Why Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Fuerza]

The point is, by that same logic the Son always proceeds through the Spirit by perichoresis.

Yet this is never mentioned, why?

Probably because it is unnecessary and confusing. Mentioning the Son proceeding through the Spirit while the Sprit proceeds through the Son is somehow redundant. It should be assumed.

The fact that the solitary filioque phrase was not inserted by the Original Fathers was infintely wise, because it avoids the possible mis-interpretation of the theology as double-procession, a serious error. Using primarily apophatic means of describing theology, the Fathers were loathe to expand upon any idea which might be carried into error.

The Roman Catholic church no longer actively insists on double procession, as it had in the past (so you are right to say that the Orthodox position appears to be like the Catholic position, IMO). Although one will still occasionally encounter traditionalist Roman Catholics who insist upon it. The official Roman Catholic position has appeared to change in recent decades, possibly during the long reign of Pope John Paul II.

What is remarkable to me is the fact that Roman Catholics stubbornly refuse to rephrase the term to state THROUGH the Son, which would more precisely reflect current Roman Catholic teaching.
Michael

I personally agree that, if we’re not going to drop it completely, we should change it to “through the Son” in order to avoid confusion and put an end to our constantly having to explain what we mean and the linguistic/historical circumstances which caused it to be worded that way. However, I believe the main reason for not doing so is that it would appear to outsiders that we were altering our doctrines. The Church could issue an encyclical explaining the change, but it knows well that anti-Catholics would ignore it and insist that we were reversing doctrine (sort of like what happened with the document on Limbo).

I also have to mention, although I’m sure you’ll throw out quotes and documents to insist otherwise, that the Catholic Church has not changed it’s position on “double procession”. The term simply doesn’t mean what the Orthodox try to make it mean. There have been plenty of threads in which this was covered.

Despite that, I do agree with you as I mentioned above. The Filioque is confusing to those in the East. Since the RCC recognize the equivalence of the two formulae, it should either drop it or alter it, at least for the time being. I will, however, keep proclaiming it until Rome decides otherwise.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Fuerza,

I also have to mention, although I’m sure you’ll throw out quotes and documents to insist otherwise, that the Catholic Church has not changed it’s position on “double procession”. The term simply doesn’t mean what the Orthodox try to make it mean. There have been plenty of threads in which this was covered.

I won’t throw out a lot of documents, I am not interested in pursuing this line of discussion at this time. You and I both know what I would be posting anyway, we have both seen it.

Suffice it to say that this is one place I am convinced the Roman Catholic church has changed it’s doctrine. However, the myth that the RC never changes doctrine is still projected for public consumption.

Despite that, I do agree with you as I mentioned above. The Filioque is confusing to those in the East.

Not only to those of the East, but people everywhere, including enormous numbers of Roman Catholics.

Creedal formulae should clarify…not confuse, that is (in fact) their only reason to be.

Your brother,
Michael

 

[Donald45]

What “would be” Roman Catholic apologists do is isolate quotes from the Fathers that seem to support the papacy. Then they create pragmatic reasons for the papacy. Then using those isolated quotes and their pragmatic reasons, they create a new doctrine never believed before and retroactively ascribe these beliefs to the Church as something “implicitly” believed. But that method is pure speculation.

Of course, Catholics then reply with the identical claim: “What Orthodox apologists do is isolate quotes from the Fathers that seem to support their particular ecclesiology. Then they create pragmatic reasons for that ecclesiology. Then using those isolated quotes and their pragmatic reasons, they create a new doctrine of the Church never believed before and retroactively ascribe these beliefs to the Church as something ‘implicitly’ believed. But that method is pure speculation.”

How are we to proceed beyond this seeming impass? I find the entire standoff quite frustrating.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[holdencaulfield]

\

What is remarkable to me is the fact that Roman Catholics stubbornly refuse to rephrase the term to state THROUGH the Son, which would more precisely reflect current Roman Catholic teaching.

Not really, it means the same things, either way.

 

[josephdaniel29]

“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin. The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.” (CCC 1471)

We would say that there is no temporal punishment due to sin, God isn’t in the business of extracting revenge for offended honor. If any purification takes place it’s purpose is to cleanse not punish.

