Roman and Orthodox Catholicism [Archive]

View Full Version : Roman and Orthodox Catholicism

Jomby

May 4th 2004, 06:12 PM

George Blaisdell

May 5th 2004, 01:40 AM

Greetings everyone. I'm fairly ignorant in these matters, but would always would like to know. And so, I was just wondering if someone who is Orthodox Catholic could talk to me about the differences between their church and the Roman church.
Thank you.

P.S. (I would very much prefer this thread to be conversational, and not argumentative.:smile: )

The biggest difference is in their respective understanding of the Church. The Roman communion believes that when Peter said "Thou are the Christ..." and Christ said "You are Peter, and upon this petra I will build my Church" that the first Pope was created, and that the Pope constitutes what is and what is not the Church.

The Orthodox have a messier understanding, for they understand the Church to be the communion of the Churches of the Apostles, and the whole of this communion. We believe in the Apostolic Church, and the Catholics believe in the Petrine Church - We do not believe that God made the Church into a dependency upon just one of the apostles, but upon them all...

The current Pope calls Orthodoxy his missing lung, the ancient Church, whose sacraments he recognizes. The pope before him regarded the Greeks with their married bishops and priests as dirty and not really Christian. The eastern communion of the original apostolic Churches does not recognize the validity of the sacraments of Rome, and will not commune with Her. Some very few [just one of late, I believe] have done so, and are shunned by many in Orthodoxy, and nave not done so again.

Orthodox are utterly traditional - They do not see the faith changing and developing across time, evolving to meet ever-new challenges presented by an ever-changing world... No, their concern is to keep the purity of the faith with and in a pure conscience, and to impact the cultures in which they find themselves, and not to be impacted by those cultures, except insofar as to bring them the Apostolic Christian Orthodox faith.

In other countries, our monks live in very primitive conditions, without running water, not well clothed or housed, living on scant sleep and poorly fed, in a constant state of fasting by our standards, and working long hours, and living in constant prayer and vigils... This side of the pond, they turn on the faucet for water, and flush the toilet - mostly... In Greece, on Mount Athos, baths are taken once a year, if needed... Such is the quest for purity by humility...

To the Roman Catholics, the stations of the cross are a core part of their faith, and each is prayed upon and meditated upon regularly, even daily by the priesthood, and believers are encouraged to envision themselves as Christ at each station of the cross - "This is where our Lord first fell..." [I am falling here...] etc...

An Orthodox would not be caught dead imagining he is Christ approaching the Cross... He is too busy voluntarily embracing the pain of his own cross... And would not presume to envision himself as God... And the stigmata so common in western saints is virtually absent in eastern ones... I happen to think the approach to the praxis of the stations of the cross is one central reason for it.

But mostly, it's the beards! Nowhere else on earth will you find a better array of white santa-clause beards on thinner santas with better dispositions than you will in Orthodoxy. You can't BUY a beard in the Roman tradition, except in their Uniates, who have been scorned by 'real' Roman Catholic priests [eg celibate and unmarried] for hunmdreds of years, who look "Orthodox" and even like to think of themselves as Orthodox, but are not recognized by Orthodox, nor are in communion with them... But they've got the beards!!

I never have heard much about RCs going on pilgrimages to monasteries, nor of the desirability of a monastic life, for those who can take it, like is found in Orthodoxy, but they do have monasteries, yet the prize seems more oriented toward the priesthood, and not the monks. For the Orthodox, the monastic vocation is the pinnacle of the faith, as the priesthood is too fraught with concerns for the world in the shepherding of the flock... About the only thing priests have going for them is the self-sacrificial nature of their calling, and the benefits of participating in all the services they conduct.

The best priests are often monks who become priests, and then bishops, for these are monastics called from the monastery to lead the Church. St. John of San Francisco and Shanghai of late was one of these - His incorrupt relics [from the 50s] are venerated in San Francisco by the faithful to this day... These are often men perfected in the faith, and miraculous in their walk upon this earth - Reading about St John's Life is a real eye-opener...

geo-Arsenios

Jomby

May 5th 2004, 10:13 AM

Thank you very much, George, for your thoughtful response. I was wondering if I could ask some more questions, only if you have the time, of course.

1. Could you talk a little bit about icons and the theology behind them? I have always found them both fascinating and beautiful.

2. I have heard that the Orthodox understanding is that before the Great Schism, the seat in Rome was considered to have more honor, but not more authority. Is this the right way to understand the position?

3. Saints. It sounds like Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics have different saints. But I imagine they share some of the same too. Does the split in canonization coincide with the date of the schism?

4. You said that "The eastern communion of the original apostolic Churches does not recognize the validity of the sacraments of Rome, and will not commune with Her." Why is that? Do they feel that the apostolic sucession is broken in Rome? Or is it a question of heresy/excommunication?

5. You said that "An Orthodox would not be caught dead imagining he is Christ approaching the Cross... He is too busy voluntarily embracing the pain of his own cross... And would not presume to envision himself as God... And the stigmata so common in western saints is virtually absent in eastern ones... I happen to think the approach to the praxis of the stations of the cross is one central reason for it." I'd like to start by saying that aside from some extreme practices, the way of the cross is not intended for us to imagine ourselves as Christ. But it is a practice of meditation on Christ's passion so that we take up our own cross and follow him. Nevertheless, there is no "set" prayer or mediation for the stations, so it can vary from church to church. But I was wondering if you could say more about the absence or presence of the stigmata in relation to this.

6. You said "I never have heard much about RCs going on pilgrimages to monasteries, not of the desirability of a monastic life, for those who can take it, like is found in Orthodoxy, but they do have monasteries, yet the prize seems more oriented toward the priesthood, and not the monks. For the Orthodox, the monastic vocation is the pinnacle of the faith, as the priesthood is too fraught with concerns for the world in the shepherding of the flock... About the only thing priests have going for them is the self-sacrificial nature of their calling, and the benefits of participating in all the services they conduct." Perhaps you are right. It is no doubt part of our (both of ours) early church history. But it just makes me think how wonderful and complementary a re-unification might be!

7. The filioque: Is this still a barrier? Is it also part of the understanding that the faith does not change or develop?

8. I'm just wondering, what is your opinion of the current pope? :smile:

Thank you so much for you response.

spl_cadet

May 5th 2004, 10:30 AM

The biggest difference is in their respective understanding of the Church. The Roman communion believes that when Peter said "Thou are the Christ..." and Christ said "You are Peter, and upon this petra I will build my Church" that the first Pope was created, and that the Pope constitutes what is and what is not the Church.

Strawman. The Pope is simply the leader of the Church here on Earth.

2. I have heard that the Orthodox understanding is that before the Great Schism, the seat in Rome was considered to have more honor, but not more authority. Is this the right way to understand it?

