Latin Catholics Vs. Eastern Catholics

[Athanasios]

Hello,

I tend to agree with Papist's observation: it seems that the most "popular" Catholics posters are the ones who makes the most ultra-montane assertions. (Witness, for example, the "popularity" that Credo.InDeum and Athanasios have been enjoying at the St. John Chrysostom: Supporter of modern (Vatican I) Papal Primacy? thread.)

I didn't know I was vying in a popularity contest. They do love me, they really really love me. 

[Papist]

I didn't state that you are popular  , well, nobody hates you. 

I respect you for the strong stand you take, supporting your beliefs as you do. I also can agree that their is only one Truth. Many Orthodox feel just as strongly that we proclaim different Faiths (and for essentially the same reasons you might give).

I just don't agree with your choices...had you been Orthodox like your ancestors, I think we would get along great.  This is where I think you have spun out of orbit.

I don't agree with your choices.. had you been Catholic like your ancestors, I think we would get along great. This is where I think you have spun out of Orbit.

The early Latin church was Catholic, the modern one is not. We can discuss to infinity how that might have happened but the fact remains that it did.
The parts of your Communion which exhibit strong traces of it's former Orthodoxy are mostly clustered in the Byzantine-rite Particular churches and to some extent in the other Eastern Catholic Particular churches, but are a distinct minority even there. There is some trace in the Latin church, perhaps more in evidence in the monastic traditions to some extent...Cassian's children and Carmel's children...but it has been mostly suppressed over time.

The early Eastern Churchs in communion with the partriarchs of constantinople, jerusalem, antioch, etc. were Catholic, the modern ones are not. We can discuss to infinity how that might have happened but the fact remains that it did.
The parts of your Commuion which exibit strong traces of its former Catholicity are prevelant through out your Church. These include the sacraments, Apostolicity, and a true divine liturgy. Also, we can look at the Eastern Orthodox council of Jerusalem that occured after the protestant reformation that defines dogma in extremely Catholic terms. Unfortunately, this orthodox and Catholic leaning has been lost in the modern Eastern Orthodox Church due to a strong ani-Catholicism.
Unfortunately innovations such as the essence energies distinction, the hesychast movement, relegating to the bishop of Rome a primacy of nothing, and the rejection of our God given reason when dealing with theology have moved Eastern Orthodoxy further and further away from the true faith. It is extremely unfortunate that some Catholic Churches of the East are being dragged down into this. We need to stop trying to capitulate to the errors of Eastern Orthodoxy and profess a unified faith, the true faith, the Catholic faith for only truth will bring unity.

[AMM]

I heard the line out of Vegas is Latin Catholics by 6 1/2 over Eastern Catholics.

[scamandrius]

I don't agree with your choices.. had you been Catholic like your ancestors, I think we would get along great. We can discuss to infinity how that Unfortunately innovations such as the essence energies distinction, the hesychast movement, relegating to the bishop of Rome a primacy of nothing, and the rejection of our God given reason when dealing with theology have moved Eastern Orthodoxy further and further away from the true faith. It is extremely unfortunate that some Catholic Churches of the East are being dragged down into this. We need to stop trying to capitulate to the errors of Eastern Orthodoxy and profess a unified faith, the true faith, the Catholic faith for only truth will bring unity.

YAWN.

[Papist]

YAWN.

If you are sleepy, perhaps you should take a nap.

[Fr. George]

Unfortunately innovations such as the essence energies distinction, the hesychast movement, relegating to the bishop of Rome a primacy of nothing, and the rejection of our God given reason when dealing with theology have moved Eastern Orthodoxy further and further away from the true faith.

Take the debate to another thread.

We need to stop trying to capitulate to the errors of Eastern Orthodoxy and profess a unified faith, the true faith, the Catholic faith for only truth will bring unity. 

LOL.  The "errors of Eastern Orthodoxy?"  Obviously your own bishops consider your church to be the one in error, when they try to define the filioque differently than their predecessors did, and even omit it; when they now accept Palamism after erroneously rejecting it at first.

How did your bishops accept the strange teachings of the outcast Balsamon against the right-thinking Palamas when the disagreement broke out?  Oh, but then they changed their mind, so obviously they found their initial understanding to be in error.  How have your bishops changed the primacy of Rome from it's original beauty to the monster that it has become?  How have they mutated the understanding of the early Church (which was united in communion and understanding) into the non-apostolic see of today?

[Pravoslavbob]

Unfortunately innovations such as the essence energies distinction, the hesychast movement....

You should know better than to bring up Palamism again (without doing more research) when you have already had to eat your words once before on this forum concerning the issue.  What Cleveland says concerning Palamism is true.  (See the preface by Jaroslav Pelikan in GregoryPalamas: the Triads, New York:Paulist Press, 1983 , for more evidence on the growing acceptance of Palamism in the West.)  What's more, Eastern Catholics are now allowed to celebrate St. Greogry Palamas, and some do. 

Here's a little something for you to look at as a beginning when it comes to the Orthodox understanding of the Roman primacy (which is far from an "ïnnovation", as history reveals).