 

[holdencaulfield]

We would say that there is no temporal punishment due to sin, God isn’t in the business of extracting revenge for offended honor. If any purification takes place it’s purpose is to cleanse not punish.

Yes that’s what Purgatory is.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Of course, Catholics then reply with the identical claim: “What Orthodox apologists do is isolate quotes from the Fathers that seem to support their particular ecclesiology. Then they create pragmatic reasons for that ecclesiology. Then using those isolated quotes and their pragmatic reasons, they create a new doctrine of the Church never believed before and retroactively ascribe these beliefs to the Church as something ‘implicitly’ believed. But that method is pure speculation.”

How are we to proceed beyond this seeming impass? I find the entire standoff quite frustrating.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

We get past the impasse by ignoring what people said and start looking at what they did. If the Pope was a universal ordinary then surely there would be numerous instances of him behaving that way. Give us examples of him unilaterally defining dogma or unilaterally deposing bishops. Give us examples of other Churches bowing in obedience without question.

If it is true the examples should be plentiful…

 

[Hesychios]

Not really, it means the same things, either way.

If that is true, you would not mind changing the phrase for the benefit of those who cannot see it.

 

[holdencaulfield]

If that is true, you would not mind changing the phrase for the benefit of those who cannot see it.

The phrase was changed to prevent heresy. That’s why it stays.

 

[VARC]

Of course, Catholics then reply with the identical claim: “What Orthodox apologists do is isolate quotes from the Fathers that seem to support their particular ecclesiology. Then they create pragmatic reasons for that ecclesiology. Then using those isolated quotes and their pragmatic reasons, they create a new doctrine of the Church never believed before and retroactively ascribe these beliefs to the Church as something ‘implicitly’ believed. But that method is pure speculation.”

How are we to proceed beyond this seeming impass? I find the entire standoff quite frustrating.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

But the Orthodox position on the concilar nature of the Church versus the papal model of the Church doesn’t entirely rely on isolated quotes from the Fathers the way that the Roman Catholic position does. The Orthodox can prove the conciliar view from the canons of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, the highest authority in the Catholic Church in the first millenium. That was very illuminating to me and caused me to look further into the Orthodox faith.

 

[VARC]

The phrase was changed to prevent heresy. That’s why it stays.

But according to the canons of the Church, altering the Creed for the sake of heretics was illegal and any bishop that did such a thing should be deposed.

 

[Madaglan]

I just recently converted to Eastern Orthodoxy from Catholicism. I was raised Latin Catholic and about two years ago started attending Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic parish. One of the first indications that I belonged in Eastern Christianity was that I actually sang the hymns of Divine Liturgy. I never sang before, neither ecclesial nor secular music. I was attracted to the beauty of Eastern Christianity, but also to the apophatic theology. I also saw that the management of the Church was very similar to that of the early Church, and that it worked.

I studied Vatican II and modern Catholic theology. I became familiar with different traditionalist Catholic arguments. In short, I became aware that something was wrong with Catholicism. In continuing to attend Divine Liturgy, I began to see Eastern Christianity and Theology as intimately linked with a Way of Life. What was more, I realized that how the ancient Fathers prayed and articulated the Faith is the same way Eastern Christians do to this day. I saw continuity in the Apostolic Faith, not simply in definitions but in spirit as well.

Why not stay Eastern Catholic? Matters such as the filioque, Purgatory, an overall concession to Latin beliefs–but more importantly the belief to which I arrived that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are very much different, if similar in appearances, and opposed. The Pope became an issue–but I think the “Rome alone” mindset was more prominent for me. In any case, I could not remain Eastern Catholic and be Orthodox at the same time.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I just recently converted to Eastern Orthodoxy from Catholicism. I was raised Latin Catholic and about two years ago started attending Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic parish. One of the first indications that I belonged in Eastern Christianity was that I actually sang the hymns of Divine Liturgy. I never sang before, neither ecclesial nor secular music. I was attracted to the beauty of Eastern Christianity, but also to the apophatic theology. I also saw that the management of the Church was very similar to that of the early Church, and that it worked.

I studied Vatican II and modern Catholic theology. I became familiar with different traditionalist Catholic arguments. In short, I became aware that something was wrong with Catholicism. In continuing to attend Divine Liturgy, I began to see Eastern Christianity and Theology as intimately linked with a Way of Life. What was more, I realized that how the ancient Fathers prayed and articulated the Faith is the same way Eastern Christians do to this day. I saw continuity in the Apostolic Faith, not simply in definitions but in spirit as well.