That's the modern understanding, but not the historical one.
St. John Cassian, Monk:

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

3. Saints. It sounds like Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics have different saints. But I imagine they share some of the same too. Does the split in canonization coincide with the date of the schism?

It started with the Photian Schism, since the Orthodox regard Photius as a saint and we regard him as a maniac.

7. The filioque: Is this still a barrier? Is it also part of the understanding that the faith does not change or develop?

Shouldn't be a problem, but it is. It was believed by the Eastern Fathers, especially St. Cyril of Alexandria, and agreed upon by the Orthodox at the two ecumenical councils that they attended, approved of, signed, and later rejected.

As one last interesting note: Modern Orthodox regard Augustine as a heretic. The Fifth Ecumenical Council (Second Constantinople) refers to him as a holy father.

"We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith."

anotherjarvi

May 5th 2004, 10:57 AM

Jomby

May 5th 2004, 11:18 AM

Spl_cadet, I appreciate your reply. But as I stated above, I would really like this thread to be conversational and not contentious.anotherjarvi, The Roman Catholic understanding of apostolic succession isn't of genetic lineage. Popes are elected as successors by a conclave of cardinals. Any Roman Catholic can be elected, provided they are not a heretic, schismatic or a female. :smile: But most often, a cardinal is elected.

anotherjarvi

May 5th 2004, 11:27 AM

Solly

May 5th 2004, 11:31 AM

But mostly, it's the beards! Nowhere else on earth will you find a better array of white santa-clause beards on thinner santas with better dispositions than you will in Orthodoxy. You can't BUY a beard in the Roman tradition, except in their Uniates, who have been scorned by 'real' Roman Catholic priests [eg celibate and unmarried] for hunmdreds of years, who look "Orthodox" and even like to think of themselves as Orthodox, but are not recognized by Orthodox, nor are in communion with them... But they've got the beards!!
geo-Arsenios

:lol: thanks for that George!

George Blaisdell

May 5th 2004, 11:40 AM

Thank you very much, George, for your thoughtful response. I was wondering if I could ask some more questions, only if you have the time, of course.

That was mostly just off the cuff, and time is an issue... The witness of the faith is what is most important, and not the comparison of the Orthodox with the Roman Church. The Roman Church presence here on T-Web I think will join me in our affirmation of the first thusnad years of the undivided Church, and perhaps we can speak with one voice...

1. Could you talk a little bit about icons and the theology behind them? I have always found them both fascinating and beautiful.

They are beautiful, and do indeed provide a wondrous adornment in the house of prayer of our God... And they are windows, created in holiness and prayers, by painters whose lips are ever praying as they work, and even as they talk... For they pray without ceasing... Though there are doubtless those who don't... Yet even these have the blessing to paint from those who do, or are blessed to give the blessing by those who do...

And windows let light in, and allow us to see out, yet not into this world with the holy icons, but unto heaven, and keep us ever reminded that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, of those who have gone before us and attained the crown, and of the events of their lives, and even of Christ Himself, and His Mother who seedlessly bore Him in a purity we can only imagine... All these are re-presented in the temple of our God in holy images of canvas, egg-tempura, pigments and prayers, just as, during their triumphant walk upon this earth, they were visible to all, as you and I are now, to ordinary vision, and as well to spiritual eyes, for the Holy Spirit dwelled within them, and Christ, and they are now an inseparable part of the body of our Lord, and participate in Spirit in our material services, worshipping at the Throne of God...

And they teach us the Gospel in shape and color and deeds, in a way that little children can look upon them and see what we as adults are perhaps not able to see... For Christ was flesh... And the apostle writes "we have seen with our eyes, and touched with our hands..."

The Protestant west has become pretty iconoclastic, preferring to find their faith in the mind informed by the reading of the words of Holy Scripture, thereby losing the great meaning of the inCARNation of Christ...

2. I have heard that the Orthodox understanding is that before the Great Schism, the seat in Rome was considered to have more honor, but not more authority. Is this the right way to understand the position?

Bishops have great authority... And great honor was accorded to Rome, for upon her lay the honor of being a great mediator of disputes and conflicts within the Church.

3. Saints. It sounds like Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics have different saints. But I imagine they share some of the same too. Does the split in canonization coincide with the date of the schism?

We have the same saints up to the Great Schism, and different ones after that.

4. You said that "The eastern communion of the original apostolic Churches does not recognize the validity of the sacraments of Rome, and will not commune with Her." Why is that? Do they feel that the apostolic sucession is broken in Rome? Or is it a question of heresy/excommunication?

It is a question of Rome's unwillingness to submit herself to the first 7 great ecumenical councils, specifically with the one that made anathema the addition or deletion of any word to the Symbol of the Faith [the Creed]... The filioque was such an addition, and the rest of the communion of the Church was willing to overlook it as it was practiced in the distant west, hoping that by prayer and maturation in the faith it might be overcome, and probably just out of being so far away as to be indifferent. The east had a certain snobbery regarding their more primitive western brethren, whom they saw as warlike and mostly unspiritual in their culture. But it was really not until the later Crusades, when Constantinople was attacked, overcome, looted for eighty years, and abandoned to the Muslims by the 'Christian' west that the eastern communion of the Church began to realize what had been unleashed upon them from the west.

5. You said that "An Orthodox would not be caught dead imagining he is Christ approaching the Cross... He is too busy voluntarily embracing the pain of his own cross... And would not presume to envision himself as God... And the stigmata so common in western saints is virtually absent in eastern ones... I happen to think the approach to the praxis of the stations of the cross is one central reason for it."

I'd like to start by saying that aside from some extreme practices, the way of the cross is not intended for us to imagine ourselves as Christ. But it is a practice of meditation on Christ's passion so that we take up our own cross and follow him. Nevertheless, there is no "set" prayer or mediation for the stations, so it can vary from church to church. But I was wondering if you could say more about the absence or presence of the stigmata in relation to this.

I read it online just a few weeks ago, published by a major Catholic institution, and presented as nothing at all new, that Catholics are encouraged to 'meditate' upon Christ's passion, that they are to "envision themselves as Christ, enduring what He endured, at each step of His passion, which is each Station of the Cross....

Such "visualization" is not a part of Orthodoxy... And aaccording to how well one does it, one can have bloody hands, thorn pricks in ones skull, excruciating pain, all according to the relationship of mind to body through imagination... And some have the stigmata without this process, so the way becomes muddied - But the Orthodox do not visualize themselves as Christ approaching His Cross as their meditation - They see Christ approaching His Cross, not themselves AS him...

Outta time...

geo-Aarsenios

8. I'm just wondering, what is your opinion of the current pope? :smile:

Very holy man...

I hope the next one is even half as holy as he is...

geo-Arsenios

spl_cadet

May 5th 2004, 05:25 PM

Isn't that the reasoning behind the office of the Pope? I've always wondered, is the Pope's office one that potentially anyone in the Roman Catholic church can attain or is it supposedly men from the direct lineage of Peter?

