N
- Status
M
manualman
Guest
Even by catholic standards, the Church of England was still a genuine church during Henry VIII’s life. Just a church in schism. It wasn’t until after Henry’s death that the Calvinists made much theological headway in the CoE.
Somebody mentioned the filioque. Manufactured controversy if I ever saw one. The EO got offended both because they thought the language was incautious (translated to Greek it sounded like the Holy Spirit had a dual source) and because they didn’t think the pope had the right to amend a Creed (see, papal authority again).
The papal representative to Constantinople of the day resented the challenge to papal authority, which colored his perception of the theological objection such that he distorted the EO objection into something that made it sound like the EO dissented from the idea of the one-ness of Father and Son. Subsequent emotion and drama just added gasoline and TNT to the fire. There is really very little substance to the filioque drama.
Somebody mentioned the filioque. Manufactured controversy if I ever saw one. The EO got offended both because they thought the language was incautious (translated to Greek it sounded like the Holy Spirit had a dual source) and because they didn’t think the pope had the right to amend a Creed (see, papal authority again).
The papal representative to Constantinople of the day resented the challenge to papal authority, which colored his perception of the theological objection such that he distorted the EO objection into something that made it sound like the EO dissented from the idea of the one-ness of Father and Son. Subsequent emotion and drama just added gasoline and TNT to the fire. There is really very little substance to the filioque drama.
S
seanman611
Guest
Female bishops certainly will throw a wrench in any future talks. However, there was a time in the early 20th century when the Anglicans and Orthodox seen eye to eye on a lot.
What do you mean? Furthermore, you dodged this issue. This is a MAJOR church dividing issue between Catholics and the Orthodox.
Except that neither the Orthodox nor the Anglicans have an infallible monarch bishop sitting at the top. The national churches of both the Anglican Communion and the Eastern Orthodox have a lot more autonomy than any so-called “independent” Catholic Churches.
I’ve never read anything by the Orthodox that revealed belief in the dogmatically defined transubstantiation. The Orthodox absolutely affirm the Real Presence, but have stayed clear of the philosophical speculations that come with transubstantiation.
That is all fine and dandy, but can you show me where the Eastern Orthodox have accepted the philosophical speculation of transubstantiation?
Anglicans certainly have their theories, but we affirm the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood (as affirmed by our Prayer Book) and leave the rest to mystery.
Okay, so have the Orthodox and RCC come to an understanding on divorce and remarriage? How about original sin?
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi: I read the quote about Andrew as first called to Christ, however in reading John’s Gospel chapter 1-43; it only says that after hearing Jesus disciples John and Andrew, and Andrew sought out his brother Simon and told him that they had found the Messiah and then brought Simon to Jesus who called him Cephas which means Peter or Rock. This then does not say that Andrew was called first, only that Andrew believed that Jesus was the Messiah along with John.
M
manualman
Guest
Among those who want it to be, yes it is. But the EO position on divorce and remarriage is not monolithic or clearly defined. I’d say they’re more in a state of unsettled matter than that they’re settled on an erroneous position. The fact that they often bless second marriages is indeed a scandal, but I’m not so sure they’ve boxed themselves in a corner yet on the issue.
I’ve heard and read a wide range of opinions on what the “EO position on divorce and remarriage is.” No two accounts agreed, even when they cited authoritative sources. Go figure.
P
phil19034
Guest
and Anglicans and Catholics did too. Theological dialog produced common documents that speak of “substantial agreement” about the doctrine of the Eucharist: the ARCIC Windsor Statement of 1971, and the 1979 Elucidation.
I didn’t dodge it. I agree that this is an issue.
the Eastern Catholic Churches pick their own Bishops, Archbishops, Major Archbishops and Patriarchs. Each time a new Major Archbishop or Patriarch is elected, he reaffirms Communion with the Bishop of Rome. In essence, Patriarch or Major Archbishop is free to remain in Communion or to leave Communion. They also have their own Synods and Theology, etc. Currently, the only time there is really any “interference” is regarding the diaspora Eastern Catholics. But the Pope might change that.
- I said it was NOT dogmatically defined. I said it was mentioned in Church documents, but not dogmatically defined.
