Question about the Catholic Church

[Michelle Mosca]

I didn't know where to put this... My priest told me that the Catholic Church keeps coming to the Orthodox church with questions looking for answers. True?

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dear Sister in Christ,

Welcome to our community.

I think there is an increased awareness that we (the Orthodox Church) exist and perhaps that we have much to offer. The problem is that looking in from the outside is not the same as looking in from the inside.

The Latin Catholic Church seems to have great interest in Orthodox externals and not Orthodox internals. For example, they may be interested in using Orthodox style icons in their churches, but fail to appreciate the deeper value and meaning which comes with them. They may listen to the Byzantine Liturgy and come up with comments like, "this is much like Gregorian chant", or "the whole Liturgy was just chanting." Do they realise why the Liturgy is "just chanting"? Do they realise the true significance of the Liturgy?


They often claim that they "have much to learn from us". I hope one day they truly do learn from Orthodoxy and our orthodox faith.

[suzanne kallil mcphee]

>As a Theology student I study this dilemma closely.We recently held a debate on the Filioque clause in class and it was the Eastern version that triumphed.Though I am a Maronite Catholic I feel that together both rites can learn and resolve any differences...we are , after all, all one in the love of God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. Alah mark(God be with you)

[Atanasios Bardasos]

I actually agree with both previous posts. We have much in Humility to pray for; that we all would have a genuine desire to go deeper, especially in the spiritual life, and somehow at least spiritually, that we really would be granted the Holy gifts of Love and Appreciation, one for another. "...that they might be one..."
Blessings, Atanasios

[Myles A. Bailey]

As a Roman Catholic who has just begun studying Byzantine Church under Dr Steenberg himself I will say that I can see why the Orthodox might not feel us Latins are genuinely interested in the East. However, I do believe that the statement reflects the fact that en general Roman Catholics struggle even to appreciate Roman Catholicism. The late 20th century it seems has not been a great era of catechesis and it is no surprise thus that if the greater number of Roman Catholics have no deep grasp of Latin Theology that they do not understand Greek Theology.

That being said I believe certain Roman Catholic theologians e.g. Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) have been deeply and profoundly influenced by Orthodox Theology. In his book 'Spirit of the Liturgy' Ratzinger deals with iconography by referring to Evdokimov and it has been a marked tendency upon Roman ressourcement theologians to look East.

Lastly, as a fellow Theology student Suzanne I do not believe that the filioque clause is a major point of contention. The Latin Church past, present and in the future will always teach that the Father is the sole source and cause of the Godhead as the Vatican's clarification on the filioque made clear 10 years ago. It would give me great joy to see both East and West move beyond issues that have been practically beaten to death and just come up with a settlement.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Lastly, as a fellow Theology student Suzanne I do not believe that the filioque clause is a major point of contention. The Latin Church past, present and in the future will always teach that the Father is the sole source and cause of the Godhead as the Vatican's clarification on the filioque made clear 10 years ago. It would give me great joy to see both East and West move beyond issues that have been practically beaten to death and just come up with a settlement

Dear Myles A. Bailey,

I suggest that you read an article from this site (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/vatican_clarification.html) which will give you some information on the alleged differences between the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque and the non-vatican point of view.

May God bless us, all.

[Myles A. Bailey]

Dear Leandros

I am familiar with the article you posted ("One single source" by Ziziolas right?) and much of the critique expressed in that article you have posted is not entirely accurate. Statements like the West makes the Son a 'co-monarch' even in the face of the Vatican's clarifcation are, to me, quite surprising and quite grave charges given that if that were true the Trinity would be torn asunder. I would continue to address the things said in this article e.g. that the West's idea of generation and procession are the same (which, of course, they're not and we've never thought they've been). But Dr Steenberg has set this forum up for informal chat and thus I think it'd be inappropriate. However if you click the following link you will see another thread where I have expressed the traditional Thomistic Trinitarian view of the Latin Church: http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=16297#POST16297

