OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 10:29:35 PM *
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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox vs. RC Eucharist  (Read 2026 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,824


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2011, 06:35:00 PM »

So to make sure I understand, the issue of procession is the reason why the trinity works different in Orthodox and RC churches.  The Orthodox believe the Father is the origin of the Son and the Spirit, yet they are all one equal being.  I guess making the father the first among the equals.

The RC version says that the the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son together, making the Father and the Son tied for the first among equals.  (I guess....)

So the Orthodox view is Eternal and the RC is temporal?  Or are they both recognized by each church?

Sorry for making this so complicated. If I am wrong again, feel free to ignore me. I may just never understand.  All this reading is making my head hurt.


You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.

RC's have tended to focus on the "Divine Essence" being the source of the Godhead. EO believes that Personhood is the foundation of being, and not essence. The RC view has been accused by EO of producing a "fourth person of the trinity"; A "God in Essence" who is the source of, and the ultimate reality of, the Trinity.

Edit: The EO believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son temporally. The RC's believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in origin.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 06:38:42 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2011, 06:38:53 PM »

So to make sure I understand, the issue of procession is the reason why the trinity works different in Orthodox and RC churches.  The Orthodox believe the Father is the origin of the Son and the Spirit, yet they are all one equal being.  I guess making the father the first among the equals.

The RC version says that the the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son together, making the Father and the Son tied for the first among equals.  (I guess....)

So the Orthodox view is Eternal and the RC is temporal?  Or are they both recognized by each church?

Sorry for making this so complicated. If I am wrong again, feel free to ignore me. I may just never understand.  All this reading is making my head hurt.

You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.

RC's have tended to focus on the "Divine Essence" being the source of the Godhead. EO believes that Personhood is the foundation of being, and not essence. The RC view has been accused by EO of producing a "fourth person of the trinity"; A "God in Essence" who is the source of, and the ultimate reality of, the Trinity.

it does not line-up with jewish wording... the jewish word for spirit is ruach which means breath... breath comes from the mouth... also in the creation of man God blew breath of life in him...
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,824


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2011, 06:48:55 PM »

Quote

You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.


it does not line-up with jewish wording... the jewish word for spirit is ruach which means breath... breath comes from the mouth... also in the creation of man God blew breath of life in him...

Uh... I think we're having a language barrier issue here.

I didn't mean "wording" as in "linguistics". I meant wording as in phrasing. Pre-Christian Jews believed that God existed eternally with His D'var and Ruach. Orthodox Christians believe this as well.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 06:49:31 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2011, 06:51:18 PM »

Quote

You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.


it does not line-up with jewish wording... the jewish word for spirit is ruach which means breath... breath comes from the mouth... also in the creation of man God blew breath of life in him...

Uh... I think we're having a language barrier issue here.

I didn't mean "wording" as in "linguistics". I meant wording as in phrasing. Pre-Christian Jews believed that God existed eternally with His D'var and Ruach. Orthodox Christians believe this as well.



afaik Jews believed that the Shekinah(Holy Spirit) was the expression of God's glory.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,824


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2011, 06:54:42 PM »

Quote

You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.


it does not line-up with jewish wording... the jewish word for spirit is ruach which means breath... breath comes from the mouth... also in the creation of man God blew breath of life in him...

Uh... I think we're having a language barrier issue here.

I didn't mean "wording" as in "linguistics". I meant wording as in phrasing. Pre-Christian Jews believed that God existed eternally with His D'var and Ruach. Orthodox Christians believe this as well.



afaik Jews believed that the Shekinah(Holy Spirit) was the expression of God's glory.
Shekinah need not be identified only with the Spirit. Shekinah is sourced in ancient pagan depictions of deities appearing as a glowing cloud or storm, utilized by the Jews to describe the Glory of YHWH. Shekinah means, generically, God's manifested presence. God reveals himself through both his Ruach and D'var.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 06:56:25 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #50 on: July 30, 2011, 07:12:22 PM »

So to make sure I understand, the issue of procession is the reason why the trinity works different in Orthodox and RC churches.  The Orthodox believe the Father is the origin of the Son and the Spirit, yet they are all one equal being.  I guess making the father the first among the equals.

The RC version says that the the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son together, making the Father and the Son tied for the first among equals.  (I guess....)

So the Orthodox view is Eternal and the RC is temporal?  Or are they both recognized by each church?

Sorry for making this so complicated. If I am wrong again, feel free to ignore me. I may just never understand.  All this reading is making my head hurt.


You got it. The Orthodox version also lines up more easily with early Christian and Jewish wording. God (the Father) eternally with his Word and Spirit. The source of the Godhead is the Father.

RC's have tended to focus on the "Divine Essence" being the source of the Godhead. EO believes that Personhood is the foundation of being, and not essence. The RC view has been accused by EO of producing a "fourth person of the trinity"; A "God in Essence" who is the source of, and the ultimate reality of, the Trinity.

Edit: The EO believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son temporally. The RC's believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in origin.
Ya'know, it's funny. I used to talk with Protestants who were confused as to what to do with this, "common Godhead." Is it some kind of fourth Person? Is it just some kind of "umbrella term" for the Three Persons, etc...?"

I never realized Orthodoxy solves this issue until I began looking into it!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,365



« Reply #51 on: July 30, 2011, 11:45:30 PM »

just curious : Was filioque ever condemn in a pre-schism council?

Absolutely. The actual 8th Council (the one initially accepted by Rome but then they committed an egregious act of historical revisionism to adopt a different council as their 8th) stated the filioque was a heresy.

We had a thumbtacked thread up about this, plus one of the articles elsewhere on this website discussed this. The interesting thing is this:

The actual 8th Council provided the reunification of the East and West after the Photian Schism. If history transpired as the Vatican proclaims, then this Photian Schism was never healed and the Churches were separated long before 1054 or 1204.

-----------------

PS: Here's the thread I was thinking of!
But the 8th council wouldn't necessarily be binding from an Eastern Orthodox point of view since the EO Church only professes seven councils to be Ecumenical.

Please read the article posted on this site. You will find that phrase 'Church of the Seven Councils' is something of a catchphrase that is not historically accurate.

And, once again I wind up repeating myself: if the 8th Council were not accepted as being Ecumenical, then the Schism between the Church and Rome occurred during the Photian Schism instead of later. However, since the Schism  was healed during the 8th Council, East and West were back in communion with each other.
Not sure what non-binding would mean in this case, as ALL Orthodox accept Constantinople IV (879).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: Eucharist Trinity filioque 
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.062 seconds with 33 queries.