Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[JacktheCatholic]

Some have claimed this, yes, and perhaps it's a reasonable assumption...but i'm not sure there has been any "official" dialogue between the two bodies that claim "we believe the same thing with different wording...etc", although I could be wrong...I personally think this issue is one of the smaller hurdles to reunification.

I agree. Our Churches still saw themselves as joined even after the Filioque. So, it was not the dividing factor.

I do pray for reunification with our two great Apostolic Churches.

 

[Erose]

I think this is the crux. The filioque had become a problem, and not unreasonably so. The fix would have been a council and there is no reason to think one would have failed to work through the issues. But because of issues about governance, it was never allowed to happen.

The schism was at heart about governance and that has continued to be the issue (fueled by a lot of bad faith on both sides IMO.)

The filioque was an excuse used by the anti-Latin leadership in Constantiople along with the use of unleaven bread vs. leaven bread among other things. In fact if I remember correctly the filioque was not even mentioned in the list of issues that Patriarch Micheal used for his reasons of closing the Latin rite churches in Constantiople and removing the names of popes from the diptychs. Like I said political.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The filioque was an excuse used by the anti-Latin leadership in Constantiople along with the use of unleaven bread vs. leaven bread among other things. In fact if I remember correctly the filioque was not even mentioned in the list of issues that Patriarch Micheal used for his reasons of closing the Latin rite churches in Constantiople and removing the names of popes from the diptychs. Like I said political.

And let us not forget The Lion Hearted who used a Pope's approved crusade to take a detour with the Crusaders and sack an Orthodox city because the King owed The Lion Hearted a debt. They looted and harmed innocent Christians and that was very wicked.

John Paul II returned some of what was stolen but that is a small jesture compared to the harm that took place.

Political? Yes. A King using soldiers for a Crusade to do the exact opposite.

 

[Erose]

But why isn't there a major movement within the two sides?

Let's discuss our theological differences like theological issues with an giant official council, not like children. Let's apologize for any historical offenses and shatter any myths and misunderstandings about each other.

We must push for unity, as Christ says in Mark 3:25, "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."

There is a major movement on both sides. Both sides have theologians working on those matters of contest to see how the Churches can be reconciled. I really don't think this is a problem with the upper hierarchy. The problem is with the lower clergy and laymen.

What I have seen is that Catholics are much more open to reunification than Orthodox. There is a fear by many Orthodox that they will be forced to Latinize and that the pope will begin to micromanage their Patriarchates. So in my opinion the hangups seem to be on the Eastern side and not on the Western.

 

[Erose]

the problem is, no matter how many history books you read about this - no matter how many times both sides banter back and forth saying that their side of history is more convincing, SOMETHING is the truth. It just bugs me. Either something happened or it didn't. Either Catholicism is right or Orthodoxy is right. But both can't be. There is an objective truth but it seems that both sides are so irreconcilable that we won't be able to find that objective truth.

Lady Bug,

In my opinion the answer is that both sides were wrong on certain levels. The major problem in my opinion on both sides is that neither side learned the other side's language. The legates sent from either the East or West didn't even know the language of the Patriarchate they were going to. This in my opinion was probably the biggest reason why the rupture occurred. It needs to be pointed out the the East-West Schism didn't happen in 1054. It started a few hundred years before that with the deposing of Patriarch Ignatius and lasted until after the Council of Florence. Thus this schism should be viewed as a big long tearing in two of both sides.

The great thing I think that we have today is that there really is no longer a problem with language. As has been shown on this thread alone that we all share the same languages now. The problem now is to rebuild the trust we should have in each other as Christians and that may take a while, but we will see.

 

[Erose]

And let us not forget The Lion Hearted who used a Pope's approved crusade to take a detour with the Crusaders and sack an Orthodox city because the King owed The Lion Hearted a debt. They looted and harmed innocent Christians and that was very wicked.