- You can find it here christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/catechis.html (search for transubstantiation) This is just one place.
- Again, the ONLY reason why the Church had to define it was because reformers wanted to say there was no Real Presence.
No, we have not yet come to agreement regarding divorce. Never said we did. But here is a true description of what the Orthodox call divorce: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1303358.htm
In regards to Original Sin, I don’t know what the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople have discussed, but here are some good threads on this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=794728
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=733394
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=212868
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=380779
The issue of Original Sin only became an issue after Vatican I. The Eastern Orthodox essentially mis-understand the Latin Church’s definition of Original Sin due to the Immaculate Conception. The Latin Church does not disagree with the Eastern Orthodox view, and even some of the Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches express the same believe as the Eastern Orthodox. It’s also worth noting that the Oriental Orthodox and the Latin Catholics have the same view of the Original Sin.
NOTE: when I talk about the Eastern Orthodox, from what limited knowledge I have, it’s in reference to Constantinople. Not Moscow or the Orthodox Church in America.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Wow, most of this thread doesn’t have anything to do with the op. 
Anyway, to the op. Which Orthodox bishops do you see contradicting each other?
Anyway, to the op. Which Orthodox bishops do you see contradicting each other?
N
Nanotwerp
Guest
I never stated they did, just what would happen if they did, since they’re all ‘infallible’.Wow, most of this thread doesn’t have anything to do with the op.
Anyway, to the op. Which Orthodox bishops do you see contradicting each other?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
It is interesting the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs references an Eighth Ecumenical Council. That being said and just to reiterate. The Palamite councils are definitely held to be authoritative. There is no questioning that. I would also point out that the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church is being convened at the Cathedral of St Irene in Constantinople in 2016. Contrary to opinions on this thread Pope Francis had nothing to do with it.
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
I’m sorry, but you are incorrect here. Rome dogmatically declared in three medieval councils (Lateran IV, Lyons II, and Florence) that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son equally. (I have asterisked the problematic words). While the clause itself, while added illegitimately, is capable of an orthodox understanding, this dogmatic principle is simple unacceptable to the Orthodox. Latin triadology is significiantly different than Eastern. Rome has in the last 50 years or so downplayed the unacceptable language I quoted above, which is great, but it remains “on the books”.
P
phil19034
Guest
No. Protestants do. The Orthodox believe in precedence.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That is incorrect.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I agree and I’ll reference an authoritative conciliar statement to illustrate the point.
The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).
- This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.
- Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.
- It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
- It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nicea and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.
- It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.
- It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.
- It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.
- It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
- It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.
- It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.
- It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.
- As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism, denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
- It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.
- It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.
- It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: “If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic” (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council.
And by the way I apologize for the harshness of the language. I am simply quoting it to make a point that the question of the filioque is not trivial to us.
P
phil19034
Guest
We understand the Filioque is not trivial to you. But we believe that our understanding of the hypostatic union is the same as yours. We believe that the difference is in semantics and not content. In the Gospels, It’s is stated that Father will send the Spirit and Jesus says that he will send the Spirit. There are also writings from the fathers of the Church which discuss this. So we believe there is a translation issue between the Latin and Greek.
Furthermore, we believe that the real issue here is the question of authority, especially since the above text implies that the Filioque issue lead to other changes in the west.
Finally, the above was written in the 19th century. Today, we have communication technology, so it is easier for the leaders to discuss their differences now at more length. Somethings, like priestly celibacy are not really all that different. The west and east had different needs in that area, where enforcing priestly celibacy in the Latin Church made sense. The same need isn’t in the east. After all, Eastern Catholic priests may marry.
The point is, if the Church leaders find a way to unite, then we should all cheer and not jeer.
God Bless
M
manualman
Guest
LOL, thanks for proving my point. 
P
phil19034
Guest
NOTE: I meant to say “After all, married Eastern Catholics may become priests.”
K
Kosta
Guest
Therein lies the problem; our idea of union is just about the direct opposite of the Catholic idea. Both sides believe that we hold the truth and under no circumstances are we to compromise or surrender it. With that in mind, there is just no way a union that would satisfy either Church could ever happen.
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
No one proved your “point” because your “point” was incorrect.LOL, thanks for proving my point.
- Status