Orthodox priest calls Pope a heretic

Believing contradictory things would normally be diagnosed as some form of schizophrenia, wouldn't it?

prodromos said:

Believing contradictory things would normally be diagnosed as some form of schizophrenia, wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

that’s actually what a Melkite friend said about being a Melkite. he’s theologically schizophrenic.

ArmyMatt said:

that’s actually what a Melkite friend said about being a Melkite. he’s theologically schizophrenic.

Click to expand...

It is not the proper term. Schizophrenia refers to something else altogether. It is grossly exaggerated to "pathologize" belief in contradictory things. Such state is far more common, I would say universal for human beings. We have complex coping mechanisms to allow for that. I think cognitive dissonance is a better term.

Andrei D said:

It is not the proper term. Schizophrenia refers to something else altogether. It is grossly exaggerated to "pathologize" belief in contradictory things. Such state is far more common, I would say universal for human beings. We have complex coping mechanisms to allow for that. I think cognitive dissonance is a better term.

Click to expand...

yeah, there’s no real such thing as theological schizophrenia. that was just how a buddy phrased being a Melkite.

ArmyMatt said:

being in communion with someone means you are fully one in faith with them. so even if you attend a Byzantine Catholic parish where no one uses the filioque, you still affirm it by being in communion with those who do.

Click to expand...

Maybe you believe that is true from your Orthodox perspective and the perhaps somewhat more rigid stance about the filioque that many, but by no means all, Orthodox take.

It seems you may not have a complete understanding of the relationship between the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches. This is quite understandable, of course--you're Orthodox. Heck, many Catholics, both Western and Eastern don't have a good, let alone complete understanding of that relationship. I don't claim to be one who does.

You might be interested to read this Q & A from east2west.org (what follows is just part of it, but it's not long):

"Concerning the infamous conflict over the Filioque, it doesn’t appear to be the stumbling block that it once was. In 1995 the Holy Father asked the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to reconsider the issue. At his request, they issued a marvelous document entitled: “The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity – the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions.”

This document acknowledged the Eastern understanding of the Father as the source of the Trinity as being definitive for the Catholic Church. The Orthodox were concerned that Catholics claimed that the Father and Son BOTH were the source of the Trinity. This document puts that fear to rest.

In fact, this document goes so far as to state that the Creed WITHOUT the Filioque is the normative form of the Creed for the entire Catholic Church. It says:

“The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught by the undivided Church,” (paragraph no. 2). Filioque"

Or, perhaps this much longer article: https://www.catholicbridge.com/downloads/response-on-the-filioque.pdf

J Michael said:

Maybe you believe that is true from your Orthodox perspective and the perhaps somewhat more rigid stance about the filioque that many, but by no means all, Orthodox take.

It seems you may not have a complete understanding of the relationship between the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches. This is quite understandable, of course--you're Orthodox. Heck, many Catholics, both Western and Eastern don't have a good, let alone complete understanding of that relationship. I don't claim to be one who does.

You might be interested to read this Q & A from east2west.org (what follows is just part of it, but it's not long):

"Concerning the infamous conflict over the Filioque, it doesn’t appear to be the stumbling block that it once was. In 1995 the Holy Father asked the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to reconsider the issue. At his request, they issued a marvelous document entitled: “The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity – the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions.”

This document acknowledged the Eastern understanding of the Father as the source of the Trinity as being definitive for the Catholic Church. The Orthodox were concerned that Catholics claimed that the Father and Son BOTH were the source of the Trinity. This document puts that fear to rest.

In fact, this document goes so far as to state that the Creed WITHOUT the Filioque is the normative form of the Creed for the entire Catholic Church. It says:

“The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught by the undivided Church,” (paragraph no. 2). Filioque"

Or, perhaps this much longer article: https://www.catholicbridge.com/downloads/response-on-the-filioque.pdf

Click to expand...

yeah, that’s what is said now, but not always. I believe 2 Lyons in 1274 condemns anyone who doesn’t use the filioque.

J Michael said:

Maybe you believe that is true from your Orthodox perspective and the perhaps somewhat more rigid stance about the filioque that many, but by no means all, Orthodox take.

