www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Divisions in the Orthodox Church are holding up ecumenical dialog

The first thing is that hardly any of the discussion on this thread has anything to do with the topic and hasn't for days. The second thing is that the entire discussion has become incredibly uncharitable and hardly worthy of this forum. The third thing is that the implication that the somehow Roman Catholic liturgy is not valid because of the actions of a few is absurd on its surface. Of course the more important point is that in the U.S. there are easily fifty million Roman Catholics who could not care less about what any Eastern Orthodox purist has to say about their liturgy if they are even aware that such a person exists. I would suggest that rather than attacking the your neighbors why don't you all get on with cleaning up your own houses. There certainly are enough sins here to go around and no one is exempt from indictment.

Dear Jim,

I don't believe anyone here said the NO Mass isn't valid.

We are just commenting on the liturgical mess the RC Church is in. It isn't the fault of the NO regulations, but the way they are being broken and have been for some time.

I've read much more uncharitable things about it written by Roman Catholics than by anyone here. Yes, we EC's cause problems for ourselves in that department - but usually only when we feel the misguided need to try and imitate the Latins in a desire to "prove" we are just as Catholic as they are.

Personally, I believe you guys made a big mistake with your liturgical changes.

Given an informed chance, I believe many more RC's would want to return to the Tridentine Liturgical tradition.

Orthodox and EC's in general don't care either what RC's think of our liturgical traditions. It is enough for us to maintain them and try to keep ourselves free from what we see as liturgical crisis in the Western Church.

Alex

Alex, I never know quite what to think about posts of this sort. While I have attended plenty of liturgies in the Roman Catholic Church that I could describe as uninspiring or disappointing or even occasionally silly, I have never seen one like these, which I am told (by people who don't make much of a habit attending RC liturgies) have now become widespread.

I do not believe that any particular rite or order is intrinsically beautiful or solemn or anything else. The Tridentine Mass, or the Liturgy of St. John Chyrsostom, can be--and sometimes are--celebrated shabbily. Likewise the Novus Ordo can also be celebrated with dignity and solemnity. Despite what alarmists seem to suggest, I think the trend of the past ten years or so in the Latin Church has been to restore the proper dignity of worship.

The Roman Church does share the same faith as the Eastern Orthodox Churches - we have the same seven sacraments (mysteries) we are all Trinitarians, believe it or not we have an Epiclesis (prior to rather than after the Consecration), and we have similar ideas about the Theotokos (I still wonder why it is not possible for God to have made the mother of the Savior immaculate from the beginning of time, as I am sure He was aware she would bring forth the Messiah (if one is unsure about that pray the Akathist for the Annunciation) and the remainder are merely differences in expression (the Filioque, for instance, which I feel should be eliminated myself because it causes dissension) I personally feel how the Holy Spirit proceeds makes little difference because the Trinity existed from all eternity - it is merely that the translations from Greek to other languages have caused problems with interpretatins in other tongues - our differences in Faith I feel are slight and are imbedded in the different way we worship. Again, I say the differences are in the methodology of worship and Liturgy not in the core beliefs. Slava Isuzu Christu.

The Roman Church in the Creed says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son, but that does not mean that the Son is part of the origin of the Spirit, merely that after Christ ascended he sent the Spirit, not meaning to imply that prior to the arrival of Christ the Spirit was sent (or proceeded) from the Son - the Father is the First Cause (the Single Cause) from which all came, and the Trinity existed co-equally from all eternity. As a matter of fact, after Vatican II, the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches removed the Filioque clause from the Creed (some earlier, some later) - in fact when I sang the Creed in the Ruthenian Church (Holy Spirit) I was corrected by one of the choir members and was told that "we no longer say from the Father and the Son" but that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and with the Father and the Son was adored and glorified". The filioque was not in the original creed at Nicea and could easily be removed without any problem.

But the quirky stuff doesn't just happen in the United States, it is happening in Europe, in Brazil and in the rest of Latin America (whether we are talking about the strange liturgies at the Basilica of Our Lady of Aparecida, or the Superman Mass in Mexico, etc.).

Now as far as the comments about references to problems in the Roman Church's liturgy being uncharitable are concerned, I would remind everyone that there is nothing uncharitable in telling the truth or in pointing out problems.

And finally, has anyone here at Byzcath thought about the fact that some Eastern Orthodox Christians might be upset by the fact that the original article at the beginning of this thread exhibits a real lack of understanding of the conciliar nature of Eastern Christian ecclesiology? Could it be that the lack of union between the East and the West are not merely a matter of Eastern Orthodox Christians being intransigent and obstructionist, but actually believing - in good faith - that the differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are substantive? Just a thought, but maybe the slow nature of the ecumenical dialogue is a part of God's plan, and to question it is to fail to grasp what the Spirit is doing, has anyone thought of that? If the restoration of communion eventually does occur it should be based upon the truth that both sides really do hold to the same doctrines and not to mere wishful thinking, or worse pretending that real differences are actually similarities.

