OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 04:35:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Which obstacles?  (Read 10795 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« on: May 31, 2007, 11:04:32 AM »

The question is often asked, What stands in the way of full communion between the RC and EO Churches? And a number of satisfactory answers to this question are readily supplied -- issues like the filioque, papal primacy/supremacy, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, the number of ecumenical councils, etc.

But I'd like to ask something which is rarely asked and even more rarely answered: What obstacles stand in the way of the RC and EO Churches having the kind of "sister church" relationship that the EO and OO Churches currently have?

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 709


St. George


« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2007, 01:10:50 PM »

Representative theologians and clergymen from both the RCC and the EO have proclaimed each other as "sister churches."  The agreements made at Balamand, Lebanon comes to mind, but I'm sure other more recent examples may be found. 

Unfortunately, I see several problems.  The Latin Church still sees herself exclusively as the Catholic Church.  She still refers to other churches (such as the Eastern Catholic Churches) only in relation to the Latin Church, which is equated by many Latin Catholics with the Catholic Church.  A communion of churches ecclesiology must needs be better stressed.  The Latin Church also, traditionally, sees herself, her Pope, her bishops, the theology they all profess and the liturgy they offer as THE Catholic faith, any difference or deviation from which is an indication that one is not fully Catholic.  Yes, there is lip service paid to the equal status of the Eastern rites, but in reality, in practice, Latin Catholics commonly view the Eastern traditions as not as developed (and therefore not as profound or completely true) as the Latin traditions.  In order for the Latin Church to regard the Eastern Churches as sister Churches and not as daughter churches, she needs to better appreciate and accept the full legitimacy of Eastern traditions, as well as the Eastern mindset, which baffles those Western Christians who want to know everything in precise details and who see mystery as obfuscation.     

The Orthodox Church, on its part, would have to recognize that there exists a legitimate Western Orthodoxy that is different in many respects from Eastern Orthodoxy.  The Eastern Orthodox Church would have to allow this theological and liturgical plurality to take place. 
« Last Edit: May 31, 2007, 01:15:03 PM by StGeorge » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,241



« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2007, 02:36:05 PM »

The agreements made at Balamand, Lebanon comes to mind, but I'm sure other more recent examples may be found. 

The Balamand agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on.  Many EO hierarchs, from jurisdictions whose representatives signed the document, have either ignored it or condemned.

On the other hand, publication of the Balamand Agreement was met with undisguised criticism—not only on the part of Orthodox traditionalists, but even among hierarchs and clergy belonging to those Churches which were signatories to the Agreement; some of these were frankly appalled, even embarrassed. Bishop Antoun (Antiochian Archdiocese) told this writer, in outraged tones, that this Agreement "is of no effect," that it is "nothing," that it has in fact been given "no authority," and should be viewed as if it had never happened. This, in spite of the fact the Agreement was signed by official representatives or delegates of nine Orthodox Churches, including the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Moscow, and Romania! Today's Ecumenism...and the "Still, Small Voice", by Priest Alexey [now Hieromonk Ambrose] Young,  Orthodox America, No. 132.  


It has been denounced for what it really is, allowing universal papal supremacy in through the back door and the continued existence of the Eastern Rite Catholic (Unia) parishes in traditionally Orthodox countries to bring the EO under the sole leadership of the Pope of Rome.

Here are some other critiques:

From the monks of Athos: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/athos_bal.aspx
From the Center of Traditionalist Orthodox Studies:  http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand.pdf
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2007, 10:39:45 PM »

Representative theologians and clergymen from both the RCC and the EO have proclaimed each other as "sister churches."  The agreements made at Balamand, Lebanon comes to mind, but I'm sure other more recent examples may be found. 

The Balamand agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on.  Many EO hierarchs, from jurisdictions whose representatives signed the document, have either ignored it or condemned.

It wasn't my intention to start an argument about whether the RC and EO Churches are "sister churches" already -- much less an argument about whether the Balamand Statement was a step forward or a step backward (or a flat-out travesty). So let's change the question to simply "What obstacles stand in the way of the RC and EO Churches having the kind of relationship that the EO and OO Churches currently have?" (I think we can all agree that RCs and EOs do not yet have that kind of relationship.)

