Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[JacktheCatholic]

Eh?

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

Yes.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I'll try to look it up. I can't find my book of councils right now. I will have to exercise my google-fu.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Eh?

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

Yes - He was eternal before begotten.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The term begotten not made - was used to counter a heresy [forget which one] in that Christ was not created - only begotten of the flesh - but was eternal before the flesh.

If this helps to understand what i was saying.

 

[steve_bakr]

Yes - He was eternal before begotten.

"Begotten of the Father before all ages."

 

[ebia]

The term begotten not made - was used to counter a heresy [forget which one] in that Christ was not created - only begotten of the flesh - but was eternal before the flesh.

If this helps to understand what i was saying.

Not really. The creed says "eternally begotten", not "eternal, then begotten".

 

[Needing_Grace]

Yes - He was eternal before begotten.

"Et en unun Dominum Iesu Christum
Filio Dei unigenitum et ex patre natum ante omnia saecula."

Word for word, slavishly literal translation:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ
Son of God only-begotten and born of the Father before all worlds/ages."

The Son is begotten eternally of the Father. In other words, He was begotten before creation, at the moment of creation of the cosmos, at the moment of the creation of man, at the moment of the fall, at the moment of the call of Abraham, at the moment of the exile in Egypt, at the moment of the Conquest of Canaan, at the moment David was naughty with Bathsheba, at the moment Israel was taken captive into Babylon, at the moment He was conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, at the moment of His birth, at the moment He was found in the Temple...

He is always being begotten at every moment in time and in eternity.

How it works is a HUGE mystery, but it's God. All we can do is:

 

[Joshua G.]

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.

This is not at all what mystery is for the Orthodox. Perhaps that's our fault. Maybe we have abused it in some posts? Mystery is not just that which we cannot know, but it is that which we cannot comprehend. Some things will remain a mystery in the age to come as well because we aren't God.

I would agree with you that making a decision on a matter of faith would be more complicated. I appreciate that point more than you think. But I respectfully add that I don't think we are missing any clarity in not having the doctrine of the filioque. That doesn't make your point about difficulty in holding a Council moot, but since we are talking about the filioque in these later posts, I figured I would add that.

For those wondering about the filioque, I think it would be more appropriate to start a thread in TAW nd if you wish to play Pope's advocate, which I respect, put it in the debate thread.

Josh

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This is not at all what mystery is for the Orthodox. Perhaps that's our fault. Maybe we have abused it in some posts? Mystery is not just that which we cannot know, but it is that which we cannot comprehend. Some things will remain a mystery in the age to come as well because we aren't God.

I would agree with you that making a decision on a matter of faith would be more complicated. I appreciate that point more than you think. But I respectfully add that I don't think we are missing any clarity in not having the doctrine of the filioque. That doesn't make your point about difficulty in holding a Council moot, but since we are talking about the filioque in these later posts, I figured I would add that.

For those wondering about the filioque, I think it would be more appropriate to start a thread in TAW nd if you wish to play Pope's advocate, which I respect, put it in the debate thread.

Josh

Thanks Josh for adding that.

A bit of caution would be to use "St Justin Martyr's corner" because then you can have difference of opinions and open discussion of the differences. Otherwise, like in OBOB, you are limited to questions and will not be able to dispute or even clarify any possible misunderstandings you feel the Orthodox have. And, in the Orthodox forum there are a few that will push you there, if you know what I mean.

So, when you get to TAW, make a right turn and go to St Justin's: http://www.christianforums.com/f827/

There they allow debate, something OBOB does not have. If we did, I think GT would shut down. LOL

 

[Joshua G.]

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.

I disagree. Well, kind of.

First of all, and I could be wrong, Toledo was not specific enough so as to make doctrine a heretical view (as the Orthodox see it) of the filioque and even if they did, is it clear that the Pope dogmatized this in a "heretical" way.

Here's the thing. We agree that the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Son... proceed from a Latin perspective of procedere a very general word which does not reflect the more specific Greek word (ἐκπορευόμενο&#957 that necessarily expressed the idea of "having one's origin in".

We do expressly deny as a heresy the idea that the Holy Spirit finds its origin in the Son. And while there is no dobut that this concept is tolerated and even supported in the RC, I have not found where this particular understanding is dogmatized.

As an example, certainly before the two natures of Christ were defined there were unwitting Nestorians in the Church. But they didn't know. And parts of teh Church taught it in good conscience even though they were wrong. So, if I am right that this more Augustinian view of the Trinity, while supported, was not dogmatized but rather the words were dogmatized.

So, if the RC could ever say "what we recognize as being the only valid understanding of the filioque is being that the Spirit proceeds fromt he Father and the Son, proceeds not having anything to do with origin but as an act that only God could perform like Christ sending his Spirit. Furthermore, we also recognize the essential truth of the original Creed that teaches us that the Spirit originates uniquely from God the Father."