Any baptized male Catholic may be elected pope. They are descedants of St. Peter's authority, not of his loins.

elysian

May 5th 2004, 05:35 PM

Any baptized male Catholic may be elected pope. They are descedants of St. Peter's authority, not of his loins.

So the Weekly World News (http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/wwn/20040426/108299160009.html) is right? The Pope can name Mel Gibson as his successor even though he's not a priest?

That's a creepy thought.

Jomby

May 5th 2004, 05:48 PM

So the Weekly World News (http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/wwn/20040426/108299160009.html)is right? The Pope can name Mel Gibson as his successor even though he's not a priest?

That's a creepy thought.
Except, I 'think' Gibson is a PPXer, and therefore schismatic...

George Blaisdell

May 5th 2004, 10:05 PM

One other difference, if I have it right, is that the Orthodox confess, each and every one of them, including the bishops, the priests, the monks, the faithful - ALL of them - Even the ecumenical patriarch - Everyone confesses at every divine liturgy that they are the chief of sinners that Christ came to earth to save...

Now I could be wrong, but I do not think that Roman clergy confesses at every mass publicly to be the worst of sinners, neither priests, bishops, cardinals, nor the Pope.

I did attend a mass for a friend of mine who died a month ago, and I sure listened for and did not hear such a confession on the part of the priest, not by the faithful.

spcadet - Is this a confession at every mass? I really do not know, but I suspect that for you it is not...

geo-Arsenios

Jomby

May 5th 2004, 11:02 PM

Hi George. Thanks for your replies above.

I hope you don't mind if I attempt to field the question.

The Roman Catholic mass, at least the ones that I attend, do not have what you are talking about. There is not a confession- on anyone's part-- that they are the worst sinner. Most masses, however, do begin with the penitential rite, with everyone (including the presiding priest) reciting this prayer:

I confess to almighty God
And to you my brothers and sisters
That I have sinned through my own faults
In my thoughts and in my words,
In what I have done, and in what I have failed to do.
And I ask the blessed Mary, ever virgin,
All the angels and saints,
And to you, my brothers and sisters,
To pray for me to the Lord our God.
I would venture to guess-- I have no doctrinal support to back me up here though-- that the Roman Catholics would not confess each, as a general rule, to be the worst sinners. I think they would view that as an improper understanding of the virtue of humility. But this is just my guess.:smile:

Thank you.

P.S. If I am not mistaken, I also believe that the pope recieves the sacrament of reconciliation weekly.

George Blaisdell

May 6th 2004, 03:31 AM

The Roman Catholic mass, at least the ones that I attend, do not have what you are talking about. There is not a confession- on anyone's part-- that they are the worst sinner. Most masses, however, do begin with the penitential rite, with everyone (including the presiding priest) reciting this prayer:

Quote:

I confess to almighty God
And to you my brothers and sisters
That I have sinned through my own faults
In my thoughts and in my words,
In what I have done, and in what I have failed to do.
And I ask the blessed Mary, ever virgin,
All the angels and saints,
And to you, my brothers and sisters,
To pray for me to the Lord our God.

Nothing wrong with that prayer. We pray similarly together in part: "That thou art truely the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who came to earth to save sinners, of whom I am chief."

I would venture to guess-- I have no doctrinal support to back me up here though-- that the Roman Catholics would not confess each, as a general rule, to be the worst sinners. I think they would view that as an improper understanding of the virtue of humility. But this is just my guess.:smile:

Well, we don't walk around bragging about how sinful we are! :-) That would be improper indeed... Constituting the arrogance of humility in spades!

And yet, in the process of repentance, we do indeed work towards the complete recapitulation of the sin of Adam rooted in our own soul, and the closer we get, the more repentant we become, as we mature in the faith...

And indeed, truth be known, whose sins and whose heart with all its imbedded sins do we even KNOW??? Who can we point a finger at and say that they are a worse sinner than we are?? And I think you will agree that the answer is no-one, nary a one, whom we can say is a worse sinner han ourselves... So that it is really only common sense to be the chief of sinner in one's own life, for we do not know the heart of another... God knows the heart...

P.S. If I am not mistaken, I also believe that the pope recieves the sacrament of reconciliation weekly.

Confessing one's own sinfulness is a good thing... That group prayer of confession of each Orthodox at communion as being the worst of sinners sure came as a surprise to me... I know of no other confession that does this...

geo-Arsenios

Jomby

May 6th 2004, 09:24 AM

Hi George.

I didn't mean to imply that this confession was arrogance. I meant humility as the virtue between the excesses of over-estimation and under-estimation. However, I was able to find some material in the Catholic Encyclopedia that might make clearer the Roman Catholic position:

To guard against an erroneous idea of humility, it is necessary to explain the manner in which we ought to esteem our own gifts in reference to the gifts of others, if called upon to make a comparison. Humility does not require us to esteem the gifts and graces which God has granted us, in the supernatural order, less than similar gifts and graces which appear in others. No one should esteem less in himself than in others these gifts of God which are to be valued above all things according to the words of St. Paul: "That we may know the things that are given us from God." (I Cor., ii, 12). Neither does humility require us in our own estimation to think less of the natural gifts we possess than of similar, or of inferior, gifts in our neighbours; otherwise, as St. Thomas teaches, it would behove everyone to consider himself a greater sinner or a greater fool than his neighbour; for the Apostle without any prejudice to humility was able to say: "We by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners" (Gal., ii, 15). A man, however, may generally esteem some good in his neighbour which he does not himself possess, or acknowledge some defect or evil in himself which he does not perceive in his neighbour, so that, whenever anyone subjects himself out of humility to an equal or to an inferior he does so because he takes that equal or inferior to be his superior in some respect. Thus we may interpret the humble expressions of the saints as true and sincere. Besides, their great love of God caused them to see the malice of their own faults and sins in a clearer light than that which is ordinarily given to persons who are not saints.

spl_cadet

May 8th 2004, 01:01 AM

So the Weekly World News (http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/wwn/20040426/108299160009.html) is right? The Pope can name Mel Gibson as his successor even though he's not a priest?

That's a creepy thought.

He could be elected, but popes are not picked by the pope before them.

neotheo

May 15th 2004, 04:09 PM

He could be elected, but popes are not picked by the pope before them.
Hello. A couple of things:
Giovanni Montini, a key member of the Vatican Secretariat of State, was viewed by cardinals as a worthy successor to Pius XII. But for some reason (possibly his long-term illness prior to death) Pius never made Archbishop Montini a cardinal; therefore the cardinals elected Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) with the understanding that he would put the hat on Montini, who could then succeed Roncalli (Montini was Paul VI). This is to demonstrate how set the voting-for-a-cardinal tradition is.