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2007, 10:42:09 PM »

Unfortunately, I see several problems.  The Latin Church still sees herself exclusively as the Catholic Church.  She still refers to other churches (such as the Eastern Catholic Churches) only in relation to the Latin Church, which is equated by many Latin Catholics with the Catholic Church.

Certainly there are many uninformed Catholics out there, just as there are uninformed Orthodox. Yes, you could undoubtedly find Catholics who are completely aware of the EC Churches -- and you could also find some who believe that VCI said that the pope is infallible whenever he says anything about faith or morals, or who are unaware that the filioque was a later addition to the creed, etc. Are we supposed to be surprised at the existence of such people?

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,241



« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2007, 11:39:46 PM »

It wasn't my intention to start an argument about whether the RC and EO Churches are "sister churches" already -- much less an argument about whether the Balamand Statement was a step forward or a step backward (or a flat-out travesty). So let's change the question to simply "What obstacles stand in the way of the RC and EO Churches having the kind of relationship that the EO and OO Churches currently have?" (I think we can all agree that RCs and EOs do not yet have that kind of relationship.)

I hope you understand that, from my perspective, the Balamand agreement is an obstacle simply because it has been both endorsed and repudiated by EO hierarchs in jurisdictions whose leaders did sign it.  An obstacle to unity is simply that there is no singular EO consensus (or RC, for that matter) on what would it would take for there to be actual unity.  Statements such as the Balamand agreement only give more and more ground to the RC, which is then either condemned by hierarchs of the EO or the monks of Mt. Athos or given approval by various Patriarchs.   The Orthodox need to get their house (with regards to ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, not in terms of the faith) in order first, BEFORE any discussion of unity with other churches is even considered.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
JSOrthodoxy
Orthodox Antiochian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2007, 10:31:15 AM »

I hope you understand that, from my perspective, the Balamand agreement is an obstacle simply because it has been both endorsed and repudiated by EO hierarchs in jurisdictions whose leaders did sign it.  An obstacle to unity is simply that there is no singular EO consensus (or RC, for that matter) on what would it would take for there to be actual unity.  Statements such as the Balamand agreement only give more and more ground to the RC, which is then either condemned by hierarchs of the EO or the monks of Mt. Athos or given approval by various Patriarchs.   The Orthodox need to get their house (with regards to ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, not in terms of the faith) in order first, BEFORE any discussion of unity with other churches is even considered.

How does the Balamand agreement give more ground to papal supremacy? How is it an attempt to smuggle papal supremacy into Orthodoxy through the backdoor?  I just read the fulltext of the document and I don't see any of that.  What I did see what a rejection of "uniatism" as a means of reunion, a rejection of unjust civil and religious actions to manipulate and disrespect religious freedom, and a statement recognizing the Christianity and spirituality of each Church.  The only problem that I see is a lack of clarification of that ambiguous term "Sister Churches"
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,241



« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2007, 12:11:15 PM »

How does the Balamand agreement give more ground to papal supremacy? How is it an attempt to smuggle papal supremacy into Orthodoxy through the backdoor?  I just read the fulltext of the document and I don't see any of that. 

In the Papal decree Mystici corporis Christi, the RCC pronounce that if one is not faithful to the Pope, that person is not faithful to Christ.  With that, we see throughout the document (i.e Balamand agreement) an implicit recognition of heresies of the RCC that the hierarchs of the EO thought could coexist alongside Orthodox correct teaching, namely, filioque and papal supremacy. Since these heresies were advanced by the Pope of Rome and proclaimed as dogma by him, the recognition of the RCC as a "sister church" of the Body of Christ by the EO essentially gives any pope authority to make dogmatic statements and still be a "sister church" to the EO.  One cannot be in communion with the Orthodox while thinking he has the authority to create doctrine.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2007, 11:30:10 PM »

No pope, nor anyone else, for that matter, has the authority to "create doctrine."
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,241



« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2007, 01:48:52 PM »

No pope, nor anyone else, for that matter, has the authority to "create doctrine."

