Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

Alright, this may be one of my boldest attempts towards my church's teaching. I would like to say this regarding about the "Filioque".
Now didn't Acts 16:7
"When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to."

clearly demonstrates it?

Now if that Spirit is of Jesus who is the Son of God, the Word made flesh, then doesn't that make the Filioque valid? Just asking.

Azureknight 773 said:

Alright, this may be one of my boldest attempts towards my church's teaching. I would like to say this regarding about the "Filioque".
Now didn't Acts 16:7
"When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to."

clearly demonstrates it?

Now if that Spirit is of Jesus who is the Son of God, the Word made flesh, then doesn't that make the Filioque valid? Just asking.

Click to expand...

Clearly not. If there were a knock-down obvious proof from scripture the issue would never have arisen.

Of course the Filioque represents at least two separate issues:
1. Is it true to say it?
2. Even if 1, Was is acceptable for it to be added without the agreement of the whole church?

I'm a bit confused on the Filioque though -

if the Holy Spirit does not stem from both the Father and the Son, then the Trinity can't consist of 3 inextricably linked Persons into one God...? it seems that way?! I am certain that in the eyes of the Orthodox I am interpreting this wrongly but this is what has puzzled me.

Lady Bug said:

I'm a bit confused on the Filioque though -

if the Holy Spirit does not stem from both the Father and the Son, then the Trinity can't consist of 3 inextricably linked Persons into one God...?

Click to expand...

Why?

what I was saying is can the Trinity effectively be 3 Persons in one God if the HS does not come from both the Father and Son?

I know that the Father can't come from the Son or the Holy Spirit but I thought that the HS came "after" the Father and Son did so I wonder why it can't come from both?

Lady Bug said:

what I was saying is can the Trinity effectively be 3 Persons in one God if the HS does not come from both the Father and Son?

I know that the Father can't come from the Son or the Holy Spirit but I thought that the HS came "after" the Father and Son did so I wonder why it can't come from both?

Click to expand...

F
/ \
S HS

or

F
|
S
|
HS

I feel stupid now

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 Holy Spirit is the Grandson then

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).

I would not want to become Orthodox because they reject the truth of the Papacy. They also have some other differences from Catholicism that I do not agree with.

Ortho_Cat said:

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... ).

Click to expand...

I think the Orthodox can understand the Filioque as they currently understand the Father's relationship with the Son and Holy Spirit.

Imagine a triangle and that is the Trinity.

This thing with the Filioque seems like an issue of having a council where the Orthodox Patriarchs were not present and the Patriarch of Rome made a Church wide decision without the full consent of all the Patriarchs. The contention may be one where the Orthodox do not believe the proper protocols were followed and there are underlying reasons that if accepted would be support of more than a Primacy with the Patriarch of Rome, a plausible acceptance of a Supremacy. On this alone, I think the Orthodox Church would balk at accepting the Filioque.

But, as is stated here, "the Son sends the Spirit", and this can be much the same as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (IMHO).

Thoughts?

Ave Maria said:

I would not want to become Orthodox because they reject the truth of the Papacy. They also have some other differences from Catholicism that I do not agree with.

Click to expand...

What are those?

ebia said:

Clearly not. If there were a knock-down obvious proof from scripture the issue would never have arisen.

Of course the Filioque represents at least two separate issues:
1. Is it true to say it?
2. Even if 1, Was is acceptable for it to be added without the agreement of the whole church?

Click to expand...

Excellent point.

Also, both the Orthodox and RCC do not rely solely on scripture and both are interpreters of scripture. Both rely on what the Apostles gave them. Even of the Apostles were not the same and the deposit may have varied a little in amount given. That should be considered. After all, there has to be an open minded consideration that the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church may not have received some of the Apostolic teachings or that the Roman Patriarch held more of the teachings. Rome was where the Early Church looked to for doctrinal reliability because of Peter and Paul and it was not solely that Rome was the hub of it all.

I stopped at LadyBug's post that what the Catholic Church has was not during the Apostolic times.
Now i wont say i know what the East does, but my brother attends the EC and so far i see no one lounging around eating a feast.