And although the Church did make "Pastoral Provision" for some married Anglican and Lutheran clergy converts to become Catholic priests, they are officially restricted from any "rise" in the hierarchy, even from being the Pastor (leader) of a local parish.
So don't hold your breath for any papal endorsement of Mel.

neotheo

May 15th 2004, 07:21 PM

The current Pope calls Orthodoxy his missing lung, the ancient Church, whose sacraments he recognizes. The pope before him regarded the Greeks with their married bishops and priests as dirty and not really Christian.Hello, George. I write the following not to be "contentious" but rather in the defense of an outstanding pope. During Vatican Council II Paul VI formally and publicly revoked the 1054 excommunication (I've read that the Bull of excommunication was invalid in the first place, what with the Pope having died). Soon after that, Pope Paul visited Patriarch Athanagoras I of Constantinople, and the two shepherds famously embraced-- to the joy of both East and West. What reference do you have that would reveal Pope Paul's disapproval of the Orthodox married priesthood?

In the modern day, I suspect that any prejudice or dislike felt by celibate Roman clergy for their married Eastern counterparts is not nearly what it was in centuries past. Vatican II praised the East in highest terms.

tizzidale

May 15th 2004, 07:24 PM

to the joy of both East and West.
That is VERY debatable. Many in the East (and maybe in the West) were unhappy by this move.

tizzi

Jomby

May 15th 2004, 08:06 PM

That is VERY debatable. Many in the East (and maybe in the West) were unhappy by this move.

tizziThe sheep aren't always happy when they are shorn.

George Blaisdell

May 16th 2004, 01:21 AM

Hello, George. I write the following not to be "contentious" but rather in the defense of an outstanding pope.

He IS an outstanding pope, and certainly needs no defense from the likes of us...

During Vatican Council II Paul VI formally and publicly revoked the 1054 excommunication (I've read that the Bull of excommunication was invalid in the first place, what with the Pope having died).

He has done many more good things than this...

Soon after that, Pope Paul visited Patriarch Athanagoras I of Constantinople, and the two shepherds famously embraced-- to the joy of both East and West.

I don't follow much these matters - I do recall some embarassment among some of those in my parish over the matter - The pope and therefore the whole Roman Church is pretty high on rejoining the two Churches under the Pope, so any perceived progress in that direction is celebrated greatly and almost gleefully by the Roman Church, and not by the Orthodox much at all.

Did the pope and the patriarch concelebrate?

What reference do you have that would reveal Pope Paul's disapproval of the Orthodox married priesthood?

I must have mis-wrote. Pope Paul does not disapprove that I know of. But just ask any married Uniate priest in the US how often he is allowed to concelebrate with the celibate regular Roman priests, and his answer will be revealing. I understand it is getting better, but the prejudice is there... A good friend of mine who got out of the Uniate Church in Washington and became an Orthodox priest had horror stories from hell to tell about what went on...

In the modern day, I suspect that any prejudice or dislike felt by celibate Roman clergy for their married Eastern counterparts is not nearly what it was in centuries past. Vatican II praised the East in highest terms.

I would imagine you are right, and mostly because the present pope is such a good one, and cares about "his missing lung" primitive Church - I mean, he recognizes the validity of Orthodox Sacraments - The problem is, that his Church is not in communion with the communion of the Eastern Church, and he regards the Roman Church as THE Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church does not recognize the sacraments of his Church.

So that by current papal standards, one can be equally Roman or Orthodox, and by Orthodox standards, one can only be Orthodox, and still be in the communion of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

geo-Arsenios

George Blaisdell

May 16th 2004, 01:24 AM

The sheep aren't always happy when they are shorn.

What does that mean, Jomb?

geo-Arsenios

Jomby

May 16th 2004, 10:28 AM

What does that mean, Jomb?

geo-ArseniosSorry, I didn't mean that to sound bad. But, in so far as these men are our shepherds, and we are the sheep. Just like some with Arian leanings were unhappy with the first council of Nicea, (so too) some Roman Catholics are unhappy with Vatican 2.

Edit: added in parenthesis.

neotheo

May 16th 2004, 11:56 AM

Jomby

May 16th 2004, 12:42 PM

I don't think Athenagoras and Paul VI concelebrated, but JP II and Bartholomew I of Constantinople did in 1995.

George Blaisdell

May 16th 2004, 10:40 PM

I don't think Athenagoras and Paul VI concelebrated, but JP II and Bartholomew I of Constantinople did in 1995.

Then THAT's the one that recently gave a Bishop [Bartholomew] a bad name in Orthodoxy - There are a fair number of upper "level" Orthodox clergy who are very ecumenical minded, and believe that the RC and EO communions should just let by-gones be by-gones, and rejoin with each other in communion, whatever it takes in terms of compromise of doctrine. That does not sit well with the rank and file of either clergy, partiarchs, or laity. We have not been dying by the millions for the last thousand years because of our faith only to compromise it - The colors of orthodoxy do not run, and they are uncompromising in terms of faith and doctrine, [and still keep strictly to the first seven ecumenical councils,] if ekonomic in terms of praxis, for the times are evil, and the people, [like me], are weak... So that until the two communions can geet back to their pre-schism undivided and ecumenical roots, it is unlikely that there will be any reunification.

Bartholomew I believes in ecumenicism with Rome, and his action ruffled a lot of Orthodox feathers - I thought that this was what you might have meant when you mentioned sheep resenting being shorn - Purity of the faith, and the utter committment from ever changing it, and the keeping of it as it was from the beginnings, is a top priority in Orthodoxy, as it has always been. The reason, of course, is that we do not believe that doctrine is developmental, and that the faith "matures" through the centuries, but that the faith delivered once for all to the apostles, and through them to us all even unto this day, is instead what is unchanging, and is that into which we as particular persons grow and mature, but the Mystery of the Faith itself does not change or develop across time, but is held in a pure conscience, and is passed on from generation to generation...

geo-Arsenios

George Blaisdell

May 16th 2004, 11:18 PM

George,
I was responding to this quote of yours in Post #2: "The pope before him regarded the Greeks with their married bishops and priests as dirty and not really Christian."[btw, WHAT married bishops?]
"The pope before" the present Pope John Paul II (not counting John Paul I's 30 days) was Pope Paul VI (1963-1978). So the "thought them dirty" accusation you made would have been against Pope Paul VI. That's the pope I was talking about, the one I was defending. I said nothing about Pope John Paul II. Were you talking about some other pope, or was the "dirty" statement a total mistake?

Close... The pre-Vatican II Roman Church in the US taught that the Greeks were a really bad Church, and that they left the true Church, and have married priests etc etc... If you are old enough, you remember the teachings of the Roman Church prior to the present Pope. And I remember reading a quote from a Cardinal in NY, if I am recalling correctly, and it was him that I was thinking of, for the quote was about "those dirty Greeks" or some such, and betrayed a vast ekklesiological arrogance of mind that shocked me at the time, and he was under the previous pope... And seemed at the time to represent the view of the Roman Church up to that time... The current pope has reversed this prejudice, at least for as long as he is alive, and ardently desires reunfication... To my mind, this is one of your best popes ever...