You are absolutely correct.  I probably meant to say "formulate" rather than "create."  However, the sad reality is that the Papacy has "created" doctrines which are outside the phronema patron and have no witness until they were created.  Of course, I refer specifically to such things as 1) papal supremacy 2) insertion of the filioque 3) the dogma of the immaculate conception 4) purgatory 5) created grace, etc.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2007, 10:03:38 PM »

Sorry, but that is mistaken. The popes did not pull those teachings out of their mitres like rabbits. They all have long pedigrees. I am always amused when some polemical Orthodox present the Immaculate Conception as dating to 1853, implying that somehow Bl. Pius IX just dreamed it up one day a hundred and fifty years ago. The same for the Assumption and other dogmas. Popes don't just create new doctrines. Any pope who believed that would be a heretic.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2007, 10:47:09 PM »

Sorry, but that is mistaken. The popes did not pull those teachings out of their mitres like rabbits. They all have long pedigrees. I am always amused when some polemical Orthodox present the Immaculate Conception as dating to 1853, implying that somehow Bl. Pius IX just dreamed it up one day a hundred and fifty years ago. The same for the Assumption and other dogmas. Popes don't just create new doctrines. Any pope who believed that would be a heretic.

It is Blasphemy against our Lady in any case Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2007, 02:36:28 AM »

Sorry, but that is mistaken. The popes did not pull those teachings out of their mitres like rabbits. They all have long pedigrees. I am always amused when some polemical Orthodox present the Immaculate Conception as dating to 1853, implying that somehow Bl. Pius IX just dreamed it up one day a hundred and fifty years ago. The same for the Assumption and other dogmas. Popes don't just create new doctrines. Any pope who believed that would be a heretic.

But the point is not that these doctrines were pulled out of nowhere at the time that they were dogmatised that bothers us, but the fact that they were innovations. It doesn't matter one iota whether the Immaculate Conception was first suggested in 1853 or 853, what matters is that it clearly was not believed from the beginning. It, like the filioque and all the other things mentioned, is a later development and, as such, cannot be part of the faith delivered to the Apostles. You're quite right that Popes didn't pull them out of thin air but by trying to paint the issue in such black and white terms as it being either instant creation of dogma by a Pope or part of the faith delivered to the Apostles you make just as laughable an argument as those whose polemics you object to. Take the filioque. We know precisely when and why that was developed and we know that Popes of the time opposed it and continued to do so for centuries to differing degrees, so we're perfectly well aware that it existed prior to its insertion into the Latin creed - and clearly there is a very great difference, which you seem to wish obscure, between a belief held by certain adherents of a church and a dogma promulgated by that church.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2007, 08:29:33 AM »

If you believe all doctrines we hold today were expressed in apostolic times, then your argument is just as laughable as you claim mine to be. One of the reasons I did not become Orthodox was probably (I say probably because I did not intellectualize it) the failure to recognize development of doctrine. But then I've debated doctrinal development many times with Orthodox before, and I don't wish to continue.

(I must add that in Catholicism the filioque is not recognized as a development of doctrine.)
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 08:32:51 AM by lubeltri » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2007, 08:39:16 AM »

Quote
If you believe all doctrines we hold today were expressed in apostolic times, then your argument is just as laughable as you claim mine to be.

Yep.
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2007, 08:52:24 AM »

If you believe all doctrines we hold today were expressed in apostolic times, then your argument is just as laughable as you claim mine to be. One of the reasons I did not become Orthodox was probably (I say probably because I did not intellectualize it) the failure to recognize development of doctrine. But then I've debated doctrinal development many times with Orthodox before, and I don't wish to continue.

(I must add that in Catholicism the filioque is not recognized as a development of doctrine.)

I was talking of a dogma, not just any old doctrine. Rome has made dogmatic beliefs that are clearly innovations. Find me one dogma held to by Orthodoxy today that is not found in the writings of the early Fathers (to be clear, it need not be stated dogmatically to qualify - it's my contention that Rome has dogmatised beliefs that are completely absent in any form), and I'll take your claim a little more seriously. Note, as you clearly missed my point earlier, that I'm saying that in my opinion Rome has dogmatised doctrines that have no basis in the Apostolic faith. I do not believe that we have, but perhaps, rather than arguing against a point I never intended to make you could try to find one?