Why not stay Eastern Catholic? Matters such as the filioque, Purgatory, an overall concession to Latin beliefs–but more importantly the belief to which I arrived that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are very much different, if similar in appearances, and opposed. The Pope became an issue–but I think the “Rome alone” mindset was more prominent for me. In any case, I could not remain Eastern Catholic and be Orthodox at the same time.

It is beautiful, I agree. I don’t understand what you disagree with about Catholic Theology?

 

[Fuerza]

If that is true, you would not mind changing the phrase for the benefit of those who cannot see it.

As I said before, I think the reason for not changing the wording is to avoid being accused of doctrinal flip-flopping. Most people, even after being told so, refuse to believe that we see the two forms as equal, and therefore will see any change as admitting error. This would cause scandal to those many Catholics who are not well versed in the history of the Filioque and therefore would not understand. The Church has to place the spiritual welfare of her own faithful above the opinions and misperceptions of others.

I personally believe that such a change would be easier to effect if the Orthodox were to stop claiming that the Catholic Church is lying about what she believes and allow Rome to speak for herself without interference. The East, being from a drastically different culture, is in no position to tell the West what it believes. Unfortunately, this would require cooperative dialogue in which each side would have to be willing to actually listen to the other and take what is said at face-value. We seem to be at a point where our two Churches are developing a more trusting relationship, but I just don’t think that that trust is yet strong enough.

Now perhaps you can help me. I’ve asked before but never got a satisfactory response. Why on earth, if we truly didn’t believe in single procession, would we lie about it? If we’re really trying to deceive the East into reunification, why is nobody recanting the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility, which some might argue are much bigger obstacles? Why is nobody backing down on the divorce issue? Why did the Church choose to perpetrate a fraud with the Filioque clause, knowing full well that resolution of this issue would not lead to union? I just don’t get why everyone thinks that there’s such a big conspiracy here.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Fuerza,

Please understand, first of all, that I am not interested in attacking you, or the church. I happen to be very fond (for my own reasons) of Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic church. However it is difficult to discuss these things without being accused of attacking, or being anti-Catholic.

That’s not my intention. I only would wish to discuss these things in an adult manner with other mature individuals, time permitting, which is a bit short right now.

I would like to make some comments against your post and perhaps pick up this discussion with you next week.

As I said before, I think the reason for not changing the wording is to avoid being accused of doctrinal flip-flopping. Most people, even after being told so, refuse to believe that we see the two forms as equal, and therefore will see any change as admitting error.

I think, if actually true, that this is a sad reason. It tells me that appearances are regarded as more important than reality. In most cases it is connected to the sin of pride, I think…though perhaps not in this case.

This would cause scandal to those many Catholics who are not well versed in the history of the Filioque and therefore would not understand. The Church has to place the spiritual welfare of her own faithful above the opinions and misperceptions of others.

Anyway, I am reminded of the old ditty “what a tangled web we weave…”. To be perfectly frank, I think that this confusing interpolation can be the cause of many lost souls from the Roman Catholic point of view, because it makes the church look like it is speaking from both sides of it’s mouth. That is the real scandal, so I hope that your theory is wrong.

I personally believe that such a change would be easier to effect if the Orthodox were to stop claiming that the Catholic Church is lying about what she believes and allow Rome to speak for herself without interference.

I would not call it lying, so much as a reluctance to acknowledge change. I know the modern catechism is phrased in such a way that is more conducive to the Eastern perspective, so most modern RC would in fact, accept a single procession.

The East, being from a drastically different culture, is in no position to tell the West what it believes.

The people you are dialoging with, like myself, are typically westerners. I am immersed in this culture, as were my remote ancestors. There is no magic to it, I think that claim should be recognized as a myth.

We seem to be at a point where our two Churches are developing a more trusting relationship, but I just don’t think that that trust is yet strong enough.

Now perhaps you can help me. I’ve asked before but never got a satisfactory response. Why on earth, if we truly didn’t believe in single procession, would we lie about it?

You seem to be begging the question, and also fail to see that this is part, not all of the issue.

