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

And what does the above angry post aimed at Apotheoun have to do with the original thread either?

Ultimately, the thread itself appears to cast the problem of "ecumenical relations" as something that is the result of differences among the Orthodox.

The RC position on the Filioque, as defined by the Council of Florence, demonstrates that this is simply false. There are much more serious issues that hold up ecumenical talks, issues of the Trinitarian faith, that go well beyond perceived "divisions" in the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church is one on the matter of the Creed and its rejection of the later RC innovation of the Filioque.

Roman Catholicism refuses to recognize that and has done nothing to address the issue. If Roman Catholicism returned to the Creed of the first millennium, that would really demonstrate its good will in terms of concrete ecumenism with the East.

So the matter of Florence is of crucial importance, even though RC's don't see it.

Alex

Actually the decree of the Council of Florence teaches that the filioque and the per filium are equivalent. So again, I respectfully disagree with your comment. As far as the quotation I provided is concerned, I did not quote the entire decree, but only the portion that proved my point, that is, that the Western Church - contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Churches - teaches that the Son, together with the Father, is the cause of the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit.

Actually, both Florence and Lyons II teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together as from a single principle and spiration, but this notion is utter nonsense from an Eastern Christian perspective, because it involves blending the persons of the Father and the Son together by giving the Son a hypostatic characteristic that is unique to the Father.

The topic of the thread is ecumenism and what is slowing it down. The article at the beginning of the thread (like many articles with a Western bias) wrongly attributes the impasse to the Orthodox Churches and the false notion that their conciliar ecclesiology is a problem, when in fact the actual problem is the doctrinal innovations of the Roman Church. If Rome were to return to the faith of the Church Fathers of the first millennium ecumenism would move much more quickly.

I agree.

I don't hate Rome at all, but I do want it to stop seeing its own peculiar theologoumena as dogmas. Moreover, if Rome were to return to the Eucharistic ecclesiology of the Bible and the ancient Fathers the ecumenical movement would advance at a much more rapid pace. Rome and its second millennium theological innovations is slowing down the dialogue with the Orthodox, so I see no reason to blame Orthodox conciliar ecclesiology for a problem that has its foundation in modern Roman Catholic theology.

Another problem is that Rome seems to agree on some issues with the Orthodox while simultaneously undermining the dialogue by placing notes on the agreed statements that emphasize that the agreement does not in fact accurately represent the position of the Roman Church. For an example of this double speak, see the Ravenna Document [vatican.va] on the Vatican website, where the note pasted below is attached at the beginning of the document:

"The following is the original English text of the ‘Ravenna Document’ which was discussed and unanimously approved by the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007. Thus, the document represents the outcome of the work of a Commission and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Church’s teaching."

What good is a "joint agreement" that ultimately does not reflect the actual position of the Roman Church. This whole process seems disingenuous. Who exactly is holding up the dialogue? The Orthodox or Rome?

If you read my earlier post it stated that the Roman Church believes that there is only one cause of the Spirit, namely, the Father. I believe the problem lies in the translation because there are different words with different meanings in Greek which cannot be translated adequately in English. My problem with the later post is the fact that I was accused of not being familiar with the Vatican II documents and things that happened after that - and I am fully aware of the documents of Vatican II but I thought they was a Byzantine Catholic forum, now I see I am mistaken, that it is merely a group of EO"s who are attempting to Proseletyze and destroy whatever chance at reconciliation we me have.

Alvin,

If you believe that the way to unity is for the Orthodox to simply submit to Rome, then that is not going to happen.

RC theologians engaging in debate with the Orthodox know that unity will not come about that way.

Rome must also meet the Orthodox half-way.

The best way would be for Rome to return to the Faith and ecclesial praxis of the first millennium.

Rome can and will still adhere to its theological traditions - except that they will not be things that the Eastern Churches have to submit to.

Pope Benedict XVI said as much earlier.

As Apotheoun said, RC theologoumena should be acknowledged by Rome for what they are - theological points of view that are specific to Latin theology and praxis.

That doesn't mean Rome has to give them up - just that it shouldn't impose it on the East.

In fact, RC theologians in discussions with the Orthodox always come to an agreement with Orthodoxy, including the issues of the Filioque which RC theologians (as opposed to church authorities) agree should be removed from the Creed.

The issue of the "causal role" of the Son in the generation of the Holy Spirit has not been clarified by Rome. It has nothing to do with the role of the Father, but of the Son alone in this case.

And there is no consistent position in the RC Church on this matter either. I've attended lectures by RC theologians who insist that the Spirit proceeds ACTIVELY from the Father but PASSIVELY from/through the Son.

If that is, in fact, the official position of the RC Church, then I can't see how that could be a problem for the Orthodox (indeed there are Orthodox teachers who say it no longer is a problem).