John Paul II returned some of what was stolen but that is a small jesture compared to the harm that took place.

Political? Yes. A King using soldiers for a Crusade to do the exact opposite.

Lionhart was not involved in the sack of Constantiople.

But this also makes my point. The sack of Constantiople was not done for a religious reason but a political one.

Also Jack do a little research on why the sack occurred. The fault of the sack is not one sided here either.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The CC has defined from the starting point of the Two. That's the difference. But there was a beginning point.... yet the CC with Peter's chair has the charism to define and teach so we have the extensive teaching in today's terms.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Trent is clear that Catholicism doesn't side with Orthodoxy on the issue of the Filioque. Trent dogmatised double procession. The Orthodox do not hold to double procession and view it as heresy.

Though there is a modern movement in Catholicism siding with Orthodoxy on this one - and indeed, that is how I was taught in my theology classes in university - dogma is dogma and it cannot be changed.

The Filioque is a big issue and it isn't one of semantics in this case.

 

[Erose]

Trent is clear that Catholicism doesn't side with Orthodoxy on the issue of the Filioque. Trent dogmatised double procession. The Orthodox do not hold to double procession and view it as heresy.

Though there is a modern movement in Catholicism siding with Orthodoxy on this one - and indeed, that is how I was taught in my theology classes in university - dogma is dogma and it cannot be changed.

The Filioque is a big issue and it isn't one of semantics in this case.

The Church has never taught double procession and views this along with the Orthodox as being a heretical view. The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as a single Spiration (breath) from one Source.

 

[Gwendolyn]

The Church has never taught double procession and views this along with the Orthodox as being a heretical view. The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as a single Spiration (breath) from one Source.

Uh, the Church does teach double procession. Read here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Filioque

 

[Lady Bug]

don't kill me for what I'm about to say but I don't fear hell over misinterpretation of the Filioque

 

[Erose]

Uh, the Church does teach double procession. Read here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Filioque

Well I stand corrected, I think. I have studied the Trinity a great deal and never came across this term before which is interesting to me.

I have to say though that this is a horrible term to use to say the least. For some of our theolgians using this term, I really don't blame our Orthodox brothers calling us initially heretics. When I read the term, the first thing I thought of was two spirations and/or two principles. I understand what they are trying to convey with this term that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, but there is only one proceeding and not two. Council of Florence points this out:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind. (Session 6)

Anyway this is what I was thinking about and thanks for the education Gwen.

 

[Erose]

Trent is clear that Catholicism doesn't side with Orthodoxy on the issue of the Filioque. Trent dogmatised double procession. The Orthodox do not hold to double procession and view it as heresy.

Though there is a modern movement in Catholicism siding with Orthodoxy on this one - and indeed, that is how I was taught in my theology classes in university - dogma is dogma and it cannot be changed.

The Filioque is a big issue and it isn't one of semantics in this case.

You say that Trent dogmatized the double procession at Trent. Do you know where this is documented? I have not found this but I could be missing something.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You say that Trent dogmatized the double procession at Trent. Do you know where this is documented? I have not found this but I could be missing something.

This may help: CT table

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Filioque from the RCC pov:

47. Who is the Holy Spirit revealed to us by Jesus Christ?

243-248

The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. He is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son. He “proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26) who is the principle without a principle and the origin of all trinitarian life. He proceeds also from the Son (Filioque) by the eternal Gift which the Father makes of him to the Son. Sent by the Father and the Incarnate Son, the Holy Spirit guides the Church “to know all truth” (John 16:13).

Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The only seriously debated theological issue[30] between us and the Orthodox Church, besides the "Filioque"-clause in the Creed, which is still a motive of separation for most Orthodox, is the question of Roman primacy. As Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have often said, this issue is for non-Catholic Christians the most serious stumbling block.[31] In this perspective, John Paul II in his ecumenical Encyclical “Ut unum sint” (1995) extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on the future exercise of the primacy.[32] A quite revolutionary step for a Pope! The resonance was great; yet, unlike most Churches of the Reformed tradition, the Oriental Churches have unfortunately hardly taken up this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has collected the reactions to this initiative and has sent this data to all the churches and ecclesial groupings involved. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of the dialogue. The outcome of the first phase – as to be expected – was by far not yet a consensus; but there seems to be a new atmosphere, a new interest and a new openness.