I know that Fuerza believes in a single procession, he tells me so I know that you are not practicing deception.

But the illegal interpolation is subject to misinterpretation and should be removed. It is subject to be misinterpreted and should never have been included in the universal Creed of Holy Christianity.

Aside from all that, should I suggest we add to the Creed the phrase ***“the Son, who proceeds from the Holy Spirit” ***? It is equally as valid, and equally unnecessary when expressed by itself. But it would help restore the sense of balance in the Holy Trinity, and help relieve the sense of subordination of one part of the Trinity in the believers mind.

If we’re really trying to deceive the East into reunification, why is nobody recanting the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility, which some might argue are much bigger obstacles? Why is nobody backing down on the divorce issue?

You cannot deceive the East into reunification, and I know that your church will not try. All your church wants is to be accepted just as it is, with all of it’s developments. That will not happen.

Orthodox don’t care if the RC church will not allow divorces, we Orthodox are not a “divorce rights advocacy group”.

WE just point out the hypocracy of the RC when criticizing our policy when the RC has annulments running wild. In fact, allowing divorce in certain circumstances was a practice which the Eastern Catholic churches followed when we were all part of one church, and still is reserved as a privilige of the Pope in the west. So when RC apologists make the claim that the Catholic Church never allowed divorce, they are being too clever by half.

The annulments are, if anything, potentially worse, because they damage the credibility of the church’s sacramental system and may destabilize the church’s authority among it’s own people.

Why did the Church choose to perpetrate a fraud with the Filioque clause, knowing full well that resolution of this issue would not lead to union? I just don’t get why everyone thinks that there’s such a big conspiracy here.

My only comment here, can be that the church as a whole does not admit reversals without a fight. It appears (at least in this case) to be considered much better to slowly evolve theology away, allowing the old concept to fade from the collective memory.

The difficulty with that practice is the fact that much has been recorded which is public and will not go away. So it has to explained away. I do believe that some polemicists cross the line in their efforts to make things seem different than what they really are.

Peace and all good things this Lenten Season,

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As I said before, I think the reason for not changing the wording is to avoid being accused of doctrinal flip-flopping.

Why on earth, if we truly didn’t believe in single procession, would we lie about it?

You answered your own question.

If we’re really trying to deceive the East into reunification, why is nobody recanting the Immaculate Conception or papal infallibility, which some might argue are much bigger obstacles?

The ban on changing the Creed is what Rome is under. What she has done after that is somewhat her own affair, until she comes out from under that anathema.

 

[Fuerza]

You answered your own question.

The ban on changing the Creed is what Rome is under. What she has done after that is somewhat her own affair, until she comes out from under that anathema.

How is that answering my own question? Holding onto the same words is not the equivalent of lying. We simply believe those words to be equal. Do you really think that the bishops of the Roman Church would risk condemnation by purporting something they thought was a lie?

Have you ever seen the Armenian version of the Creed? They word it very differently. Why does no one attack them?

 

[Fuerza]

Hello Fuerza,

Please understand, first of all, that I am not interested in attacking you, or the church. I happen to be very fond (for my own reasons) of Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic church. However it is difficult to discuss these things without being accused of attacking, or being anti-Catholic.

That’s not my intention. I only would wish to discuss these things in an adult manner with other mature individuals, time permitting, which is a bit short right now.

I would like to make some comments against your post and perhaps pick up this discussion with you next week. I think, if actually true, that this is a sad reason. It tells me that appearances are regarded as more important than reality. In most cases it is connected to the sin of pride, I think…though perhaps not in this case. Anyway, I am reminded of the old ditty “what a tangled web we weave…”. To be perfectly frank, I think that this confusing interpolation can be the cause of many lost souls from the Roman Catholic point of view, because it makes the church look like it is speaking from both sides of it’s mouth. That is the real scandal, so I hope that your theory is wrong. I would not call it lying, so much as a reluctance to acknowledge change. I know the modern catechism is phrased in such a way that is more conducive to the Eastern perspective, so most modern RC would in fact, accept a single procession.
The people you are dialoging with, like myself, are typically westerners. I am immersed in this culture, as were my remote ancestors. There is no magic to it, I think that claim should be recognized as a myth. You seem to be begging the question, and also fail to see that this is part, not all of the issue.

