What is the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter scapularkid8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi All,

I thought this extract might give some further detail to readers interested in the deeper significance of the “Filioque” controversy from the EO perspective.

There is a lot to this - but it is not simply about pride or semantics. It really gets back to the fundamental question about the nature of God - and the uncreated, eternal energy of God which underpins so many other teachings of the EO Church like the nature of Divine Forgiveness and Grace - and Salvation.

There are some Catholics who would like to convince you that the whole Filioque issue is a storm in a tea cup - well according to the Eastern Orthodox it is much more serious than that.

In essence, this teaching, and it’s understanding impacts upon the soul itself.

This is very interesting and informative Eastern Orthodox apologetics piece:

***IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC FILIOQUE SCRIPTURAL?

No, it isn’t - no matter how hard Roman Catholics strive to back it with the Holy Bible - because the Bible itself speaks in a very explicit and undeniable way about the hypostasis and the particular relationship of the Holy Spirit, in John 15:26:

“…and when the Paraclete comes, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of the Truth Who proceeds from the Father…”

In this classic excerpt there is a clear distinguishing between the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father, and the sending of the Spirit by the Son (or in the name of the Son): the one is expressed with the use of the Present Continuous Tense (=Who proceeds), while the other uses the Future Tense (=Whom I shall send). Given that this is a categorical teaching of the Holy Bible, it was recorded authentically and infallibly in the sacred Symbol (Creed) of the Synod of Constantinople (381 AD), i.e.: “…and in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father…” The Faith of the Church on this matter is clear and unquestionable.

However, according to the Papists, although the above words do of course mention the procession of the Spirit from the Father, they do not explicitly preclude the “filioque” possibility (=that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son). They assert that since the Biblical text does not specify “…which proceeds ONLY from the Father”, or “…the one proceeding ONLY from the Father”, this leaves an opening that justifies their insertion of the “filioque”.

But don’t these Papist speculations seem like naive theological contrivances? Because if we were to speculate reversely, we could likewise propose the following ideas: If the “filioque” was indeed a possibility in God’s thoughts, then wouldn’t the Saviour Himself have clearly stated “…the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father AND the Son”, for such an important facet of the dogma? And wouldn’t the Oros (condition) of the respective Synod also have been recorded as “….Who proceeds from the Father AND the Son…”? Why would the Lord suppress such a significant truth? Was it His intention, to purposely cause problems to His Church?

Finally, the verse of John 16:13-15 should likewise be interpreted in the same spirit as John 15:26; i.e., with the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the temporal “dispatching” of the Spirit by Christ: “…And when He comes – the Spirit of the Truth – He shall guide you to the entire Truth; He shall not speak on His own, but whatever He hears He shall speak of, and He shall announce to you what is coming…”

However, the Roman Catholics again base their own “filioque” teaching on this excerpt, by directly linking the procession and the mission of the Holy Spirit to the person of Christ.

WHAT LAWFULLY JUSTIFIES THE EASTERN ORTHODOX REJECTION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INNOVATION?

The insertion of the “filioque” in the sacred Symbol of Faith (Creed) is arbitrary and coup-like. The Oroi (conditions) of the Ecumenical Synods are authentic, infallible and irremovable monuments. No individual and no local synods have the right to change them or amend them, not even in the least. Only another Ecumenical Synod can attempt something like that. This view has been officially consolidated by the 3rd Ecumenical Synod, when it opined with the following statement: “One cannot pronounce any other faith - that is, to author or to compose any – except the one stipulated by the Holy Fathers who convened in Nice, in the Holy Spirit.” (Μηδενί εξείναι ετέραν πίστιν προφέρειν, ήγουν συγγράφειν ή συντιθέναι παρά την ορισθείσαν παρά των Αγίων Πατέρων των εν Νικαία συνελθόντων εν Αγίω Πνεύματι). This is also how Cyril, who had presided over the Synod, saw the matter and had stated in an epistle to John of Antioch, that it was not permitted “to change a single word of those found in there, or to even omit any syllable.” (λέξιν αμείψαι των εγκειμένων εκείσε ή μίαν γούν παραβήναι συλλαβήν) [1].