James
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 08:54:10 AM by jmbejdl » Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2007, 11:27:52 AM »

scamandrius and jmbejdl,

I might get myself into trouble by saying this, but I just don't see how RCs' saying "from the Father and the Son" in regard to the Holy Spirit is all that much different from OOs' saying "one nature" in regard to Christology.

Now I'm willing to grant that the formulas "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" are contradictory if the word "proceeds" means the same in both sentences -- in the same way that "one nature" and "two natures" are contradictory descriptions of Christ, if the word "nature" means the same in both.

But if the word "proceeds" (resp. "nature") means something different in the two statements, then it is possible for both to be correct. In particular, if "proceeds" is understood to mean "ekporeuetai", then it is correct to say "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone"; and if "proceeds" is understood to mean "proeisi", then it is correct to say "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son".

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,241



« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2007, 01:05:36 PM »

scamandrius and jmbejdl,

I might get myself into trouble by saying this, but I just don't see how RCs' saying "from the Father and the Son" in regard to the Holy Spirit is all that much different from OOs' saying "one nature" in regard to Christology.

Now I'm willing to grant that the formulas "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" are contradictory if the word "proceeds" means the same in both sentences -- in the same way that "one nature" and "two natures" are contradictory descriptions of Christ, if the word "nature" means the same in both.

But if the word "proceeds" (resp. "nature") means something different in the two statements, then it is possible for both to be correct. In particular, if "proceeds" is understood to mean "ekporeuetai", then it is correct to say "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone"; and if "proceeds" is understood to mean "proeisi", then it is correct to say "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son".

-PJ

PJ,

The argument about the filioque has been hashed and rehashed on this board for some time.  I really don't wish to get into it; not because I can't debate it, but because I really start to lose my charity and become a jerk.  You can do a search on the site for other threads which have discussed this doctrine.

But one thing I have to address is something that lubeltri once remarked (and he can correct me if I am mistaken) that when he is in a Latin rite RC church, he confesses the filioque but when an Eastern Rite RC, he confesses the creed without it, yet he says the same theology is present.  I don't see how the inclusion or the absence of this pivotal term, filioque, amounts to the same confession.  It cannot.

As for your other questions regarding nature, Christology and vocabulary, check the other threads that have already dealt with this.  But one thing I should emphasize is that the filioque controversy is NOT one of simply vocabulary.  I think there are too many people (not necessarily on this board) who want union and will attempt to say that vocabulary and language differences of Latin and Greek are to blame.  If only that were the case.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2007, 10:59:41 PM »

PJ,

The argument about the filioque has been hashed and rehashed on this board for some time.  I really don't wish to get into it; not because I can't debate it, but because I really start to lose my charity and become a jerk.  You can do a search on the site for other threads which have discussed this doctrine.

But one thing I have to address is something that lubeltri once remarked (and he can correct me if I am mistaken) that when he is in a Latin rite RC church, he confesses the filioque but when an Eastern Rite RC, he confesses the creed without it, yet he says the same theology is present.  I don't see how the inclusion or the absence of this pivotal term, filioque, amounts to the same confession.  It cannot.


As you wish.


I don't recall lubeltri's precise words, but for myself I would say that they express two different truths: that the Holy Spirit's ekporeusis is from the Father (alone), and that his proienai is from the Son as well.

As for using different creeds depending on whether it's a Latin-rite or Byzantine-rite church, let me just point out that is true for Liturgies in English (and Latin, French, Spanish ... ) but for Liturgies in Greek there is just one creed for use in any Catholic church, regardless of rite (and it doesn't have the "filioque" in it).


As for your other questions regarding nature, Christology and vocabulary, check the other threads that have already dealt with this. 

I'll look again, but I haven't seen any threads that explain how use of "from the Father and the Son" by RCs is different from the use of "one nature" by OOs. (Other than the obvious difference that OOs didn't modify the creed.)

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2007, 02:59:57 AM »

scamandrius and jmbejdl,

I might get myself into trouble by saying this, but I just don't see how RCs' saying "from the Father and the Son" in regard to the Holy Spirit is all that much different from OOs' saying "one nature" in regard to Christology.

Now I'm willing to grant that the formulas "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" are contradictory if the word "proceeds" means the same in both sentences -- in the same way that "one nature" and "two natures" are contradictory descriptions of Christ, if the word "nature" means the same in both.