I know that Fuerza believes in a single procession, he tells me so I know that you are not practicing deception.

But the illegal interpolation is subject to misinterpretation and should be removed. It is subject to be misinterpreted and should never have been included in the universal Creed of Holy Christianity.

Aside from all that, should I suggest we add to the Creed the phrase ***“the Son, who proceeds from the Holy Spirit” ***? It is equally as valid, and equally unnecessary when expressed by itself. But it would help restore the sense of balance in the Holy Trinity, and help relieve the sense of subordination of one part of the Trinity in the believers mind. You cannot deceive the East into reunification, and I know that your church will not try. All your church wants is to be accepted just as it is, with all of it’s developments. That will not happen.

Orthodox don’t care if the RC church will not allow divorces, we Orthodox are not a “divorce rights advocacy group”.

WE just point out the hypocracy of the RC when criticizing our policy when the RC has annulments running wild. In fact, allowing divorce in certain circumstances was a practice which the Eastern Catholic churches followed when we were all part of one church, and still is reserved as a privilige of the Pope in the west. So when RC apologists make the claim that the Catholic Church never allowed divorce, they are being too clever by half.

The annulments are, if anything, potentially worse, because they damage the credibility of the church’s sacramental system and may destabilize the church’s authority among it’s own people. My only comment here, can be that the church as a whole does not admit reversals without a fight. It appears (at least in this case) to be considered much better to slowly evolve theology away, allowing the old concept to fade from the collective memory.

The difficulty with that practice is the fact that much has been recorded which is public and will not go away. So it has to explained away. I do believe that some polemicists cross the line in their efforts to make things seem different than what they really are.

Peace and all good things this Lenten Season,

Hesychios,

I believe there to be a few flaws in your argument, but I do not have time to address them now. I just wanted to say that my comments about lying and anti-Catholicism were not directed at you personally. As far as I can see you’ve always been one of the more respectful ones. My comments were more of a general rant against those who like to tell Catholics what we believe. You would think that the East understands Latin theology better than Latins do.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

How is that answering my own question? Holding onto the same words is not the equivalent of lying. We simply believe those words to be equal. Do you really think that the bishops of the Roman Church would risk condemnation by purporting something they thought was a lie?

You mentioned something about flip-flopping, or the accusation thereof. Rome has painted herself in a corner on filioque, and she has to get herself out.

We don’t see them as saying the same thing. Nor did the Fathers.

Have you ever seen the Armenian version of the Creed? They word it very differently. Why does no one attack them?

Good point. It doesn’t contradict the Creed of the Fathers at Constantinople. Filioque does, which is the reason now even Rome will not allow it in the original Greek.

Btw, I notice that on a poll posted by none other than Karl Keating, on those who swam the Tiber, away from the Vatican, Holy Catholic Orthodoxy is not mentioned as an option.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=641

 

[Fuerza]

You mentioned something about flip-flopping, or the accusation thereof. Rome has painted herself in a corner on filioque, and she has to get herself out.

We don’t see them as saying the same thing. Nor did the Fathers.

Good point. It doesn’t contradict the Creed of the Fathers at Constantinople. Filioque does, which is the reason now even Rome will not allow it in the original Greek.

Btw, I notice that on a poll posted by none other than Karl Keating, on those who swam the Tiber, away from the Vatican, Holy Catholic Orthodoxy is not mentioned as an option.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=641

I disagree that Rome has painted herself into a corner. This would only be true if the FIlioque actually meant there were a true double procession (which it does not) and Rome was trying to reverse itself. What the Church would actually be doing is removing, or altering, a clause that, while completely valid and in line with Church teaching, is easily misunderstood. The problem with changing would come when those who refuse to understand what the Catholic Church is saying about the Filioque insist that she is changing her doctrine.

Your own St. Maximos recognized the equality of the Filioque. While he may not have agreed that the East should adopt it, he certainly realized that it was a valid expression in the Latin language.

The reason that Rome does not allow the Filioque to be said in Greek is that because in Greek, with it stricter semantics in this context, it is heretical. This is not true in Latin, which has a much more open meaning with regard to the word “procession”. Even the Orthodox recognize this:

usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

You can argue all you want that it shouldn’t have been added in the first place (for which there is also an answer that almost merits another thread), but you cannot argue the meaning.