Back in the times of the Apostles, the wealthy would bring food to the assembly and the poor would be 'pigging out' so to speak - and did so during the 'Eucharist' and missed out on the Eucharist.
Ergo Paul said - if you are hungry - go home to eat.

Apostolic times had deacons and Bishops. I am inclined to disagree that presbyters were not priests. Scholars dont know for sure.... but anyway - i am letting you all know - NO ONE today practices as they did during Apostolic times.

Sure the East follows the St James Liturgy once a year. Where everything is repeated 3 times. But no one does that...
AND guess what - it doesnt matter.

Pay attention to this one thing - those who want a sterile understanding of Christian worship....

JESUS Who we know and agree is God - stood before all of them and said that GOD the FATHER chose to put the confession into Peter's mouth.
NOW you all might not realize something - not only did Jesus specify the confession but He was distinctly showing them that the Father made the choice who would have the TRUTH in their mouth.

Moreover; IF you all want to restart the Church back to Apostolic times - you will lose plenty of practices - including the WAY we sign ourselves.
Back in the day - it was a simple sign on the forehead. NOW both East and West make over the head and heart area.

How many genuflect? We do this and have done this since the Middle Ages. We - the CC - do due reverence to Our King in the building - by putting our right leg down to signify humbleness. Anyone with the right knee down is unprepared for a fight and ergo - it is humility.

You have to study the practices - you have to comprehend the OT. You have to understand - the Lord said to Peter...

WHATSOEVER YOU HOLD BOUND IS HELD BOUND IN HEAVEN - WHATSOEVER YOU HOLD LOOSED IS HELD LOOSED IN HEAVEN.

Ie - whatever practice is fine. If you wish to triple the verses - ok.
If you do not - ok.

But moreover; Christ said to Peter - feed My sheep - My lambs. Confirm thy brethren.
IE - YOU Peter - are the teacher of all. Including the brethren.

That charism has not changed for when the Lord speaks it is for all time.

In the beginning of the Church up until the council of Jerusalem, the Church was Jewish converts. Paul came along and went out to preach to the gentiles. BUT wait - Peter said 'It is by MY mouth the Gentiles shall learn.'

That was prophetic on two accords....it had double meaning.

1- Paul would be the voice of Peter who was leader of the Church.
2- Peter would be stationed in the Gentile nation as his chair forever more.





WE will never see the practices of the 1st century because they were just beginning. And as God allowed the Pope to use whatever practice at his disposal for any generation of time - it is NOT for all intents and purposes the practices that make or break the faith.

IT IS THE TEACHINGS.

If you need aesthetics - there is plenty anywhere you look. Anglicans have it too.

You have to measure what is truth - what was strictly handed down - BY the Apostles in matters of teaching that counts. Nothing else trumps this..... nothing.

AND as i said it before - the first PROMISE Christ made to the Church was Peter's chair.

Anything after that - well i cant see why ppl just dont understand that highly important issue. Without Peter - there really is no Church per say.
There is - but it has no authority to move on and teach by God what is necessary for the people.

Also - i mean practices such as chastity - Liturgy so long as the words remain the same. Even if the words are in the vernacular.

AND another thing - the Apostles had a simple alter at the center of worship and people sat down during the Homily on the ground.
Yes, they sat down.

So if the CC adopted pews, so what??
It was impractical in their time to establish pews. Especially since they were on the move and their Bishops were in hiding at homes or the catacombs.

We become quite sterilized if we think we can go back to that. We lose the point of the Church if we think it is in practice only that we can receive Christ - because it is in His establishment - His Chair of Peter first and foremost that the Church begins.

Times change - the Liturgy - no matter what language - does not - or all would be practicing in either Greek or Aramaic. Not in Russian, Ukrainian, English, Latin....
It is not about the language or the Apostles would not have spoken in each persons tongue the day of Pentecost.

It is primarily the teachings that are always going to be handed down by the Chair of Peter for the brethren and the sheep [laity]

Teachings - i cannot stress this fact enough.

Lady Bug said:

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.