It seems you may not have a complete understanding of the relationship between the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches. This is quite understandable, of course--you're Orthodox. Heck, many Catholics, both Western and Eastern don't have a good, let alone complete understanding of that relationship. I don't claim to be one who does.

You might be interested to read this Q & A from east2west.org (what follows is just part of it, but it's not long):

"Concerning the infamous conflict over the Filioque, it doesn’t appear to be the stumbling block that it once was. In 1995 the Holy Father asked the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to reconsider the issue. At his request, they issued a marvelous document entitled: “The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity – the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions.”

This document acknowledged the Eastern understanding of the Father as the source of the Trinity as being definitive for the Catholic Church. The Orthodox were concerned that Catholics claimed that the Father and Son BOTH were the source of the Trinity. This document puts that fear to rest.

In fact, this document goes so far as to state that the Creed WITHOUT the Filioque is the normative form of the Creed for the entire Catholic Church. It says:

“The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught by the undivided Church,” (paragraph no. 2). Filioque"

Or, perhaps this much longer article: https://www.catholicbridge.com/downloads/response-on-the-filioque.pdf

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Church rejects the Filioque, both the clause and the doctrine, because it is both from, and expresses, a logos (cognition, intellect) bias that exists within the human psyche that is fallen and therefore conflicted (i.e. the "battle of heart vs mind") to varying degrees to do with sin, but does not exist within the perfect tri-unity of God. Eternally, the Spirit "proceeds from the Father" only. We must distinguish between the creative acts of the Holy Trinity and the Eternal being of the Holy Trinity, separate from the Spirit and the Logos acting in concert to "create things out of nothing". The logos bias of the Western Church is to be found in everything from its ecclesiology to it's doctrines, Liturgical rites, and old style catechism. Thank God, the "Catechesis of the Good Shepherd" has appeared and is reversing that unhealthy trend, at least to some degree. If we take a beautiful butterfly and pin it to a corkboard what happens? It dies. If we take an infinite mystery of the Faith and define it, it becomes a "dead butterfly". Dead butterflies don't save anyone. Christ, the Eternal Light and the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father: unknowable and unfathomable Mysteries Who BE. These are Those Who save. Knowing them through personal Communion is Orthodox Christian Theology. Rational, psychological, self-introspection is how the "doctrine" of the Filioque was introduced, and that is not proper Theology.

With regards to the Eastern Rite Catholic Church (Uniate), it exists, or otherwise ceases to exist, strictly because of historical and situational economic pressure. I've known many Eastern Rite Catholics and my sense is that their just normal folks wanting to have a good life in the world, as opposed to die-hard and "take up your cross" radicals. Sorry, that's just the sense I've gotten from all the ones I've known. If the RC gave them a good economic reason to unite with them, they would. But if not, they would go to the Orthodox Church.

ArmyMatt said:

yeah, that’s what is said now, but not always. I believe 2 Lyons in 1274 condemns anyone who doesn’t use the filioque.

Click to expand...

Then, I guess, regardless of what is said now (which is, of course, when you and I live), I and all other Eastern Catholics and all Orthodox are "condemned". Of course, how we understand and express something can never, ever change . (And no, I won't engage in a conversation about "development of doctrine"--I know, at least some of the time, my limits .) I didn't have an intention of getting into a discussion of the filioque, but...it seems to have happened. So...I'm going to declare, unanimously, that we are both correct and victorious , and cease to discuss this any further--once again, realizing my limits .

J Michael said:

Then, I guess, regardless of what is said now (which is, of course, when you and I live), I and all other Eastern Catholics and all Orthodox are "condemned". Of course, how we understand and express something can never, ever change . (And no, I won't engage in a conversation about "development of doctrine"--I know, at least some of the time, my limits .) I didn't have an intention of getting into a discussion of the filioque, but...it seems to have happened. So...I'm going to declare, unanimously, that we are both correct and victorious , and cease to discuss this any further--once again, realizing my limits .

Click to expand...

except that you are in communion with them

ArmyMatt said:

except that you are in communion with them

Click to expand...

Belonging to the Uniate rarely has much to do with Theology, Communion, ecclesiology, etc.... It's a membership that waxes and wanes in response to socio-economic pressures.

truefiction1 said:

Belonging to the Uniate rarely has much to do with Theology, Communion, ecclesiology, etc.... It's a membership that waxes and wanes in response to socio-economic pressures.