But if the word "proceeds" (resp. "nature") means something different in the two statements, then it is possible for both to be correct. In particular, if "proceeds" is understood to mean "ekporeuetai", then it is correct to say "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone"; and if "proceeds" is understood to mean "proeisi", then it is correct to say "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son".

-PJ

I don't disagree completely. The problem here is that your argument does not defend the inclusion of the filioque in the Creed. The Greek means precisely "ekporeuetai" and not "proeisi", a fact which Rome clearly acknowledges by its not using the filioque in the Greek version. If it is the case that the Creed speaks only of eternal procession (and it is) in the original language in which it was written then any translation ought to conform to it. If, on the other hand, the meaning of the procession from the Son is temporal only then it is not heresy (as eastern Fathers have said also) but it should not be in the Creed (at least, not unless another Ecumenical Council is called to insert it). I would have no objection to reunion with Rome whilst the filioque, with a purely temporal understanding (so no eternal procession as of one principal as I've had quoted to me by some RCs), was professed outside the Creed, but I would have serious objections to any reunion with Rome while the filioque remains in the Creed. If Rome really means what many (but by no means all) RCs tell me she means then the filioque has no place in the Creed. That, to me, is the major difference between the semantic differences between EO and OO Christology and those between Latin and Greek Triadology.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2007, 10:48:36 AM »

I don't disagree completely. The problem here is that your argument does not defend the inclusion of the filioque in the Creed.

I think that Catholics have been defending the insertion of the filioque for so long that it has become inconceivable to many people (Catholics and Orthodox alike) that we should ever decide to go back to the original version. And yet, isn't that exactly what the North American joint commission recommended?

Personally, I agree with the commission's recommendations, i.e. I would like to see us go back to using the original creed -- although I respect the rights of my fellow Catholics to disagree with the commission (including a couple of Catholics on this forum).


If, on the other hand, the meaning of the procession from the Son is temporal only then it is not heresy (as eastern Fathers have said also) but it should not be in the Creed (at least, not unless another Ecumenical Council is called to insert it).

When Catholics speak of the proeisi/processio of the Holy Spirit from the Son, we certainly don't mean ekporeusis. But neither to do we mean only a temporal procession or sending. We are talking about the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit. (Orthodox typically prefer to translate proeisi as "eternal manifestation".

Quote from: the Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware
An eternal procession from Father and Son: such is the western position. An eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, a temporal mission from the Son: such was the position upheld by Saint Photius against the west. But Byzantine writers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries — most notably Gregory of Cyprus, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1283 to 1289, and Gregory Palamas — went somewhat further than Photius, in an attempt to bridge the gulf between east and west. They were willing to allow not only a temporal mission, but an eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit by the Son. While Photius had spoken only of a temporal relation between Son and Spirit, they admitted an eternal relation. Yet on the essential point the two Gregories agreed with Photius: the Spirit is manifested by the Son, but does not proceed from the Son. The Father is the unique origin, source, and cause of Godhead.
)

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,241



« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2007, 01:34:54 PM »

I think that Catholics have been defending the insertion of the filioque for so long that it has become inconceivable to many people (Catholics and Orthodox alike) that we should ever decide to go back to the original version. And yet, isn't that exactly what the North American joint commission recommended?

In spite of that, the RC theologians still defend the theology of the filioque,although for the sake of church "unity" they agree that it must be excised from any profession of the Creed, especially in public.  This, to my mind, is having your cake and eating it too.  If the filioqueis not in the creed, it should not be taught as dogma, and I believe the RCs will continue to do exactly that.  However, if the RCs would teach the doctrine of perichoresis, i.e. indwelling, which is maintained and taught in the phronema patronrather than eternal procession from the Son, which the insertion of the  filioque does, then I believe the RCs will have made a major step forward in admitting their error and further dialogue can continue.  But, again, to my mind, this is but the first of major overhauls the RC need to enact before any talk of communion can occur.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2007, 08:52:13 PM »

In spite of that, the RC theologians still defend the theology of the filioque,although for the sake of church "unity" they agree that it must be excised from any profession of the Creed, especially in public.  This, to my mind, is having your cake and eating it too. 