I am sorry but your viewpoint is simply contrary to the teaching of the Council of Florence which said quite clearly that, "We declare that when Holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds [ἐκπορεύεσθαι]** from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause [αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle [άρχήν] of the subsistence [ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father."

Please provide the Vatican II decree or post-Vatican II doctrinal clarification that clearly rejects the notion that the Son - together with the Father - is the cause of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. I know of no such document that unequivocally rejects the erroneous position put forward at the Council of Florence. Now as far as Eastern Catholics removing the filioque from the creed in their Churches is concerned, it never should have been added to their recitation of the creed in the first place, and I have not seen Rome remove the filioque from its own liturgical recitation of the creed. I am willing to look at the evidence, but so far none has been presented, and I know enough about Roman Catholic Triadology (having been a Roman Catholic for 17 years) to know that the Roman Church does teach that the Son causes the Spirit's hypostatic existence, "just like the Father," to quote the Council of Florence again. Finally, I have never seen any reputable Roman Catholic theologian assert that the Florentine decree limits the procession of the Spirit from the Son to the economic order. In fact, that idea would be contrary to the explicit language used in the decree itself, which clearly affirms that the Son is the cause - with the Father - of the Spirit's subsistence.

** It is important to note that the official Greek version of the decree of Florence on this matter uses the term ἐκπορεύεσθαι in the sense reserved by the Eastern Churches to the Father alone (i.e., as "cause" of the Spirit's subsistence) in order to describe what the West means by the filioque. So Florence is clearly asserting that the Son - together with the Father - is the cause of the Spirit's eternal existence.

I have not picked apart this post, but I am willing to do so if you would like? Just let me know.

You indicated that the Council of Florence stated the Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son, but I believe there is a difference between from the Father AND the Son, and through the son - your footnote does not seem to be part of the doctrinal definition but your interpretation - I have been a Catholic for almost 70 years. Slava Isuzu Christu.

Dear eastwardlean,

Certainly, one may only speak in terms of "ideal type" and in generalities on this matter.

I did attend many Latin NO liturgies - daily and even twice daily for reasons I won't get into here.

The NO can be done with dignity and there are those RC's who want that dignity while there are others who want to go further afield in liturgical experimentation (even though they have no liturgical authority from anyone to do so).

I and others here speak from the vantage point of the Eastern Churches. Roman Catholics have, for centuries, told us about our liturgical tradition, have made us feel insufficient (because we were insufficiently Latin) and the like. And those RC's who did that hardly ever attended EC liturgies.

So the idea that one has to go to many NO liturgies to be able to speak intelligently about liturgical issues is, on a number of levels, simply not an argument.

Also, there is no one RC view on the NO in terms of its praxis. I did not know, for example, that the NO can be served "ad orientem" and was even intended to be so celebrated in the early days.

Liturgy for the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, is all about two things at once - right worship and right faith. We know all about that. This is why we have serious misgivings about not only the NO in the Latin Church, but what we perceive as a whole slew of issues regarding praxis which ultimately affect the nature of faith itself.

It's an ongoing discussion. And I know, as I've been reminded, that RC's don't care about what EC's or others have to say about these matters.

But there are issues that RC's should be discussing amongst themselves that have to do with the interconnectedness of liturgical praxis with faith, morals and church discipline.

And from afar, what the Orthodox see of this just simply turns them off in terms of the matter of reunion. For the Orthodox, there can be no question but that Rome needs to "come back" to itself before any talks can be had about "coming back" to unity between East and West.

Sorry if I've upset you (which I believe I inadvertently have).

Alex

The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palaceon 26 February 1439. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque was the chief matter of discussion. In the last session but one (twenty fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son"

In Christian Charity, I wonder if you were as much an obstructionist as a Catholic as you are an Orthodox (I can't believe you are EC because of your intense hatred of Rome - I don't intend to carry out any more discussions with you because you seem to feel you are a Theologian who is more divisive than religious - much like the Pharisees - Slava Isuzu Christu.

Dear Alvin,

Yes, but the fact that the Council held the Son to be the "cause" of the Holy Spirit just as the Father is - this is what is problematic and this is what the East ultimately rejected. (The Greek Orthodox bishops at the council signed the decrees because of political pressure and later recanted their positions when they got home. It was said that when (St.) Mark of Ephesus refused to sign the Florentine decrees that Pope Eugenius exclaimed "we have accomplished nothing" and he was absolutely right).

The idea that the Son could be a cause of the Holy Spirit just as the Father is . . . that is not the same as the Eastern "From the Father through the Son."

The West needs to revisit that issue and unless it can return to the faith of the united Church of the first millennium on that score - ecumenism with the East will go nowhere.

In fact, it has gone nowhere, on the level of faith, all this time.

Alex

Dear Alvin,

I hope you can find it in your heart to retract what you just said.

"Hatred of Rome?" "Pharisees?" Please - that is not how we discuss on this, or any other, Christian forum.

Alex

I still am stuggling to understand what any of this has to do with the topic of the thread.