Now if the Pope Paul had actually not believed what this cardinal had publically proclaimed, I should think that there would have been a correction issued, and to the best of my knowledge, there was not. And the horror stories of the denigration of the [married] uniate priests at the hands of the [celibate]'high priests' in the Catholic Church in the US are very well known... There simply is a huge prejudice, regardles of "recognition of validity of sacraments" - Such a thing is not see by us a being of value, because of your understanding of ALL faiths as participating in greater or lesser degree in the true Roman faith... For the Orthodox, there is only communion, ot not communion, and the degree of communion issues only arise within communion...

You keep suggesting that the current Pope "validated" the Eastern Church, granting it a status that was withheld by previous popes. Apostolic succession, priestly orders, etc. of the East has ALWAYS been acknowledged by the West.

That's good news - So they have always recognized the communion of the east as co-equal with their own? I didn't know that...

And if you have a "checkable source" to the contrary, then share it, but I recall that the Pope tried to get European rulers to come to the aid of Arab-besieged Constantinople, and the rulers would not do it. So it should be made clear that when you say the "West" abandoned that city to its fate, it was not the failure of the head of the Western Church.

I know that the Pope opposed the sack of Constantinople in the third Crusade, and that he did not give his approval to the 80 years of looting of that city that it took the Holy Crusaders to empty it of most of its vast wealth, and God DID, after all, permit it, so perhaps it was a good thing after all... Yet ship after ship arrived in Rome, and gave vast treasures to the Roman Pontif, and then went home with their loot, and none of this treasure has been returned to the Orthdox communion, except with great fanfare an occassional icon or some other 'special' "gift" as a gesture of good-will... With the point of it all being that even though the actions occurred outside the blessing of the pope, yet the largess of those actions that accrued to the Vatican have remained there, giving in action the blessing denied in words...

I don't know if Athanagoras and Paul VI concelebrated. Will try to check.

No need - Jomby covered it...

Question: I know that the East says their members should not take communion in the Western Church, but does the East regard Roman Catholic priestly orders as valid? That is, when Catholic priests consecrate the Host, does the East acknowledge that the said Host becomes the Body of Christ just like when Eastern priests do it?
--------------------Vic

The East does NOT acknowledge the consecration of the Host of the West, nor do they deny it. They do not judge anything or anyone outside their own communion - That is forbidden - If you are outside the communion of Orthodoxy, you are in the direct hands of the loving Creator of the universe, and we pray for you without judging you, and hope that the Holy Spirit will lead you home to the Church...

We are simply no longer in communion with one of the Churches with whom we were once in communion a thousand years ago, and that Church is the Roman Church...

geo-Arsenios

neotheo

May 18th 2004, 08:09 PM

Jomby

May 18th 2004, 11:53 PM

George Blaisdell

May 19th 2004, 12:52 AM

George,
I recall that Uniate Churches do not use the "filioque", but stated in their unifying negotiations with Rome that, in doing so, Uniates are not opposing the theology of the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. Do you know of any pronouncements from the first Seven Councils that specifically state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the "Father ALONE"; that the Holy Spirit DOES NOT also proceed from the Son?

If Father-and-Son Procession is not specifically stated in the Seven Councils, do Orthodox theologians say that "Father-Alone" Procession is IMPLIED? Do the Church Fathers have anything to say on the subject? -------Vic

The difficulty is the term procession, for in the Latin, it means procedere, I think, and with this verb we proceed from point A to point B. The Greek means to have its origin of existence in the Father. So there is a very real sense that there is a linguistics problem, for the Son sends the Holy Spirit, Who thereby proceeds from the Son, as from point A to point B, but this is no what is meant in the Symbol of the Faith.

The teaching that I have encountered on this matter has to do with the 5th Ecumenical Council, I think, wherein concerning the Creed it was pronounced complete, that nothing was to be added to it, nor subtracted from it, and the Creed at that council was the same that had been in the previous councils from the 2nd, [again, I think, but am not a scholar on these matters]...

Now if this is true, then the Filioque is an addition to the Creed that is forbidden by Ecumenical Council, which the whole Church attested, both within that council, and for a few hundred years or so after it. This simply cannot be done by one Church, to add to the Symbol of the Faith, all by itself, without an ecumenical council to decide the matter, and the Roman Church tried to do so, and failed by one vote, that of the Patriarch whom the Pope in his anger had the Papal Bull of Excommunication slapped upon during the Service of the Divine Liturgy in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople...

Plus a prevous Pope had caused to be carved in stone upon a wall in the Vatican the Symbol of the Faith withOUT the Filioque, so that there was no question of previous Papal understanding of the matter - I think it may still be there upon that wall... [Which argues against ex-cathedra infallibility, I should think, unless such an action by a Pontif is not regarded as ex-cathedra...]

So that the Roman Church violated the cannons of the catholic communion of Churches that is the Church, and as a consequence, fell from that communion... And they did this by making an anti-canonical addition to the Creed unilaterally.

Now the fact is that the two 'sides' had been drifting farther and farther apart, developing differently, one from the other, and the east had been overlooking the de-facto addition of the creed as it was found in the west, because they hoped to work it out and come to resolution, and were long-suffering in their ekonomic tolerance in this regard, and even with the big burp spit-up in 1054, they still were hopeful to find reconciliation - But all that pretty much ended with the third crusade, when the sack of Constantinople and subsequent looting and persecutions went on for 80 years, and then in this weakened condition, the invaders left the Church to the Islamic rulers, where these days Palestinian Christians are but a few persecuted enclaves, to name but one consequence...

From the Orthodox pov, the Roman Church needs but to subject herself to the whole Church, the first 7 councils, and She would be welcomed back with open arms to Her previous glory, but that would entail a rollback of the development of doctrine of a thousand years, of which the Filioque is relatively easy, and Papal Authoritarianism the hardest... It would involve a massive repentance on the part of the Roman Church of such a scale that I really do not see Her doing it, for She is too powerful, too strong, too many, and too persuaded that Peter is the foundation of the whole Church, is the exclusive possessor of the keys, and defines unilaterally what IS trhe Church....

It is a hard nut to crack - The only thing I know to do is to keep to the first thousand years of the undivided Church, and not try to resolve the matter at individual opinion levels, as if it were just between us sheep... It is not a problem we can solve - We can only pray for each other... And you are in our prayers and tears, day after day, hour by hour, service by service... We love you and care for you and pray for your safe return, and for the salvation of your souls...

That's the bottom line, straight up...