Sounds rather like you think that for Catholics to return to the original creed, without any other changes, would be worse than maintaining the status quo.

If the filioqueis not in the creed, it should not be taught as dogma,

I don't think that necessarily follows. Can you really say there is nothing you consider a dogma, but which isn't mentioned in the creed?

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,798


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2007, 10:45:53 PM »

The question is often asked, What stands in the way of full communion between the RC and EO Churches? And a number of satisfactory answers to this question are readily supplied -- issues like the filioque, papal primacy/supremacy, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, the number of ecumenical councils, etc.

But I'd like to ask something which is rarely asked and even more rarely answered: What obstacles stand in the way of the RC and EO Churches having the kind of "sister church" relationship that the EO and OO Churches currently have?

Adding to StGeorge's good answer in the second post in this thread I think it's to do with the OOs' obvious similarity to the EOs theologically (none of the post-schism Roman definitions of doctrine) and, to be honest, in practice/culture as brothers in the Christian East. (I'm afraid anti-Western cultural prejudice may come into it.) IOW if the row over Chalcedon was really only a big misunderstanding mired in imperial/anti-imperial politics (the Copts hating the Greek emperor and so on) and so the Miaphysites/OOs aren't really Monophysites then voilà: they're Orthodox who use different Eastern rites from the Byzantine.

BTW Fr Alexey/Ambrose (his name as a monk) Young is an ex-RC and so perhaps not the most objective/unbiased source on such matters.
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,907


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2007, 11:26:08 PM »

In spite of that, the RC theologians still defend the theology of the filioque,although for the sake of church "unity" they agree that it must be excised from any profession of the Creed, especially in public.  This, to my mind, is having your cake and eating it too.  If the filioqueis not in the creed, it should not be taught as dogma, and I believe the RCs will continue to do exactly that.  However, if the RCs would teach the doctrine of perichoresis, i.e. indwelling, which is maintained and taught in the phronema patronrather than eternal procession from the Son, which the insertion of the  filioque does, then I believe the RCs will have made a major step forward in admitting their error and further dialogue can continue.  But, again, to my mind, this is but the first of major overhauls the RC need to enact before any talk of communion can occur.

I never knew the RC church even taught the double procession of the Holy Spirit as dogma.  Maybe as theological opinion, but certainly not as dogma.  Or am I wrong?  Huh
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2007, 09:53:51 AM »

I never knew the RC church even taught the double procession of the Holy Spirit as dogma.  Maybe as theological opinion, but certainly not as dogma.  Or am I wrong?  Huh

My understanding is that RCs do, in fact, consider the filioque a dogma. (I won't attempt to address the terminology "double procession".)

There's also the condemnation against anyone who says otherwise, which was issued by the Second Council of Lyons (1274). BUT in considering that condemnation you should note that one of the recommendations from the 2003 joint statement was:

Quote from: North American Orthodox-Catholic theological consultation
that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable

Hope that helps.
-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2007, 11:36:46 AM »

I never knew the RC church even taught the double procession of the Holy Spirit as dogma.  Maybe as theological opinion, but certainly not as dogma.  Or am I wrong?  Huh

The Fourth Lateran Council, the Second council of Lyon, and the Council of Florence all mention the Holy Spirit and proceeding from the Father and the Son. 

Depending on how much weight you put into the Council of Florence, it was stated that:

Quote
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.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2007, 12:15:42 PM »

I don't think anything from Lyon or Florence has any traction whatsoever to us.
Basic point is...leaving the Creed unchanged in the first place would have prevented this 'obstacle'.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,241



« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2007, 12:52:08 PM »

Sounds rather like you think that for Catholics to return to the original creed, without any other changes, would be worse than maintaining the status quo.

As long as the RCs profess the original creed and still teach that the filioque is a theological error in that it does not recognize the arche anarchos, i.e. the monarcy of the Father, then this is not an obstacle.  But despite the retractations from of the Councils of Lyon and Florence which say that the condemnation against those who do not confess filioque is rescinded, the dogma is still taught in catecheism, in seminaries, etc.  The whole thing must be scrapped!

I don't think that necessarily follows. Can you really say there is nothing you consider a dogma, but which isn't mentioned in the creed?