The abuse of the Oros of the 3rd Ecumenical Synod by the Papists, which was both outrageous and impermissible, caused immense turmoil in the ecumenical (worldwide) Church and eventually succeeded in tearing it apart.***
 
“Papists” is not a term that is allowed here. Please be more careful in selecting an apologetics piece in the future, Andrew Phillip.
 
***CONTINUED…

HOW DOES THE RC FILIOQUE INNOVATION CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE HOLY TRINITY?

Because it destroys the monarchy (=single principality) within the Divinity and it creates confusion with regard to the hypostatic characteristics of the Personae of the Holy Trinity. Monarchy within the divine constitutes an apical point of the Triadic dogma of the Faith, for which some very fierce battles were fought by the ancient Church. As we can see from the precedent lines, the Father is acknowledged as the divine Source; it is from within Him that the other two Personae of the Holy Trinity originate; i.e., the Son (by birth) and the Spirit (by procession). It is this precise order within the Trinity that ensures both the unity of nature and the parity of the Personae of the Trinity. This has been the way that Orthodox theology has always perceived the issue.

The “filioque” however has upset this very order. Not only has it destroyed the unity of their nature, but it also destroys the order of the triadic relations between the Personae. It abolishes the monarchy within Divinity by introducing diarchy (=dual principality) in the relations of the Trinitarian divinity. Instead of the one principality from whom the Holy Trinity unfolds, we have two principalities. The Father has ceased to be the only source of divinity, as they have now rendered the Son a parallel Source. But this insertion of a second principality also upsets and confuses the hypostatic characteristics of the Personae; The hypostatic characteristic of the Son is no longer Birth (the only-born Son), but is now procession as well, and the procession of the Holy Spirit is no longer only from the Father, but also from the Son.

Given this confusion of the hypostatic characteristics of each of the Personae, one can only ask oneself: Why shouldn’t this confusion be extended even further? In other words, why can’t the Father be born of the Son, or, why can’t the Son proceed from the Holy Spirit, etc.? Where do we draw the line, and where do we stop destroying the dogma of the Holy Trinity?

ARE THERE ANY PRACTICAL DIFFERENCES IN THIS RC INNOVATION FOR IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD OR SALVATION?

There are, for the Orthodox Church. At a theological level, apart from ruining “monarchy’s much-lauded and godly status”[2] by creating confusion around the hypostatic characteristics of the Personae, the “filioque” is also clearly underrating the godly rank of the Holy Spirit. For indeed, if the Holy Spirit was not directly dependent on the Father (just like the Son is, but in a different manner), but was concurrently dependent on a second factor (the Son), then the Holy Spirit would be rendered inferior to the Son and would therefore not possess an independent and homologous status towards the Son (which is the case, when the Spirit originates directly from the Father).

For the Orthodox Church, the demoting of the Holy Spirit at a theological level also has repercussions on the matter of salvation. If the Spirit is not equally honored and of the same prestige as the Son (and of course the Father) – in other words, if the Spirit is “second-placed” within the Holy Trinity – then the work of the Spirit in the sphere of salvation (as the finalizing principality of the work of Christ, of the Church, and the sanctification of mankind) is jeopardized.

For the Orthodox Church, which lives and moves within the grace of the Holy Spirit, this has tremendous repercussions on Her hypostasis. Her struggles against the insertion of the words “and from the Son” were not (and are not) about “hunting shadows”, as some people may think. They are struggles for existential matters, which relate to the preservation of Her hypostasis and Her essence, as well as the success of Her soteriological aims and Her redemptive drive. Orthodoxy cannot shun the sanctifying opus of the Holy Spirit, in which it lives, holds on to and hopes. And it is not without reason that the churchgoers in Orthodox temples cross themselves during the reciting of the Symbol of Faith (Creed), and specifically when the words “…the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father…” are mentioned: this matter is deeply engraved in the faith and the conscience of the Orthodox!