Arsenios

neotheo

May 20th 2004, 01:09 AM

Jomby,
I see what defense your quote is maintaining regarding the Western use of the filioque; but faced with the clear conciliar rules (from that same Council) that George gave us about no alterations to the Symbol of the Faith, it seems that no future authority had leave to reproduce the Creed with so much as an "indeed" added. It would be an impermissible textual change. And I suspect that the Uniates felt and still feel just that way about it.

I would say that what the Western Church did wrong was to force the Creed to do something that is the lot of theologians properly to do-- to comment upon the matter made holy by apostolic authority. The responsibility of any theologians worth the name would be to make a convincing case that the understanding laid out by them is compatibile with what the Council gave.

Jomby, where did this quote you used come from?
"not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the holy Spirit by the use of scriptural testimonies against those who were trying to do away with his sovereignty."

neotheo

May 20th 2004, 04:20 AM

George,
Am privileged to have read your message. May such prayer from a multitude of hearts prove irresistible.

I mentioned the Uniates in what I wrote before. They are living proof that Rome does not let the "filioque" question by itself become a barrier to unity, since Rome accepts the Uniates' use of the unaltered Symbol of the Faith. Which ties in to your "the Filioque is relatively easy" comment.

But, Question: are Uniates asserting a theological position in rebellion against Orthodox theologians when Uniates hold to being filioque-free but without prejudice to the West's understanding of the Father and Son Procession [Spiration]?

I do not assume a contradiction is built in, UNLESS "from the Father" is employed by Orthodox theologians as a basis for a theology in conflict with Rome's. A sampling of Rome's theology on the matter can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM
244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. the Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father.69 The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus' glorification70 reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity".72[Council of Toledo VI(638)] But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73[C. of Toledo XI(675)] The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". the Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration... And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447[76], even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. the use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). the introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77[Jn15:26] The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78[C. of Florence] for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79[C. of Florence] is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80[Cf. C. of Lyons II] This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

The filioque question is a You-had-no-business-changing-the-wording dispute; not a You-apostasised-by-switching-to-a-different-doctrine-about-faith dispute. There is no flip-flop in what is being taught about the faith in the 1st kind of dispute, so infallibility does not enter in because it is not being strained. Ignoring Conciliar rules on editing does not indict infallibility UNLESS the one doing the ignoring has thus warped the text's meaning in a faith-based or moral-based manner. A fatal indictment would not be "Rome changed the wording;" a mortal wounding would be "Rome changed the Deposit of Faith." Rome improperly performed the first but did not commit the second.

I would like to say more in another post about how the Bishop of Rome, Head of the Church, does not take all power in his hands in an absolutist/unilateral way. The Successors to the Apostles, the other Bishops, lead "collegially," in union with the Bishop of Rome.

You said:
"This simply cannot be done by one Church, to add to the Symbol of the Faith, all by itself, without an ecumenical council to decide the matter, and the Roman Church tried to do so, and failed by one vote..."
Do you know what Council that was, and when? Maybe Pope Leo in the 5th century?

George Blaisdell

May 20th 2004, 03:27 PM

May such prayer from a multitude of hearts prove irresistible.

They have been ongoing and successfully resisted for a thousand years now. We have never stopped praying for you, and for our reconciliation.

I mentioned the Uniates in what I wrote before. They are living proof that Rome does not let the "filioque" question by itself become a barrier to unity, since Rome accepts the Uniates' use of the unaltered Symbol of the Faith. Which ties in to your "the Filioque is relatively easy" comment.

Yup - And that alone, all by itself, speaks volumes, if you think about it. It COULD have been dropped a thousand years ago. And it SHOuld have been. But to do so would have violated the authoritarian spirit arising in the Roman Church...

But, Question: are Uniates asserting a theological position in rebellion against Orthodox theologians when Uniates hold to being filioque-free but without prejudice to the West's understanding of the Father and Son Procession [Spiration]?

Did you notice your usage of the word "rebellion"... This is an authoritarian term... Authoritarians believe in rebellion, for without it, they cannot be authoritarian. The issue is not the theologumenons of procession, but the insistance of the addition of it to the creed, and in the absence of that, in the belief of it AS IF it were in the creed, even if the words are not spoken.

And more than this, it is a matter of communion. Some Uniates think that they are Orthodox, because they serve the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, and read the Fathers, and look like Orthodox, with married priests and big beards, etc, and they think that their words of faith [eg doctrines] are the same as those of the Orthodox... And by this assumption alone, they are not Orthodox...

And I would be interested in hearing from you if you have obtained the term "spyration of the Holy Spirit from the Son" from any of the eastern first millennium Fathers and could provide the quote and the father...

I do not assume a contradiction is built in, UNLESS "from the Father" is employed by Orthodox theologians as a basis for a theology in conflict with Rome's.

The Symbol of the Faith has, as its sole context, the ontological [for lack of a clearer term] origin of the Holy Spirit. And this Source is confessed as the Father, and the means is confessed as "procession" [I don't have the Greek in front of me] - It does not mean "sending from point A to point B," but instead means "has its origin of existence".

A sampling of Rome's theology on the matter can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

We can take a brief look: [___]s

244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. the Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father.69 The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus' glorification70 reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

[This says nothing of the creed, for it clearly is a 'point A to point B meaning.]

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity".

[Here begins the waffling, for it does not say and does not mean that the Father is the Source of the whole divinity, but that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father. The Father IS the source of all, that is not in question, but this states the nature of the source from the Father of the Holy Spirit, which differentiates the nature of the sourcing of the Holy Spirit from the nature of the sourcing of the Son, which is by the means of 'begetting'...

72[Council of Toledo VI(638)] But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . .

[This is error, for substance is hypostasis, under+stand, and means person, for it is the Person of God the Father that sources, each differently, the Persons of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They are of one essence, in virtue of their common Origin, and different according to Their means of existing afforded by God the Father.

The problem here is the difference between Latin and Greek terms of nature and essence and substance - Nature, in the Fathers, when it is talking about the Divine Nature, means essence, [ousia], not substance [hypostasis].]

Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73[C. of Toledo XI(675)] The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

[In communion, all are one, and belong one to another, and the Trinity is God in Communion, hence one God... But to say that the Holy Spirit is not of the Father alone, is to confuse Source of existence with "Point A"...

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". the Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration... And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

[And this continues the confusion of terms to its logical conclusion, and is error, and is the error from which the Roman Church must turn, and admit, if She is to return to the communion of the original Apostolic Church from which She departed by means of this error.]

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447[76], even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. the use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). the introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

[That could be accurrate - I really am not a student of the development of this addition to the Creed. The two communions did grow apart, both in geography and in language.]

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit.

[The term "character" as something that belongs to the Father and originates the Spirit is not Orthodox. The PERSON of the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit by procession.]

By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77[Jn15:26]

[No, it does not. Procession is ontological origin, not A to B movement of that which already has ontological being... Orthodoxy does not affirm that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son.]