The finer points of detail were clarified in ecumenical councils.  Given that the original Nicene Creed is said in nearly every Orthodox Liturgy and Prayer Office and because of its centrality in each of those, I think those succint three paragraphs provide well for our dogmatic needs.  We don't need to keep systematizing God with more and more dogmas, especially those which are alien to the phronema patron, the Holy Scriptures and the Ecumenical Councils.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #29 on: June 23, 2007, 07:54:21 AM »

OK, here's another question.

I recently read an article, linked from another thread, which talked about the distinction between secessions from the Church and divisions within the Church. (It can be found at http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/5endokladsavchenko.html )

Now I'm not going to ask whether which one the schism between RCs and EOs is, because it seems sufficiently clear that most people here consider it to be a secession; but I would like to ask: was there a time when it was not yet a secession, but only a division within the Church (e.g. following the mutual excommunications of Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Ceralarius in 1954)?

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #30 on: June 23, 2007, 09:02:10 AM »

Secession, division, schism...too many relative temporal terms for me to tackle this question.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #31 on: June 23, 2007, 06:49:25 PM »

Secession, division, schism...too many relative temporal terms for me to tackle this question.

The article describes the terms thus: "... Ecumenical and Local Councils ruled that these schismatic communities had nothing in common with the Body of the Church. However history also knows many divisions and reconciliations within the Church. Such divisions are essentially different from secessions from the Church. A secession from the Church takes place when heretics or schismatics are excommunicated or leave the Church themselves, while a division within the Church occurs when Orthodox Christians are divided. In a division within the Church both parties are Orthodox, both abide within the Church, although they may be split by machinations of false teachers, violent acts of civil authorities or matters which can eventually be reconciled and healed."

Hope that helps.
-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2007, 06:53:33 PM »

I would suggest that the East-West division was a "division within the Church" up until the Council of Florence, after which it became a matter of "secession".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2007, 07:14:49 PM »

I agree that the full break of communion did not occur until the Ottomans were in the picture.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2007, 09:13:53 PM »

I agree that the full break of communion did not occur until the Ottomans were in the picture.

?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,907


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #35 on: June 24, 2007, 04:31:56 AM »

?
From the Byzantine perspective, one of the finalizing acts of schism was the Latin ransacking of Constantinople in 1204, during the Fourth Crusade--I think, however, you may be thinking of something later.  To the credit of the RC church, Pope John Paul II apologized publicly for this travesty more than once.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #36 on: June 24, 2007, 10:43:26 AM »

From the Byzantine perspective, one of the finalizing acts of schism was the Latin ransacking of Constantinople in 1204, during the Fourth Crusade--I think, however, you may be thinking of something later.  To the credit of the RC church, Pope John Paul II apologized publicly for this travesty more than once.

Dear PeterTheAleut,

Let me say first that I don't intend to defend those crusaders or rationalize there evil actions.

Furthermore, I do agree that the negative impact of the Fourth Crusade on East-West relations was huge.

But in terms of category, I don't think the Fourth Crusade could change those relations from the "division within the Church" category to the "secession" category. In fact, I think the crusaders' actions fall precisely under "violent acts of civil authorities", as discussed by the article (see above quotation).

What say you?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2007, 10:50:51 AM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,907


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2007, 05:06:33 PM »

Dear PeterTheAleut,

Let me say first that I don't intend to defend those crusaders or rationalize there evil actions.

Furthermore, I do agree that the negative impact of the Fourth Crusade on East-West relations was huge.

But in terms of category, I don't think the Fourth Crusade could change those relations from the "division within the Church" category to the "secession" category. In fact, I think the crusaders' actions fall precisely under "violent acts of civil authorities", as discussed by the article (see above quotation).

What say you?
Let me read the article and think about it for a bit.  Smiley
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #38 on: June 24, 2007, 05:58:29 PM »

Let me read the article and think about it for a bit.  Smiley

Fair enough. Smiley FYI, most of the article enumerates various examples of divisions in history, except for the first four and last two paragraphs.

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,241



« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2007, 07:06:23 PM »

but I would like to ask: was there a time when it was not yet a secession, but only a division within the Church (e.g. following the mutual excommunications of Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Ceralarius in 1954)?