The Creeds in this way both express different truths and very different uses of the word procedere and then I don't see this being such an issue.

That's a big thing to suggest, but if I am right on what has and has not actually been dogmatized then this is very possible even if very unlikely.

Josh

 

[fhansen]

I disagree. Well, kind of.

First of all, and I could be wrong, Toledo was not specific enough so as to make doctrine a heretical view (as the Orthodox see it) of the filioque and even if they did, is it clear that the Pope dogmatized this in a "heretical" way.

Here's the thing. We agree that the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Son... proceed from a Latin perspective of procedere a very general word which does not reflect the more specific Greek word (ἐκπορευόμενο&#957 that necessarily expressed the idea of "having one's origin in".

We do expressly deny as a heresy the idea that the Holy Spirit finds its origin in the Son. And while there is no dobut that this concept is tolerated and even supported in the RC, I have not found where this particular understanding is dogmatized.

As an example, certainly before the two natures of Christ were defined there were unwitting Nestorians in the Church. But they didn't know. And parts of teh Church taught it in good conscience even though they were wrong. So, if I am right that this more Augustinian view of the Trinity, while supported, was not dogmatized but rather the words were dogmatized.

So, if the RC could ever say "what we recognize as being the only valid understanding of the filioque is being that the Spirit proceeds fromt he Father and the Son, proceeds not having anything to do with origin but as an act that only God could perform like Christ sending his Spirit. Furthermore, we also recognize the essential truth of the original Creed that teaches us that the Spirit originates uniquely from God the Father."

The Creeds in this way both express different truths and very different uses of the word procedere and then I don't see this being such an issue.

That's a big thing to suggest, but if I am right on what has and has not actually been dogmatized then this is very possible even if very unlikely.

Josh

It's a very good question. How could either God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit have origin? I would doubt that's a RC position.

 

[Joshua G.]

Thanks Josh for adding that.

A bit of caution would be to use "St Justin Martyr's corner" because then you can have difference of opinions and open discussion of the differences. Otherwise, like in OBOB, you are limited to questions and will not be able to dispute or even clarify any possible misunderstandings you feel the Orthodox have. And, in the Orthodox forum there are a few that will push you there, if you know what I mean.

So, when you get to TAW, make a right turn and go to St Justin's: http://www.christianforums.com/f827/

There they allow debate, something OBOB does not have. If we did, I think GT would shut down. LOL

Exactly. It's hard to answer questions with all candor in here nto because I have ever been absrudly cesored here that I can remember, but because I want to remain respectful that's a hard balance, especially when one side has the home court advantage of being able to be perfectly open.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Exactly. It's hard to answer questions with all candor in here nto because I have ever been absrudly cesored here that I can remember, but because I want to remain respectful that's a hard balance, especially when one side has the home court advantage of being able to be perfectly open.

Yes. It is nice that TAW has the debate area too. But, you are probably aware how many threads turn in to us vs the RCC threads in GT, so a debate area here would be "popular." lol

But, if we are to ask you questions then St Justin Martyr's corner is an excellent locale.

 

[April Angel]

I was raised a Catholic for most of my life. My wife and I, around six years ago, started seriously questioning the Catholic Church's claims in several areas, most notably--infallibility, papal supremacy, indulgences, the "treasury of merit," and the gross liturgical abuses we see in our area that run rampant. We have been looking into the Orthodox Church for the better part of 9 months now. The liturgy is first rate, totally unspoiled by modernity and Protestant influences. Their theology is very much like the what the Fathers taught, and despite the black cloud of communism and Islam, Orthodoxy has been able to stay consistent and true to its values and liturgy and traditions all over the world in vast and varied lands.

If I become Orthodox, and there's a strong probability at this point that I will, I will do so kicking and screaming because I have loved and adored the Catholic Church for most of my life. I have tried to give Catholicism every chance, every opportunity, but I'm just not buying into the teachings and historical claims.

I guess my question is this---why are you Catholic and not Orthodox? For the sake of argument, pretend an Orthodox parish is just down your street and so is a Catholic one. Why do you choose Catholicism over Holy Orthodoxy?

I ask this not as a challenge or to argue or smear the Catholic Church. In fact, I'm truly asking for input as to why I should stay Catholic and not go Orthodox? I'm not trying to debate either. Far from it. I'd just like to know your reasons for the choice. I'd like some food for thought.

Blessings to all.

My reasons for not being Orthodox (I have considered it) are:

1. Having to give up the Rosary
2. Receiving communion on a spoon
3. Three hour services
4. In my area: too difficult to find an Orthodox Church.

 

[Joshua G.]

