from considerations of Essence in trying to understand filioque from the Latin perspective would be improper.

1. after the Son is already said to be of the same being as the Father as He is “true God of true God”?

To the Latins, to combat a certain brand of Arianism in their lands, that the Son is consubstantial with the Father COULD still make the Son subordinate to the Father if it was not equally affirmed that the Son was consubstantial with the Spirit (who is consubstantial with the Father). It is, after all, the common consubstantiality of the three Persons that make them all equally God.

Blessings,
Marduk