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14289.0.html

[Peter J]

Obviously your own bishops consider your church to be the one in error, when they try to define the filioque differently than their predecessors did, and even omit it;

I assume you're referring to the recommendation by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (2003) "that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use."

I most certainly support that recommendation, but I don't agree that it amounts to an admission that the Catholic Church is "in error". Rather, I would say that the Catholic members of the Consultation are "rediscovering" (for lack of a better word) the policy of Pope Leo III:

While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque , and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.

God bless,
Peter.

[Fr. George]

I assume you're referring to the recommendation by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (2003) "that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use."

I most certainly support that recommendation, but I don't agree that it amounts to an admission that the Catholic Church is "in error". Rather, I would say that the Catholic members of the Consultation are "rediscovering" (for lack of a better word) the policy of Pope Leo III. 

Well, that, and the fact that the Pope has in fact not said the filioque himself when in the room with the Orthodox.

Look, you might think it's all well and good to say that sometimes we can include it, and sometimes we don't have to, but that misses the mindset of the entire Eastern Church, as well as that of the Ecumenical Councils which collected and affirmed the Creed - the only things to be added are those which are necessary to the faith that can not be omitted; this is why the Synods directed that the Creed not be changed after the Second Ecumenical Council.

[Pravoslavbob]

I assume you're referring to the recommendation by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (2003) "that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use."

I most certainly support that recommendation, but I don't agree that it amounts to an admission that the Catholic Church is "in error". Rather, I would say that the Catholic members of the Consultation are "rediscovering" (for lack of a better word) the policy of Pope Leo III:

God bless,
Peter.

What you site is one example of the rehabilitation of the Creed "sans filioque" (excuse my mixture of French and Latin ) in the Western Chuch.  However, there was another quite long, somewhat convoluted article issued by a Vatican journal that seemed to basically state, IIRC, that "both the usage of the filioque and its non-usage are correct.  The Eastern Church was right to be somewhat disquited by its use, but its usage is still correct, because its usage doesn't mean what the Eastern Church was afraid it might mean."  I don't know if you've ever noticed this, but a pattern I detect in official and quasi-official proclamations from Vatican sources, whenever that source wants to supplant an earlier teaching is to say something like: "my goodness!  That teaching on such-and-such back in 1537 was so excellent.  However, we have something really excellent to say regarding this today, with a different emphasis that looks at another side of the issue..."  In this way, it seems that the Vatican can basically relegate earlier teachings to obscurity (or perhaps semi-obscurity)  if they wish, without denying that what was said was true.  

Cleveland may have something more to say on this issue, of course.  I don't remember the name of the Vatican journal where I saw the other thing on the filioque, unfortunately.

[Pravoslavbob]

Look, you might think it's all well and good to say that sometimes we can include it, and sometimes we don't have to, but that misses the mindset of the entire Eastern Church, as well as that of the Ecumenical Councils which collected and affirmed the Creed - the only things to be added are those which are necessary to the faith that can not be omitted; this is why the Synods directed that the Creed not be changed after the Second Ecumenical Council.

A very important point.  The apophatic approach is very important for the Orthodox as a means of avoiding over-definition.  A God who can be defined by human beings is not God at all. 

[Peter J]

What you site is one example of the rehabilitation of the Creed "sans filioque" (excuse my mixture of French and Latin ) in the Western Chuch.  However, there was another quite long, somewhat convoluted article issued by a Vatican journal that seemed to basically state, IIRC, that "both the usage of the filioque and its non-usage are correct.

Is it "The Filioque: What Is at Stake?" by Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J? If so, I can completely understand why Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics would take issue with that article. (Prior to reading that article, I had read Dulles' article about the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue on justification. I had found that to be a very reasonable and balanced take on ecumenical dialogue, so it was something of a shock to me to read what he has to say about the filioque!)

God bless,
Peter.

[Athanasios]

Hello,

Look, you might think it's all well and good to say that sometimes we can include it, and sometimes we don't have to, but that misses the mindset of the entire Eastern Church, as well as that of the Ecumenical Councils which collected and affirmed the Creed - the only things to be added are those which are necessary to the faith that can not be omitted; this is why the Synods directed that the Creed not be changed after the Second Ecumenical Council.

Shouldn't we have a separate thread for the Creed and the Filioque?

[Pravoslavbob]

^For the moment, I will let this thread continue on these subjects, since they are of concern when addressing the relationship between Eastern and Latin Catholics as well as the relationship between Orthodox and Catholic Christians.  If it is deemed necessary to do so, a moderator may split the thread later on.

[Pravoslavbob]

Is it "The Filioque: What Is at Stake?" by Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J? If so, I can completely understand why Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics would take issue with that article. (Prior to reading that article, I had read Dulles' article about the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue on justification. I had found that to be a very reasonable and balanced take on ecumenical dialogue, so it was something of a shock to me to read what he has to say about the filioque!)

It looks like that might be the article all right, except that it looks even longer than I remember it to have been!