HOLD ON… HOW DOES THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH EXPLAIN THE WORDS “PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER BY THE SON” WHICH WAS USED BY CHURCH FATHERS?

We will attempt to give an elementary reply here, avoiding complex theological thoughts and without deviating from the teaching of the 4th Gospel (John 15:26).

Linguistically, the preposition “from” denotes the cause from which/whom something takes place, whereas the preposition “by” denotes the cause by which/whom something takes place. In the theological Trinity, the “from” refers to the Father, from Whom the Spirit proceeds eternally, acquiring His divinity from the Father (= “the Spirit Who proceeds from the Father”, and “the One proceeding from the Father”). The preposition “by” on the other hand pertains to the Son, in Whose name the Spirit is sent to the world (without this implying that the Son is just a menial instrument of the Father). It is obvious that with regard to the Holy Spirit’s procession, the preposition “by” pertains to the providential Trinity; i.e., to the external energies of the Triadic God. Equally obvious is the fact that the preposition “by” reveals the sameness of nature between the Son and the Spirit. It is on this fact that the other statement is based; i.e., that the Spirit reposes in the Son (“and reposed in the Son”) and is referred to as “the characteristic quality of the Son”[3].
 
CONTINUED…

***BUT DOES THIS REALLY MEAN THAT ORTHODOX AND CATHOLICS DON’T TEACH THE SAME HOLY TRINITY?

Unquestionably yes, and as a matter of fact a huge cacodoxy, because it vitiates the teaching on the Holy Trinity. According to the Orthodox Faith, the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father (Who is the Source of divinity for BOTH of the other two Personae of the Triadic God) and is sent into the world by the Son, for the completion of the opus of redemption. This teaching is based on the classic Scriptural verse of John 15:26, “…and when the Paraclete comes, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of the Truth Who proceeds from the Father…” where the Present Continuous Tense of the verb “proceeds” signifies the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father, and the Future Tense of the verb “shall send” signifies the forthcoming, temporal mission of the Spirit that was being promised by the Son. This is the generally accepted Orthodox form of the Holy Spirit’s procession.

The Roman “church” however has a different understanding of the matter. Thus, it teaches that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father ONLY, but “from the Son also” (in Latin=filioque). It supports this teaching on Scriptural verses (John 16:13.5 e.a.), which it has interpreted in its own way. The “filioque” idea – which was derived from Augustine’s theology – was added to the sacred Symbol (Creed) by the Latin “church” in Spain (in a Toledo synod, in 589), evidently in order to strengthen the faith in the Logos’ divinity (which was fiercely denied by Western-Goth Arianism at the time.

The “filioque” addition, which has no real backing in the Scriptures and the teachings of the Fathers, was seen by Orthodoxy as a terrible Triadological heresy and She opposed it tenaciously, because
  1. it abolished the Father’s status as the single source of divinity,
  2. it ruined “monarchy’s much-lauded and godly status” by arbitrarily introducing dual principality in godhood: the Father AND the Son,
  3. it brought about confusion with regard to the hypostatic characteristics of the Personae; characteristics that are strictly personal, irremovable and incommunicable, making one wonder why the Father shouldn’t be born of the Son and the Son proceed from the Holy Spirit, etc.,
  4. it demotes the Spirit opposite the Son, by demoting the Spirit’s godly rank and thus endangering the Spirit’s sanctifying opus.
The “filioque”, which was the cause of the split between the two Churches during the time of Photios (867) and Michael Keroularios (1054), is not an item that is “pending theologizing” – in other words, an ambiguous dogmatic view which, if violated, does not have any significant repercussions. Quite the contrary. For the Roman “church” it is a supreme dogma of the faith, which if denied will deprive mankind of its salvation. For the Orthodox Church, the “filioque” addition is a violation of a supreme point in the teaching on the Holy Trinity, and the acceptance of this addition condemns man for all eternity.

In the ongoing theological dialogues with the Roman Catholic “church”, the issue of the “filioque” continues to be a thorny problem.

We need to be very cautious, and not play “where one shouldn’t play”.