Click to expand...

Really? If you say so...

ArmyMatt said:

except that you are in communion with them

Click to expand...

Yes, I am.

And I'll just add, that once these bodies (Uniate) are created, they grow an identity, and that identity is the forms an inertia that keeps the body in motion, or existence.

J Michael said:

Yes, I am.

Click to expand...

which means you affirm the filioque whether you say it or not.

truefiction1 said:

Belonging to the Uniate rarely has much to do with Theology, Communion, ecclesiology, etc.... It's a membership that waxes and wanes in response to socio-economic pressures.

Click to expand...

maybe, I dunno. I think more lots of folks just don’t think about these things. I didn’t before I became Orthodox.

J Michael said:

Really? If you say so...

Click to expand...

Yes, historically, Orthodox parishes found shelter under the Roman Patriarchate when there was either a gross lack of support, or even forms of oppression being implemented against them by the Orthodox Patriarchy. For example, if Russia was enacting sanctions against the Ukraine, then the Russian Church could be used as a tool to put pressure on the Ukrainian people by sanctioning Ukrainian parishes as well. With such treatment, some must have felt very justified in forging unity with Rome, which was offering them incentives to reunite. This is how Byzantine Catholic Churches came to be in the first place, and afterwards they formed a new identity. The identity itself, which includes all of its traditional and material assets, is the reason for its continuation. What has sometimes happened is that the Latin rite RC churchmen have rejected that identity, which created pressure serving to push Eastern rite Catholics back towards the Orthodox Church. Near the beginning of the last century, one RC bishop was acting in a hostile way towards the Eastern rite Catholics, and one sainted Orthodox Christian missionary priest, Fr. Alexis Toth, welcomed them back into the Orthodox Church in massive numbers (about 20,000 in all).

ArmyMatt said:

maybe, I dunno. I think more lots of folks just don’t think about these things. I didn’t before I became Orthodox.

Click to expand...

This is just something that was taught in my latest Church History class, through the History professor who was teaching online through St. Vlad's diaconal vocation program. It rings true as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps others know a thing or two that I'm not aware of regarding how the Uniate was formed?

truefiction1 said:

This is just something that was taught in my latest Church History class, through the History professor who was teaching online through St. Vlad's diaconal vocation program. It rings true as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps others know a thing or two that I'm not aware of regarding how the Uniate was formed?

Click to expand...

oh there was a lot of those pressures at the formation of the Unia. I was just talking about today.

truefiction1 said:

Belonging to the Uniate rarely has much to do with Theology, Communion, ecclesiology, etc.... It's a membership that waxes and wanes in response to socio-economic pressures.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is clearly true. And often due to existential threats, need for strategic alliances and political support.

truefiction1 said:

And I'll just add, that once these bodies (Uniate) are created, they grow an identity,

Click to expand...

And we can dress it up however we want, but the other side of the coin is true, too. In my country, at least, the "greco-catholics" have been genuinely persecuted multiple times in history by the majority and even by the Communists who were persecuting all religions, but at the end of the day the Orthodox did have some advantages and in certain cases benefitted off that persecution; I don't care that I'm Orthodox and they're not - persecution is persecution. And persecution creates identity too.

Andrei D said:

Yes, that is clearly true. And often due to existential threats, need for strategic alliances and political support.



And we can dress it up however we want, but the other side of the coin is true, too. In my country, at least, the "greco-catholics" have been genuinely persecuted multiple times in history by the majority and even by the Communists who were persecuting all religions, but at the end of the day the Orthodox did have some advantages and in certain cases benefitted off that persecution; I don't care that I'm Orthodox and they're not - persecution is persecution. And persecution creates identity too.

Click to expand...

Yes, persecution often becomes evidence, actually part of their "tradition", to prop-up a group's identity. Pretty much all Christian groups will point to episodes of persecution against them, and the basic idea there is that they (the group) are the ones being spoken of by Christ in John 15:18-20. So, by this account, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and any other historically persecuted sect are the true representatives of Jesus Christ. Just ask them why they believe they are sometimes persecuted.