Click to expand...

The EO - well, they cannot continue to teach outside the parameters of the already established teachings derived through out the ages through the Chair of Peter. But they hold the practical truth from ancient times. [which does not always meet the needs of the current issues]
BUT they cannot change anything to meet the current heresies so long as they do not allow or follow the Chair of Peter who is in fact the Teacher - chosen by the Father and Christ Who are One.

This is why when questions arise - it is to remain a mystery.

But there really is no mystery - because the Church was set here to always give the truth. In every generation for all times. That is the point of the Church as well as give us sacraments...to edify our souls.

The EO are correct to say - they do not know and it is a mystery because they cannot define truth. They have the sacraments. They have the edifying Eucharist - but if you want truth - if you seek answers - there is one place that Christ rest this on.

In this way - if ever someone is searching the truth - He did not hide it - He did not leave it to the individual to decide - He did not abandon us in our need - and the need to know is significant for without which heresy occurs.

IF we did not need the Teacher in all generations - then through out history - heresy would still would be with us. And if heresy did not matter - why set up a truth at all?

Our times are no different than in ancient times. People come up with new false teachings every century. Every single century hundreds crop up.
Some are recycled - some are more diverse.

And as we see - or should see - the time for teaching and a teacher is ongoing. It wont stop til time stops.
So long as strange doctrines can occur - the Chair of Peter still stands. And humans will always come up with crazy formulas. Always.

And the gates of hell shall NOT prevail - is the promise to Peter. To Peter and his chair. Historically this is a known fact by East and West.

So we cannot say where is truth? It is where Christ said it would remain.

Look to Peter.

It is that simple.



No offense to the EO. I like them, i do. I appreciate they have untainted sacraments. I appreciate they are our estranged brethren. But the fact is the truth remains with the chair.

JacktheCatholic said:

I think the Orthodox can understand the Filioque as they currently understand the Father's relationship with the Son and Holy Spirit.

Imagine a triangle and that is the Trinity.

This thing with the Filioque seems like an issue of having a council where the Orthodox Patriarchs were not present and the Patriarch of Rome made a Church wide decision without the full consent of all the Patriarchs. The contention may be one where the Orthodox do not believe the proper protocols were followed and there are underlying reasons that if accepted would be support of more than a Primacy with the Patriarch of Rome, a plausible acceptance of a Supremacy. On this alone, I think the Orthodox Church would balk at accepting the Filioque.

But, as is stated here, "the Son sends the Spirit", and this can be much the same as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (IMHO).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Hey Jack, good to see you

It is my understanding that Orthodox make a distinction between the eternal procession of the Spirit (which is from the Father alone, which describes the inner relationship of the Trinity) and the temporal "mission", whereby the Son sends the Spirit into the earth, which describes how the Trinity relates to us and the rest of creation.

I agree that the fact the other patriarchs weren't there when the council decision was made didn't help things...

Ortho_Cat said:

Hey Jack, good to see you

It is my understanding that Orthodox make a distinction between the eternal procession of the Spirit (which is from the Father alone, which describes the inner relationship of the Trinity) and the temporal "mission", whereby the Son sends the Spirit into the earth, which describes how the Trinity relates to us and the rest of creation.

I agree that the fact the other patriarchs weren't there when the council decision was made didn't help things...

Click to expand...

It is good to see you too.

Let add that I am asking for the Orthodox pov here and know that it can and likely will be different than the RCC. I add this caveat so you can state more without breaking rules.

So...

I am no Theologian and make no claims to have any special knowledge or wisdom here, but couldn't it be that the Orthodox and the RCC understand the workings of the Trinity in the same way and that the Filioque is a misunderstanding?

If so, then the real issue is one of authority and amount of authority among the Patriarchs.

JacktheCatholic said:

I am no Theologian and make no claims to have any special knowledge or wisdom here, but couldn't it be that the Orthodox and the RCC understand the workings of the Trinity in the same way and that the Filioque is a misunderstanding?

If so, then the real issue issue is one of authority and amount of authority among the Patriarchs.

Click to expand...

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.