Some important points need to be made regarding the anathemas.  Cardinal Humbert's Bull of Excommunication had the seal of the pope who had been dead two weeks prior to him slapping it on the altar of Hagia Shopia.  Secondly, Kerularios' excommunication was onlydirected towards Humbert, his delegation and the pope while Humbert's Bull anethamatized the entire Eastern Church.  Of course, this was expanded later on in time.  So I guess you could argue that from Kerularios' perspective, there was a division within the Church.  However, from Humbert's perspective, there was secession of the Eastern Church.  Either way, it's splitting hairs and I don't believe that there can be division in a Church as it is the Body of Christ.  How can that be divided?  You are either part or you are not, not with them only when you want to be.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #40 on: June 24, 2007, 08:42:42 PM »

Some important points need to be made regarding the anathemas.  Cardinal Humbert's Bull of Excommunication had the seal of the pope who had been dead two weeks prior to him slapping it on the altar of Hagia Shopia.  Secondly, Kerularios' excommunication was onlydirected towards Humbert, his delegation and the pope while Humbert's Bull anethamatized the entire Eastern Church.  Of course, this was expanded later on in time. 

Both good points.

Of course, this was expanded later on in time.  So I guess you could argue that from Kerularios' perspective, there was a division within the Church.  However, from Humbert's perspective, there was secession of the Eastern Church.  Either way, it's splitting hairs and I don't believe that there can be division in a Church as it is the Body of Christ.  How can that be divided?  You are either part or you are not, not with them only when you want to be.

Well I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it's possible to be "with them only when you want to be". The article's position, as I understand it, is that there can be two groups that are both within the Church but not in full communion with each other (e.g. the ROCOR and MP until recently): "In a division within the Church both parties are Orthodox, both abide within the Church, although they may be split by machinations of false teachers, violent acts of civil authorities or matters which can eventually be reconciled and healed." (Of course, a lot of Catholics would disagree, claiming instead that anyone not in full communion with the pope is schismatic.)

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #41 on: June 24, 2007, 10:11:49 PM »

However, from Humbert's perspective, there was secession of the Eastern Church. 

No doubt he thought that. But I would certainly say he was mistaken. Wouldn't you?

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #42 on: June 24, 2007, 10:25:49 PM »

Quote
(Of course, a lot of Catholics would disagree, claiming instead that anyone not in full communion with the pope is schismatic.)

After trying to follow the line of reasoning both in this thread and that ROCOR article, I must say I'd agree with the Catholics above, except the other way around of course.
I'm a simple guy: out of communion = schism. Hindsight of a healed schism especially a short one seems to make them seem like 'divisions' or separations, but they are schisms no matter how long they persist.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2007, 10:27:47 PM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #43 on: June 25, 2007, 12:00:44 AM »

I'm a simple guy: out of communion = schism. Hindsight of a healed schism especially a short one seems to make them seem like 'divisions' or separations, but they are schisms no matter how long they persist.

I think that is a reasonable idea. In that case, though, I'd say that a crucial point is that which side is schismatic is not always obvious, even at the time of reconciliation.  For example, at the time of the reconciliation between Patriarch Photius and Pope John (it think it was) in the ninth century, neither side demanded that the other admit to having been schismatic during the previous years. (Of course, you might say it was obvious in the sense that it was obvious to each side that they were the true Church and that the other side wasn't.)

Similarly, I've not seen any statement from either the MP or the ROCOR saying "we been schismatics, but now we aren't".

-PJ
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #44 on: June 25, 2007, 01:39:47 AM »


Similarly, I've not seen any statement from either the MP or the ROCOR saying "we been schismatics, but now we aren't".

-PJ

Well, my opinion, when the ROCOR synod was formed neither 'side' was in schism, but truly separated for non- ecclesiastical reasons. Later, reasons that one or the other side could be viewed as in schism arose.

A different set of circumstances for the 9th century situation. The Orthodox view of that is St. Photios just wanted the Church back in order without finger pointing, even to the point of not pushing the Council of 879 as being the Ecumenical Council that it was.

From the outside, any schism produces at least two halves. Only those IN each half seek to assign the other as in schism (meaning, I guess, in error).
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Tags: filioque 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.151 seconds with 72 queries.