[Joab Anias]

You're getting things completely backwards.  Assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that the Latin Church remains orthodox and retains the Magisterium, it retains it because it is orthodox.  It is not orthodox because it retains it.  The authority to teach follows the safeguarding of true doctrine, not the other way around.  The order you described is a blank check for the Latin Church to define whatever it wants as correct doctrine, a situation that is quite real.

I would agree with that completely, except its not a blank check, its apostolic and ecclesiastical authority from Jesus which is why it remains stalward and persists regardless of who withdraws their conciliarity. A bright spot though is the door is always open for those who withdrew to return in obedience. The days of a possible bad pope are long gone. The layity who are more active than ever and modern communications wouldn't stand for it.

Sorry for being so blunt, please forgive me.

Peace.

[collin_nunis]

Oh my God... Here's a rap -
To all you papists,
I'm a Roman Catholic
I'm as orthodox as can be
more orthodox than the Holy Father in the Holy See
What I'm not, I try not to be,
A pain in the butt, it just ain't me.

I really don't see what the fuss is all about. Orthodox... Roman Catholic... You've got almost everything right and I mean EVERYTHING! Say whatever you want about the Orthodox, their imperfections blah blah. At least they recognise the Pope as FIRST AMONG EQUALS and not as THE MAN ON THE STREET or THE ANTICHRIST. Take it easy people. Jesus said "peace be with you" and our Lord sure didn't mean taking the p*** out of people for no specific reason. Seriously, how low can you go? Remember, whats good for you isn't good for them so take a chill pill. We've got better things to do than argue about this. We'll still get to Heaven in the end. Its not the Pope who saves, its Jesus Christ. Peace out.

[Athanasios]

Hello,

^For the moment, I will let this thread continue on these subjects, since they are of concern when addressing the relationship between Eastern and Latin Catholics as well as the relationship between Orthodox and Catholic Christians.  If it is deemed necessary to do so, a moderator may split the thread later on.

O.K.!

[Jakub]

I read elsewhere on a very popular zblog that the Pope was going to modify the Good Friday prayers in the '62 Missal... , I doubt if the Eastern Churches will ...

[Hesychios]

...if standing with the Pope warrants me to be called an ultra-montanist - you can call me that any day...

That's fine, it's an appropriate descriptor.

That's how I shall know you. 

Michael

[ozgeorge]

MODERATION:
Can someone please excplain to me what this thread is about?
I thought it was about Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics.

[Pravoslavbob]

I'm going to ask everyone posting here to make an effort to stay on topic.  I've just had to split this thread a second time, and this thread itself was split off from another one.  So please, let's try to keep the discussion focussed on differences between Latin and Eastern Catholics, with some reference to how this relates to the Orthodox.  If I have to split this thread again, I may well lock it.

Thank you.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator

[Apotheoun]

Well, quite simply, I believe that theosis doesn't suddenly stop when we die but continues after death.
-Peter.

Theosis is both achieved in this life, while it simultaneously stretches into eternity.  But -- of course -- Aquinas denies that the vision of God, i.e., what he mistakenly calls a vision of the divine essence, can be seen in this life (cf. Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 12, A. 11), and this is contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Fathers, who hold that the uncreated light / energy of God can be seen by the Hesychast while in the wayfaring state.

[Joab Anias]

Theosis is both achieved in this life, while it simultaneously stretches into eternity.  But -- of course -- Aquinas denies that the vision of God, i.e., what he mistakenly calls a vision of the divine essence, can be seen in this life (cf. Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 12, A. 11), and this is contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Fathers, who hold that the uncreated light / energy of God can be seen by the Hesychast while in the wayfaring state.

Do you have a definition of Theosis and the wayfaring state?

Why is Aquinas mistaken?

Peace.

[Papist]

Theosis is both achieved in this life, while it simultaneously stretches into eternity.  But -- of course -- Aquinas denies that the vision of God, i.e., what he mistakenly calls a vision of the divine essence, can be seen in this life (cf. Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 12, A. 11), and this is contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Fathers, who hold that the uncreated light / energy of God can be seen by the Hesychast while in the wayfaring state.

Yeah, they can see it by breathing funny, repeating the same prayer over and over again, and putting their bodies in a special position. Sounds more like a psychosomatic response than "seeing God".

[Αριστοκλής]

Yeah, they can see it by breathing funny, repeating the same prayer over and over again, and putting their bodies in a special position. Sounds more like a psychosomatic response than "seeing God".

You'll never know.

[ozgeorge]

You'll never know.

Sadly yes.
Without realizing it, he just keeps putting more coals on his head.

[JoeS2]

Dear Papist,

It seems to me you're exaggerating the situation. I would say that Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics already profess the same faith, but we ought to also profess the same creed. In the fact, in 2003 the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation recommended "that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use."

God bless,
Peter.

The problem is that SOME, not all, Eastern Churches reject the concept of the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility etc. Perhaps they would word the problem by stating that the Latin Church espouses these dogmas. But either way, we are professing differing faiths.

Parallel theologies in one religion......Is that unity?

JoeS

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Latin Catholics Vs. Eastern Catholics