DOES THE DENIAL THAT THE FATHER IS THE SINGLE SOURCE OF DIVINITY EFFECT THE TRINITY OR THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNCREATED ETERNAL ENERGY (GRACE) OF THE TRUE GOD?

Yes it does. It vitiates the meaning of the true God. As noted earlier, in the Triadic God there are: the essence, the hypostases and the divine energies. If any one of these three were missing, the meaning of the true God is frayed. “Heresy” is not only the denial or the misinterpretation of the Triadic hypostases, but the denial or misinterpretation of the uncreated divine energies as well.

And these divine energies of God are in fact denied, by the Roman “church”. It has rejected them, because according to its own theories, the existence of divine energies would mean that the nature of God is composite and therefore His infinite simplicity would be negated by them; they acknowledge that there most certainly are powers within God, however they are not uncreated powers (for example divine grace and the light of Christ are not uncreated). To Latin theology, these are all created magnitudes, which the transcendent God has specifically created in order to save Man.

OK … BUT WHY NOT PUT THESE ISSUES ASIDE - AND ACCEPT THE ROMAN CATHOLICS BACK INTO THE UNIFIED APOSTOLIC CHURCH?

The issue of uncreated divine energies was the topic of many tough arguments between the Orthodox East and the Latin West. The monk Barlaam, a representative of the Latin spirit, had fought vehemently against the Orthodox teaching; he was however confronted with the utmost perseverance by a major advocate of Orthodoxy, Saint Gregory Palamas, the Bishop of Thessaloniki. Pursuant Synods of the Church vindicated all the struggles and the teachings of the Saint, and condemned the Latin-minded Barlaam [4].

The matter of divine energies is of supreme importance to the Eastern Orthodox Church, not only for the fullness of Her teaching on the Holy Trinity, but also for Her overall hypostasis and Her salvatory opus. The uncreated divine energy (Grace) comprises a vital and sanctifying bond for Orthodoxy. Man is deified, through his in-depth union with it. Would theosis (deification) have been attainable, if the divine energy (of Grace) were not an uncreated magnitude, but a mere created one?

Honestly, how is it ever possible for a co-existence between Orthodoxy and Roman Papism to be reached, with such extreme soteriological and eschatological deviations and differences between them? The Orthodox on the one hand visualizing and hastening towards deification, and the Roman Catholics totally oblivious to this extremely important aspect…***
 
scapularkid8 said:
Browsing around Orthodox websites and reading their FAQ sections as a Catholic is in fact rather boring for me.

The reason being is that I just do not see any difference between our two traditions other than church structure and theological approaches to the same ideas.

Is there anyone out there who can further contrast our traditions please? I see what is similar but I’m just not finding where we differ.
Click to expand...
Which “Orthodoxy”? the late Orthodox in schism with the authority of Peter and his unbroken line of successors? Or those Orthodox Catholics in communion with Peter’s Chair in the Popes?

The difference from the first one is “Pride of men” and rejection of the progression of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, being defined, defended from the Roman Catholic church to new peoples and tongues ,not in keeping with an Idle isolated community who holds to an “Orothodoxy” by language and culture who protests the Roman Catholic Church magisterium and “Catholic councils” that are not keeping with their prideful traditions, which locks up the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all others who do not adhere to their language, customs and traditional teachings which remain frozen in time. They have no need to clarify or defend the Apostolic Faith teachings against enemies of the Faith as did the Roman Catholic Church since the apostolic age.

The Latter Orthodox Catholics maintain a respectful, loving and unity with Peter’s successors in the Popes in the “Universal (Catholic) Church”, who maintian a valid Apostolic Authority and Tradition in liturgy, language and culture.
 
dzheremi said:
“Papists” is not a term that is allowed here. Please be more careful in selecting an apologetics piece in the future, Andrew Phillip.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aware of any ban on the the words “Papacy” or “Papists”…

My interpretation of this apologetics piece was not that either word was being used in a derogatory sense - but rather to describe the Papal institution, and adherents of the institution respectively.