The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).

The Creed is not addressing communion, but the oneness of God in terms of the two natures of Origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit as both having the same source, and neither having any other source, such as the other. The issue of communion is addressed in the words "being of one essence with the Father..." One essence [ousia] is ultimate communion...]

It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78[C. of Florence] for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79[C. of Florence] is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80[Cf. C. of Lyons II] This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

We could equally argue that the Holy Spirit is the begetter of the Son in the Holy Virgin... And from there, it all goes to cluster-glitch, just as taking either co-originator of the other cannot escape doing. That whole paragraph is, to Orthodox ears, but self-justifying double-speak... It is not in the Creed, and the Creed was secured against just this kind of innovation, in [I think] the 5th council...

[QUOTE]
The filioque question is a You-had-no-business-changing-the-wording dispute; not a You-apostasised-by-switching-to-a-different-doctrine-about-faith dispute. There is no flip-flop in what is being taught about the faith in the 1st kind of dispute,

If you really believe this, then you can drop the filioque...

so infallibility does not enter in because it is not being strained.

The Pope affirms the filioque ex-cathedra, does he not? And this in violation of the canon that forbids additions and substractions to the Symbol of the Faith, yes? And this very canon was itself affirmed ex-cathedra by the pope, was it not?

The theologumenon, which is a western error, is moot...

Ignoring Conciliar rules on editing does not indict infallibility UNLESS the one doing the ignoring has thus warped the text's meaning in a faith-based or moral-based manner.

The problem is that there are two ex-cathedra pronouncements, one on the Symbol of the Faith and its unalterability, and the other on the alteration of the same Symbol of the Faith. You have to argue that the Roman Pope either did not approve, ex cathedra, the conciliar decision which was accepted by the whole Church and which he officially signed off on, or that the Papal Office changed its [infallible?] mind. There's not a lot of wiggle room in there that I can see...

A fatal indictment would not be "Rome changed the wording;" a mortal wounding would be "Rome changed the Deposit of Faith." Rome improperly performed the first but did not commit the second.

They got lost in essence, substance, Person, and nature, and procession, and ended up having one source for the Son, and another combined source for the Holy Spirit. That is, after all, what the Filioque means...

You said:
"This simply cannot be done by one Church, to add to the Symbol of the Faith, all by itself, without an ecumenical council to decide the matter, and the Roman Church tried to do so, and failed by one vote..."
Do you know what Council that was, and when? Maybe Pope Leo in the 5th century?

My understanding [and remember I am not very knowleddgable] is that it was the very pope who sent the two legates to Constantinople to slap that Papal Bull of excommunication upon the altar of communion during the service of the Divine Liturgy so as to punish the patriarch who would not vote together with him in the just finished council in which he failed to get the Filioque added to the Creed, by just that one Patriarch's vote - He had all the rest... And was infuriated that one stubborn bishop had stopped him, so he excommunicated that bishop, and the bishop returned the favor - A typical family squabble...

Orthodox can be stubborn like that in matters of dogma, for it is the dogmas that protect us from rolling gutter-balls instead of strikes, or at least hitting a pin or two... And keep us at least on the straight and narrow way...

Arsenios

Jomby

May 20th 2004, 05:37 PM

I'll let neotheo respond to your post, George, since it was addressed to him. But I'd like to point out 2 things.

1. Rebellion does imply authority (licit or illicit), but not necessarily authoritarianism (illicit).

2. Pope Leo III did not make a pronouncement "ex cathedra" (as there are very specific rules for such a pronouncement-- "western legalisms", if you'd prefer), but he did act in such a way to attempt to avoid schism. Schism, in the Catholic Church, is regarded as a very grave act, damaging to the communion of the Church- and every attempt should be made to avoid it.

Thank you,

John

neotheo

May 22nd 2004, 10:32 PM

George,
Yours was another reply rich in knowledge and what follows will be a pasting from a page from the "Catholic Answers" Apologetics web site. Very partial reply which I will explore and add to later.

"Spiration" was in the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church [henceforth CCC] which I pasted in my last post. It was a quote from the Council of Florence (CCC Section 246). Where did they get it? Here is one possibility, a Church Father. This is from the web site I am about to paste, and there are similar quotes from other Fathers there as well:
Epiphanius of Salamis
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Now what follows is the paste I mentioned. For now I will mention my interest in how the Eastern members acknowledged agreement with "from the Father through the Son." If you look at the matter in the right way, this does not conflict with "and the Son." And the Catechism agrees with this, as long as excessive "rigidity" is avoided. [And please also note the quote from Nicaea II at the bottom of the page.]

http://www.catholic.com/library/filioque.asp
Filioque
The Western Church commonly uses a version of the Nicene creed which has the Latin word filioque ("and the Son") added after the declaration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).
The quotations below show that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" or "from the Father through the Son."
These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son. However, some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate "through the Son" with "from the Son" is a departure from the true faith.
The expression "from the Father through the Son" is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: "The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin credula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).
Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily).
However, union is still possible on the filioque issue through the recognition that the formulas "and the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "This legitimate complementarity [of expressions], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (CCC 248).
Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

Tertullian
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).

Origen
"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).

Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).

Gregory the Wonderworker
"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Hilary of Poitiers
"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).

Didymus the Blind
"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).

Epiphanius of Salamis [I quoted this above]
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Basil The Great
"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).
"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).

Ambrose of Milan
"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).
"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).

Gregory of Nyssa
"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).

The Athanasian Creed
"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).

Augustine
"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).
"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

Cyril of Alexandria
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).
"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

Council of Toledo
"We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible.
. . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son" (Council of Toledo [A.D. 447]).

Fulgence of Ruspe
"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).
"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son" (ibid., 54).

John Damascene
"Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . God existing and addressed along with Father and Son; uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord; deifying, not deified; filling, not filled; sharing in, not shared in; sanctifying, not sanctified; the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all; in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son" (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (ibid., 12).
"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).

Council of Nicaea II
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).

George Blaisdell

May 22nd 2004, 11:57 PM

[QUOTE]
Filioque
The Western Church commonly uses a version of the Nicene creed which has the Latin word filioque ("and the Son") added...

Then at least you agree that it is an addition, and not an ecumenical , but as you say, a Western Church one.

The expression "from the Father through the Son" is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: . . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin credula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).
Unfortunately, the union did not last.

The following is from: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stmark.aspx

Let us set forth in brief the further history of the negotiations between the Orthodox and the Latins—or, to speak more truly, the history of the capitulation of the Orthodox. The Orthodox were obliged to accept the Latin teaching of the filioque and acknowledge the Latin dogma of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, in the sense of His Existence, from the Two Hypostases. Then the Orthodox were obliged to declare that the filioque, as an addition within the Symbol of Faith, had always been a canonical and blessed act. By this alone there were reduced to naught all the objections of the Greeks from the time of Patriarch Photios, as well as the works of St. Mark of Ephesus and the interdictions for changing the Symbol of Faith which had been made at the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. One should also note that not all the Roman Popes had approved of the filioque, and several had considered its introduction into the Symbol of Faith completely uncanonical. But now all this was forgotten. Everything was sacrificed to the demands of Pope Eugenius and his cardinals.