There are many Catholics who pray the Rosary. I guess there is some mystery that doesn;t jive so I've heard, but I don't even know tat to really be the case. I used to pray the Rosary as an Orthodox. I don't do it now just because... I don't.

Not saying 'therefore you should become Orthodox'. Just saying that it's not an actual reason from trusted source I have heard speak to it.

Also, Liturgy at my Church is an hour and a half tops, excluding Easter. But I have heard that some parishes have longer ones. I have never actually seen a family parish do three-hour services on a regular Sunday. Methinks that, along with fear of the rosary, is internet folklore more than reality.

2 is true unless you were fortunate enough to find a Western Rite Orthodox parish but that is not easy to find (they often do the Rosary although I think some of the mysteries are tweaked a bit.)

4... I just built one down the street from your house... and it's Western Rite and their services are only and hour and ten minutes long and they pray Rosary every Wed, Friday and Saturday together.

There, will you become Orthodox now?


Josh

 

[MKJ]

It's a very good question. How could either God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit have origin? I would doubt that's a RC position.

Yes, they can in the context of the interior relationship of the Trinity.

FWIW, as an Anglican I was taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but to say that the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son is incorrect.

 

[April Angel]

There are many Catholics who pray the Rosary. I guess there is some mystery that doesn;t jive so I've heard, but I don't even know tat to really be the case. I used to pray the Rosary as an Orthodox. I don't do it now just because... I don't.

Not saying 'therefore you should become Orthodox'. Just saying that it's not an actual reason from trusted source I have heard speak to it.

Also, Liturgy at my Church is an hour and a half tops, excluding Easter. But I have heard that some parishes have longer ones. I have never actually seen a family parish do three-hour services on a regular Sunday. Methinks that, along with fear of the rosary, is internet folklore more than reality.

2 is true unless you were fortunate enough to find a Western Rite Orthodox parish but that is not easy to find (they often do the Rosary although I think some of the mysteries are tweaked a bit.)

4... I just built one down the street from your house... and it's Western Rite and their services are only and hour and ten minutes long and they pray Rosary every Wed, Friday and Saturday together.

There, will you become Orthodox now?


Josh

Thanks. I'll look out for a Western Rite Orthodox where I live. But I think the nearest one is about 10 miles from where I live, unfortunately. Worth looking into it, though. Thanks.

 

[Erose]

I'll try to look it up. I can't find my book of councils right now. I will have to exercise my google-fu.

Thanks Gwen.

 

[Erose]

I disagree. Well, kind of.

First of all, and I could be wrong, Toledo was not specific enough so as to make doctrine a heretical view (as the Orthodox see it) of the filioque and even if they did, is it clear that the Pope dogmatized this in a "heretical" way.

Here's the thing. We agree that the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Son... proceed from a Latin perspective of procedere a very general word which does not reflect the more specific Greek word (ἐκπορευόμενο&#957 that necessarily expressed the idea of "having one's origin in".

We do expressly deny as a heresy the idea that the Holy Spirit finds its origin in the Son. And while there is no dobut that this concept is tolerated and even supported in the RC, I have not found where this particular understanding is dogmatized.

As an example, certainly before the two natures of Christ were defined there were unwitting Nestorians in the Church. But they didn't know. And parts of teh Church taught it in good conscience even though they were wrong. So, if I am right that this more Augustinian view of the Trinity, while supported, was not dogmatized but rather the words were dogmatized.

So, if the RC could ever say "what we recognize as being the only valid understanding of the filioque is being that the Spirit proceeds fromt he Father and the Son, proceeds not having anything to do with origin but as an act that only God could perform like Christ sending his Spirit. Furthermore, we also recognize the essential truth of the original Creed that teaches us that the Spirit originates uniquely from God the Father."

The Creeds in this way both express different truths and very different uses of the word procedere and then I don't see this being such an issue.

That's a big thing to suggest, but if I am right on what has and has not actually been dogmatized then this is very possible even if very unlikely.

Josh

Joshua, we Catholics still accept the council of Florence as an Ecumenical council even though it was latter rejected by the Orthodox church. So this still applies to us as Catholics:

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)

 

[WarriorAngel]

There they allow debate, something OBOB does not have. If we did, I think GT would shut down. LOL

That's true... our debate area would be so lit up it would like a Christmas tree.

Exactly. It's hard to answer questions with all candor in here nto because I have ever been absrudly cesored here that I can remember, but because I want to remain respectful that's a hard balance, especially when one side has the home court advantage of being able to be perfectly open.

You asked me a while ago to go in and post and i did quickly AND made the exit just as expediently.

I am more comfortable in Apostolic Churches because it is a place for discussion for all the AC.

And i learned from TAW when i burned. Tis why you never see me and only ever so rarely.