But to ascribe causality to the Son in the generation of the Holy Spirit is another matter entirely and if Rome insists on it (even though it is a much later position), then the ecumenical debate with the East will stall indefinitely.

I am a Catholic and come from a family of clergy who suffered and were killed for their faith. That doesn't mean that these issues can't be revisited and it doesn't mean that Rome can't negotiate with Orthodoxy in good faith, even to the point of making adaptations based on the faith that was once shared by the united, universal Church.

Another position is that suggested at one time by Pope Paul VI, to see the 14 "later Latin Councils" as universal councils of the Latin Church. The two councils in question that dealt with the unity of the Christian East failed miserably precisely because they framed theology within the exclusive confines of the Latin Church.

Alex

Alvin

I think you should stop and take stock before making any more responses on this thread

The Title of this Board is

The Byzantine Forum - just that .

It's a board where all Christians are welcomed . We have members of all faiths and none. I suggest you read Moderator Theophan's thread before throwing accusations of proselytism around.

The "Filioque" is not an innovation, but an elucidation. Rome has demonstrated that she is comfortable with both forms of the Creed by using liturgically the original Greek on several occasions recently.

I am always loathe to put into words what is the greatest mystery of our faith, but I will take a stab in trying to express what I understand to be the Western or Latin understanding of Trinitarian life: The Father is the cause or origin of Life within the Trinity. In eternally begetting the Son, the Holy Spirit is eternally poured forth and thus proceeds from both as from one principle, because Father and Son are One and coequal, and so too the Spirit.

Rome is not trying to "force" this understanding on the Orthodox, but merely wishes the Orthodox to accept her understanding as orthodox.

I think many Orthodox have been more upset over the fact that the Western Church took it upon herself to "tweek" the Creed, so to speak, rather than they are of any Roman theology of the Trinity which they often misrepresent or fail to understand. It's time to get over it. There are too many people of good will who are trying to get back on track, and believe very firmly that we share the same faith, though it is expressed in a different way liturgically, theologically and spiritually.

Few people have much patience for the nit-picking anymore. No one has to repudiate anything, except the rancor that has preceded our walk together towards unity. Have you ever read or heard any of the modern Bishops of Rome say that the Orthodox need to repudiate this or need to reject that?

I don't believe the Latin "elucidation" is even a "real" cause for division, since each of the OO Churches have their own clarifications in the Creed - which have never been brought up in Inter-OO conversations or during dialogues with the EO. Why is it a current issue when the Latins do so, but not the OO?

None of your antagonist are Orthodox. That's the best part!

Probably for the same reason Eritrean and Ethiopian immigrant OOs are accepted to communion at the two EO churches I attend and, of course, Latins are not. Latins just don't "look" oriental enough, and in that, I think, lies the cultural crux of the issue. That Latin liturgy is just...well... too flat, and devoid of that "eastern mystique",and those Latinos are just beyond the pale with their Mariachis and stuff!

And I believe that what you (and Utroque) call a Latin Church "elucidation" is a problem, because it confuses the Father and the Son by attributing a hypostatic characteristic that is unique to the Father also to the Son. Now I spoke about this many years ago in a post, which for the sake of convenience I am re-posting below:


Eastern Triadology, unlike the Scholastic philosophical theology of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle (ἀρχή), source (πηγή), and cause (αιτία) of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their subsistence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are — as a consequence — one in essence (ὁμοούσιος) with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word ὁμοούσιος itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the use of the term ὁμοούσιος by the Church Fathers involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person (ὑπόστᾰσις) from God the Father alone by generation (γέννησιν), and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person (ὑπόστᾰσις), and not from the divine essence (οὐσία), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the hypostatic procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) of origin of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to His progression (προϊέναι), because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person (ὑπόστᾰσις), and not from the divine essence (οὐσία), which — as I already indicated — is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, Logos Apodeiktikos, I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal subsistence and their co-essential nature.

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and Catholic) must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of the Holy Spirit as person (ὑπόστᾰσις), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person (ὑπόστᾰσις) proceeds from Father and the Son "as from one principle," thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.

The Roman Church needs to act in a consistent manner. Back in the mid 1990s the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity said the following:

"The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church."

And yet the Roman Church continues to use a form of the normative creed during the liturgy that is in fact not normative. The filioque - as put forward at Lyons II and Florence - is inconsistent with the teaching of the first millennium because it fails to account for the distinction between ἐκπόρευσις and προϊέναι. That distinction needs to be firmly and consistently upheld by Rome, and the way to do that is to remove the filioque from the creed, because as explained by the Scholastics and the later medieval and modern Roman theologians the filioque does not conform to the ancient faith.