And...

V. The fundamental problem from a theological point of view

The following objection is often made: it cannot be that just because of the question of church ministry – priesthood, episcopate, Petrine ministry – we should live in separate churches and not participate together in the Lord’s Table. And yet it is so! Theologians of the Orthodox Churches and of the Reformed tradition point out that on the issue of ministry a deeper difference is becoming clear. We shall progress in the ecumenical dialogue only if we succeed in defining more precisely that deeper difference, not in order to cement the diversity but to be able to overcome it in a better way.

For authoritative Orthodox theologians, especially those of the neo-Palamitic School, the basic difference involves the argument about the "Filioque", the Latin addition to the common Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of the old Church.[53] At first sight, this seems a somewhat odd thesis, although it is at least still comprehensible. Yet, in the view not only of many Orthodox theologians, but recently also of Reformatory theologians, the "Filioque" has concrete consequences for the understanding of the Church. For them, it seems to link the efficiency of the Holy Spirit fully to the person and work of Jesus Christ, leaving no room for the freedom of the Spirit, who blows where it chooses (Jn 3:8). According to that reading of the "Filioque", the Holy Spirit is so to say entirely chained up to the institutions established by Christ. For these theologians, this perceived tendency represents the roots of the Catholic submission of charisma to the institution, of individual freedom to the authority of the Church, of the prophetic to the juridical, of the mysticism to the scholasticism, of the common priesthood to the hierarchical priesthood, and finally of the episcopal collegiality to the Roman primacy.

We find similar arguments based on other premises on the Protestant side. The Reformatory Churches are no doubt in the Latin tradition and they generally keep the "Filioque"; against the rebels they affirm with energy that the Spirit is Jesus Christ’s Spirit and is tied to Word and Sacrament. But for them, too, it is a question of the sovereignty of God’s Word in and above the Church, and with it of the Christian human being’s free will, as against a – real or supposed – unilateral juridical-institutional view of the Church.[54]

Current Problems in Ecumenical Theology

 

[Erose]

This may help: CT table

I have look through this already and seen no reference to any declarations on the Trinity. I have read through these documents before and just don't recall. I'm not saying it is there. It could be in a declaration of faith. Maybe the catechism of Trent? I'll look.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I have look through this already and seen no reference to any declarations on the Trinity. I have read through these documents before and just don't recall. I'm not saying it is there. It could be in a declaration of faith. Maybe the catechism of Trent? I'll look.

I did not find it either.

I recall the Pope saying the Creed and leaving out the Filioqoue on purpose too.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The Pope intentionally left the Filioque out of the Creed.

The Nicene-Constantinople creed (without the filioque)

Resources for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and throughout the year 2010


The Nicene Creed in Original Greek - YouTube


Until we all are One.

 

[WarriorAngel]

From an Orthodox POV, the Father is the fountainhead (or source) of Divinity within the Trinity. The Son is begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. As related to God's temporal mission on earth, the Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit makes known the Son, and the Son reveals the Father (or something like that... ).

The Son was only begotten in the flesh but has been eternal with the Father.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but from the Roman POV, the Father is the source of the Son, and through the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit emerges (of course, infinitely, as being created, implies a loss of divinity of all parties except the Father).

The Holy Spirit exists eternally of the Father and the Son as the energy of the Father and the Son eternal. All Three are eternal and cannot be divided.
...F
../\
.S_H

 

[ebia]

The Son was only begotten in the flesh but has been eternal with the Father.

Eh?

"... eternally begotten of the father, ..."