If it is indeed a banned word, even in that sense, I will happily do a word switch if the administrator will allow me to edit the piece - but I can’t right now, as my 20 minutes have expired.

It could be replaced with the words “Roman Catholics” I suppose.

Definitely no offence meant here.:o
 
AP: Did I miss your reference? I am very interested in the origin of the piece you reproduced. It’s headings are different, but otherwise it looks a lot like this:
oodegr.com/english/papismos/dogma/filioque1.htm - a site with all kinds of goodies

There is not doubt that one can find lots of this virulent anti-Catholic strain within the EOC. On the other hand, you can find this:
bekkos.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/ohio-lecture/
and this:
scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html

The post from Andrew rehashes items discussed at some length here at CAF, where there have been some good discussions. (search: keyword filioque and user name ghosty for the best of the threads.) The post of AP, has problems that were discussed before: the interpretation of the canons of Ephesus is self-falsifying; the filioque does not in Latin theology imply a dual source.
 
dvdjs said:
I don’t. But I will ask again that you please provide a reference for your extended quote.
Click to expand...
**This reference is more literalist in it’s approach - and less argumentative, but I think it’s wonderful. It’s from the same source as the extended quote i posted in three parts earlier.
**
oodegr.com/english/papismos/filioque_criticism.htm

**To my recollection both Catholics and Protestants adhere to the innovated Creed which says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son.

Do they not?**
 
Andrew_Phillip said:
**To my recollection both Catholics and Protestants adhere to the innovated Creed which says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son.

Do they not?**
Click to expand...
Not quite. Anglicans use both, and the vast majority of Protestant denominations (not necessarily majority of protestants) don’t recognise the Creed.
 
Andrew_Phillip said:
**This reference is more literalist in it’s approach - and less argumentative, but I think it’s wonderful. It’s from the same source as the extended quote I posted in three parts earlier.
**
oodegr.com/english/papismos/filioque_criticism.htm
Click to expand...
Nice. Mr. Valentine. Really, if you want to post the anti_Catholic stream of Orthodoxy, he’s a good choice.

And FYI: that site that you are posting from has the following on its home page:
“The copying and re-publishing of articles composed by O.O.D.E. is permitted, provided that their contents are not altered, and the source of those articles is clearly mentioned”
It is a good thing to adhere to this matters of copyright But what caught my eye is the fisrt article you posted seemed to have been altered. So can you give a link?
 
dvdjs said:
Nice. Mr. Valentine. Really, if you want to post the anti_Catholic stream of Orthodoxy, he’s a good choice.

And FYI: that site that you are posting from has the following on its home page:
“The copying and re-publishing of articles composed by O.O.D.E. is permitted, provided that their contents are not altered, and the source of those articles is clearly mentioned”
It is a good thing to adhere to this matters of copyright But what caught my eye is the fisrt article you posted seemed to have been altered. So can you give a link?
Click to expand...
**Well, I really don’t think it’s fair to say that anyone - or any Church that disagrees with the specifics of Catholic dogma is “anti Catholic”.

If that were true, the administrators of this website should be calling this section “anti-Catholic Religions” instead of “Non-Catholic Religions” as it rightfully does in a spirit of Ecumenism.

As for the article I quoted at length:
  1. I did not quote it in it’s entirity - just the interesting bits (there is no injunction against doing that);
  2. I have acknowledged the source;
  3. This is a blog, and as such it’s legitimate to interpose my comments (in this case my own questions) throughout my post.
As you’ve said on many occasions to me and other EOC members in various threads - do “some heavy lifting” and some research if you want to read it in full.**
 
Andrew_Phillip said:
Well, I really don’t think it’s fair to say that anyone - or any Church that disagrees with the specifics of Catholic dogma is “anti Catholic”.