Further, it was demanded of the Orthodox to accept the Latin teaching concerning the consecration of the Holy Gifts and renounce their own as expressed in the performance of the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Church. [4] Besides, this was expressed by the Latins in disdainful declarations concerning the Liturgical practice of the Eastern Church.

Finally, the Orthodox were obliged to sign and acknowledge a confession of Papism, expressed thus: "We decree that the Holy Apostolic Throne and Roman Pontiff possess a primacy over the whole earth, and that this Roman Pontiff is the Successor of the blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church, Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; and that our Lord Jesus Christ in the person of St. Peter has given him full authority to shepherd, direct and rule the whole Church, as is likewise contained in the acts of the Ecumenical Councils and in the holy canons." [5] The Orthodox were likewise forced to acknowledge purgatory.

And so Orthodoxy was to cease to exist.... [snip]

Administratively speaking, the whole Orthodox Church signed: Emperor John, the metropolitans and representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Metropolitan of Kiev Isidore, and the Russian Bishop Abraham. Only one hierarch did not sign. It would be superfluous to mention his name: St. Mark of Ephesus. But no one paid the least attention to him. What was one man, and he humiliated and fatally ill, in comparison with the all powerful Vatican, headed by the mighty Pope Eugenius IV? What was this one Greek in comparison with the whole multitude of Greek dignitaries headed by Emperor John, and the Greek metropolitans? There is a Russian proverb: ''One alone on the field is no warrior." However, in this one man was represented the whole might of the Orthodox Church. This one man represented in himself the whole Orthodox Church. He was a giant of giants, bearing in himself all the sanctity of Orthodoxy and all its might! And this is why, when Pope Eugenius was solemnly shown by his cardinals the Act of Union, signed by all the Greek delegates, he said, not finding on it the signature of St. Mark: "And so we have accomplished nothing." All the success of the Vatican was illusory and short-lived. The Pope attempted by every means to compel St. Mark to sign the Union, a fact that is attested both by Andrew of Rhodes [6] and Syropoulos. [7] The Pope demanded that St. Mark be deprived of his rank then and there for his refusal to sign the Act of Union. But Emperor John did not allow him to be harmed, because in the depths of his heart he respected St. Mark.

Syropoulos relates the final meeting of St. Mark with the Pope. "The Pope asked of the Emperor that St. Mark appear before him. The Emperor, having summoned him beforehand, persuaded him, saying:'When the Pope asks you to appear before him already two and three times, you must go to him; but have no fear, for I have spoken and requested and arranged with the Pope so that you will be given no offense or injury. And so, go and listen to everything he says, and reply openly in whatever manner will seem to you the most suitable.' And so Mark went to appear before the Pope, and finding him sitting informally in his own quarters with his cardinals and his bishops, he was uncertain in what fashion he should express respect to the Pope. Seeing that all who surrounded the Pope were sitting, he said: 'I have been suffering from a kidney ailment and severe gout and have not the strength to stand,' and proceeded to sit in his place. The Pope spoke long with Mark; his aim was to persuade him also to follow the decision of the Council and affirm the Union, and if he refused to do this, then he should know that he would be subject to the same interdictions which previous Ecumenical Councils laid upon the obstinate, who, deprived of every gift of the Church, were case out as heretics. To the Pope's words Mark gave an extensive, commanding reply. Concerning the interdictions with which the Pope threatened him, he said: 'The Councils of the Church have condemned as rebels those who have transgressed against some dogma and have preached thus and fought for this, for which reason also they are called ''heretics''; and from the beginning the Church has condemned the heresy itself, and only then has it condemned the leaders of the heresy and its defenders. But I have by no means preached my own teaching, nor have I introduced anything new in the Church, nor defended any foreign and false doctrine; but I have held only that teaching which the Church received in perfect form from our Saviour, and in which it has steadfastly remained to this day: the teaching which the Holy Church of Rome, before the schism that occurred between us, possessed no less than our Eastern Church; the teaching which, as holy, you formerly were wont to praise, and often at this very Council you mentioned with respect and honor, and which no one could reproach or dispute. And if I hold it and do not allow myself to depart from it, what Council will subject me to the interdiction to which heretics are subject? What sound and pious mind will act thus with me? For first of all one must condemn the teaching which I hold; but if you acknowledge it as pious and Orthodox, then why am I deserving of punishment?' Having said this and more of the like, and listened to the Pope, he returned to his quarters." [8]
V. AFTER THE COUNCIL

St. Mark returned to Constantinople with Emperor John on February 1,1440. What a sorrowful return it was! No sooner had the Emperor managed to set foot on land than he was informed of the death of his beloved wife; after this the Emperor out of sorrow did not leave his quarters for three months. None of the hierarchs would agree to accept the post of Patriarch of Constantinople, knowing that this post would oblige one to proceed with the Union. The people who met them, as the Greek historian Doukas testifies, asked the Orthodox delegates who had signed the Union: "How did the Council go? Were we victorious?" To which the hierarchs replied: "No! We sold our faith, we bartered piety for impiety (i.e., Orthodox doctrine for heresy) and have become azymites." The people asked then: "Why did you sign?" "From fear of the Latins," ''Did the Latins then beat you or put you in prison?" ''No. But our right hand signed: let it be cut off! Our tongue confessed: let it be torn out!" [9]

A painful silence set in. Despite the Great Lent, the season most filled with prayer, churches were empty and there were no services: no one wished to serve with those who had signed the Union. In Constantinople revolution was ripening. St. Mark alone was pure in heart and had no reproach on his conscience. But he too suffered immeasurably. Around him united all the zealots for Orthodoxy, especially the monks of the Holy Mountain (Athos) and the ordinary village priests. The whole episcopate, the whole court—all was in the hands of the Uniates, in absolute submission to the representatives of the Vatican, who came often to inspect how the Union was being carried out among the people. The Church was in extreme danger; as St. Mark wrote: "the night of Union encompassed the Church." [10]

St. Mark became weak in body, but in spirit he burned, and because of this, as John Eugenikos writes, "by Divine Providence he miraculously escaped danger, and the radiant one radiantly returned and was preserved for the fatherland, being met by a universal enthusiasm and respect." [11] The Byzantine people did not accept the Union: while all the exhortations of the partisans of the Union were ignored, the flaming sermons of St. Mark found an enthusiastic response...

[So now you know some of the REST of the story of the Council at Florence...]

geo-Arsenios