What is the difference between Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?

ArmyMatt said:

again, that's not all that happened. the Melkite said they venerate him.

Click to expand...

Al Masihi said:

And there are Sunni Muslims who venerate and believe in the intercession of Mohammed’s family in prayer, despite no official consensus of this by Islamic scholars, so I’m missing your point?

Click to expand...

TheLostCoin said:

But the Council of Florence dogmatically declared that they interpret the Son with the Father as a Single Cause or Principle of the Holy Spirit.

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need."

And if this was really what the Romans thought, why did they force the Byzantine Catholics to say the Nicene Creed WITH the Filioque regardless of language, up until recently with Popes who have been very generous with Eastern Rite Catholicism in what is permitted, who allowed it to be said without the Filioque?

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

my point is that Melkites publicly venerate St Mark.

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

and the way the Filioque used to be defined violated that Council in Constantinople.

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

except that they condemned it, and no Council affirmed it.

Click to expand...

Al Masihi said:

It’s still not the official standing of the Melkite Church.

Click to expand...

Al Masihi said:

If the Filioque was misused in history it doesn’t make the Filioque itself bad, considering the Latins redefined it.

Click to expand...

Al Masihi said:

The council condemned adding it to the Greek creed which even Roman Catholics themselves would acknowledge as heresy. The use of the Filioque itself among the Latins was never condemned by the council.

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

again, my Melkite friend says otherwise. I know there are saints not on calendars that are commemorated. mostly because there are so many of them.

Click to expand...

Al Masihi said:

Even when the Latins say And the Son they mean a single clause, as everything the Son has received was from the Father. The council doesn’t condemn the use of the Filioque in the Latin creed. They forced Byzantine Catholics as a usual sense of superiority which certain Popes felt must be enforced, which we have also exerted on them, the Patriarch of Constantinople once made the Latins use leavened bread in response to them forcing Byzantine Christians to use unleavened bread. It’s all a sense of superiority which has now been condemned by the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

TheLostCoin said:

Does Francis of Assisi being venerated in New Skete make him a Saint in the Orthodox Church?

This goes into a deeper conversation of "who is a Saint" and "who isn't", which ultimately the Church (whether you think it's Orthodox or Catholic) canonizes based on if such a person lived a virtuous / Saintly life.

Despite the fact that the standards for Roman Catholic sainthood have been drastically reduced (as demonstrated by the canonization of the conciliar Popes and Gregory Palamas in the Eastern Catholic Churches), it's necessary to be truthful and say there are still some standards there. You would not see Arius or Judas commemorated in the Roman Catholic Church as of today.

Furthermore, you need to distinguish between people who meet that standard each Church sets, who haven't been canonized yet versus people who don't meet the standard.

In the Orthodox Church, Seraphim Rose is not canonized, but people widely venerate him. However, just because New Skete venerates Francis of Assisi doesn't mean that he's a Saint in the Orthodox Church.

Likewise, if there are some liberal Melkites who commemorate him (Saint Mark of Ephesus) and venerate him, you could argue that such a veneration is irregular.

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

no, because Francis of Assisi was never in our communion. the Melkites joined Rome 300 years after St Mark, and he was part of their experience.

and, unlike Fr Seraphim, this isn't a matter of personal veneration either.

Click to expand...

TheLostCoin said:

Do we venerate Dioscorus or other Miaphysite saints when those Eastern Churches entered into communion with the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox during the Acacian schism?

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

no, we don't venerate non-Chalcedon saints. I am not sure what your point is?

Click to expand...

TheLostCoin said:

My point is that a church can leave their communion and join the other communion, not recognizing Saints that are fundamentally contradictory to being a part of the other communion.

The fact that there are some people venerating people which aren't on their calendar is not equivalent to saying that the organization endorses them as canonized Saints. I'm sure there's probably a Chalcedonian Orthodox who commemorates Severus of Antioch somewhere - he was a part of the whole Henotikon controversy / Acacian schism - and he was a pretty good theologian (despite being non-Chalcedonian) - but that doesn't mean that the Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes Severus of Antioch as a Saint. Likewise, just because there are Liberal Greek-Catholic priests out there that venerate Mark of Ephesus doesn't mean that the Melkite Catholic Church officially recognizes Mark of Ephesus as a Saint. Just because the standards of canonical sainthood are remarkably low in the Roman Catholic Church, doesn't mean they are that low.

My principle argument is that the reason why Mark of Ephesus is venerated in some Greek Catholic Churches has the same underlying and non-genuine principle as to why Francis of Assisi is venerated in New Skete - Ecumenical Indifferentism, which is a heresy - but it doesn't affect the canonical beliefs of either Communion.

Your friend may say elsewise, but that's one priest giving his opinion - much like how the Monks at New Skete believe truly that Francis of Assisi is a Saint of the Church and the whole of Orthodoxy ought to commemorate him.

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

it actually was, hence the Creed in Latin without the Filioque. the Pope at the time even said that's why he made those slabs.

Click to expand...

Al Masihi said:

Could you quote the pope and then make make sure that that’s really what he said. Could you direct me to where the creed could be viewed in Latin without the Filioque (of course it would have to be after the Nicene creed was translated and the Filioque added) Even if the creed in Latin was without the Filioque it doesn’t indicate the Filioque itself was rejected completely.

Click to expand...