If that were true, the administrators of this website should be calling this section “anti-Catholic Religions” instead of “Non-Catholic Religions” as it rightfully does in a spirit of Ecumenism.
Click to expand...
There is a range of allowable opinion of the CC within Orthodoxy. It varies from intercommunion by some groups n some places, to jack chick anti-catholic. No one said that disagreement on dogma suffices to get the anti-catholic label.
As for the article I quoted at length:
Click to expand...
  1. I did not quote it in it’s entirity - just the interesting bits (there is no injunction against doing that);
Click to expand...
  1. I have acknowledged the source;
Click to expand...
  1. This is a blog, and as such it’s legitimate to interpose my comments (in this case my questions) throughout my post. FYI - in academia, direct quotes are often differentiated with the use of italics - both Catholic and non-Catholics follow this accepted convention.
Click to expand...
I do like the fact that you are doing some heavy lifting. And I am sorry to go off topic, but it is a concern of mine: you really should adhere to good practices of respecting others rights to their own intellectual property. The site owners only asked that you cite and not edit. That seems like an easy request to comply with.
 
**Oh dvdjs…

Really… you are not the quote police!

I quoted only parts of the entire discourse because:
  1. Only parts of it were germaine (relevant) to the discussion here; and
  2. The discussion here is subject by order of the administrators, to strict word limits.
I have respected all of the requirements of the authors of the piece.

Please, try not to be so precious… it’s quite annoying,

Why don’t you address the content - too hard?**
 
**OK All…

Every opinion is welcome - none irrelevant or considered under studied!

What do you think of this EO critique of the scriptural - or non-scriptural basis of the teaching and practice on the Filioque?

Please give us your thoughts.

The extract:**

***IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC FILIOQUE SCRIPTURAL?

No, it isn’t - no matter how hard Roman Catholics strive to back it with the Holy Bible - because the Bible itself speaks in a very explicit and undeniable way about the hypostasis and the particular relationship of the Holy Spirit, in John 15:26:

“…and when the Paraclete comes, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of the Truth Who proceeds from the Father…”

In this classic excerpt there is a clear distinguishing between the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father, and the sending of the Spirit by the Son (or in the name of the Son): the one is expressed with the use of the Present Continuous Tense (=Who proceeds), while the other uses the Future Tense (=Whom I shall send). Given that this is a categorical teaching of the Holy Bible, it was recorded authentically and infallibly in the sacred Symbol (Creed) of the Synod of Constantinople (381 AD), i.e.: “…and in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father…” The Faith of the Church on this matter is clear and unquestionable.

However, according to the Papists, although the above words do of course mention the procession of the Spirit from the Father, they do not explicitly preclude the “filioque” possibility (=that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son). They assert that since the Biblical text does not specify “…which proceeds ONLY from the Father”, or “…the one proceeding ONLY from the Father”, this leaves an opening that justifies their insertion of the “filioque”.

But don’t these Papist speculations seem like naive theological contrivances? Because if we were to speculate reversely, we could likewise propose the following ideas: If the “filioque” was indeed a possibility in God’s thoughts, then wouldn’t the Saviour Himself have clearly stated “…the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father AND the Son”, for such an important facet of the dogma? And wouldn’t the Oros (condition) of the respective Synod also have been recorded as “….Who proceeds from the Father AND the Son…”? Why would the Lord suppress such a significant truth? Was it His intention, to purposely cause problems to His Church?

Finally, the verse of John 16:13-15 should likewise be interpreted in the same spirit as John 15:26; i.e., with the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the temporal “dispatching” of the Spirit by Christ: “…And when He comes – the Spirit of the Truth – He shall guide you to the entire Truth; He shall not speak on His own, but whatever He hears He shall speak of, and He shall announce to you what is coming…”

However, the Roman Catholics again base their own “filioque” teaching on this excerpt, by directly linking the procession and the mission of the Holy Spirit to the person of Christ.***

Please understand that there are several more extracts from the same piece, to come. So please try to restrict your comments to this extract - because you will get your chance to comment on the rest as they are posted in succession (as opposed to procession) LOL 🙂
 
Nine_Two said:
Two of the three persons, of one essense in the co-equal trinity.

Is there something you’re trying to get at here?
Click to expand...
Yes.

If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, of course he proceeds from the Son.

The three coexist.

I don’t understand this controversy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top