I will leave you with one comment though from the article you sent me: "the Latin teaching should not lead to subordination of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity" regardless of whether it has in the writings of individuals (as the Metropoltian John asserts) is not relevant. People often do make mistakes but Latin Triadology, at least on paper, is all that matters in ecumenical dialogue because it need not be mindful of theological opinions which may not always encapsulate truth but the teaching presented by the Church itself.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Myles A. Bailey,

Metropolitan John Zizioulas is in favor of the Catholic Church and he is an open minded person and he had worked for the unification of the churches from several official positions (http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9204). And he has been accused from other orthodox as pro-vatican. But even a hierarch like him thinks than there are still issues to be resolved between us. This is my point, and I think that our honest and burning desire for re-unification should not put the issues under the carpet because "they have been practically beaten to death".

May God bless us, all.

[Myles A. Bailey]

Dear Leandros

I am aware of Metropolitan John's goodwill and the unfair accusations that have been made about him. I do believe however that His Grace's apprehensions about the Latin system are unfounded. The gist of the article 'One Single Source' is that the Latin system has the potential of subordinationism by making the Father and the Son something akin to two Gods. However, as quoted he himself admits the Latin teaching should not do this although admittedly it can suggest it.

His Grace says that the Latin teaching on the filioque ties itself to an Eastern theologumenon that the Spirit proceeds through the Son. This being the case I cannot see why if the Latin Church can demonstrate that her Triadology is linked to a lawful theologumenon that the two sides cannot come into communion with one another. If the East were to permit the Roman Catholic doctrine of the filioque as a permissable expression for the doctrine for Latins I think it would go a long way towards furthering our hopes for re-unification (Indeed, this video gave me the impression that Eastern ecumenist's were of the opinion that the filioque as explained had been absorbed as a permissable expression of the Dogma of the Trinity: http://realserver.goarch.org/ram/en/hc_live_orthodox_church_in_dialog.ram).

Naturally I'm not saying we should paper of the cracks. However, I think if it can be proved that the Latin expression of the Dogma of the Trinity does not compromise the monarchia of the Father and does not lead to subordinationism or any other kind of heresy that it would be a positive step in dialogue for the East to permit the Latins to hold to our way of expressing the Trinitarian mystery.

His Grace is right to say that the East and West has differing views on God's essence and existence. However, I do not think that provided it can be proved that the Western view is not errenous or results in err's that its neccessary to keep fighting over this credal clause. If we take the letter of St Maximos the Confessor to Marinus to be authentic then we can see that the filioque need not be a dividing issue. As it demonstrates a) in the age of full communion the filioque was known in the East and acknolwedged as a permissible theological expression and b) that when the Latins talk about procession from the Father and the Son we mean only to defend the unified ousia.

Perhaps His Grace is correct to say Latin is an imprecise theological language certainly the Latins did not need to be as precise as the Greeks given that the major Christological debates of the early Church were all in the East. However, as I have stated, I do not believe that there is too much more to discuss on this issue provided East and West give each other more leighway. If both permit that each lung breathes the same air just differently then I think we can leave this issue behind. The West will never get the East to abandon Palamism and the East will never get the West to abandon Thomism. However, since neither Thomism or Palamism lead to any heresy cant we both simply agree that there is nothing valid in viewing God through the lens of either school? The Orthodox Theologian, Theodore Stylianopoulos, seems to express such sentiments in this article The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error? (http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/stylianopoulos_filioque.html) and I would align myself with his conclusion given that I accept the conclusion of St Thomas Aquinas to question 36 article 3 of the Summa Theologiae: Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son? (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/103603.htm)

God love you
Christ is Risen

Myles

[Kosmas Damianides]

I think that this thread has gone a bit off topic.

Nevertheles, it is about time, i think that there was a new Vatican Council which would reject all new doctrines that separate the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Western Roman Catholic Church.

These include the filioque, the infallibility of the Popes and the claim to Petrine authority as the primate above all bishops in the Church as sole Vicar of Christ. There are also many other minor differences that need to be sorted out.

We believe in a unity of love and truth, not a unity of compromise and tollerance. It is like trying to put a broken vase back together again using dung. It's not the same. You have to use the right material. Only true faith and a lot of love on both sides can heal this wound.

In Christ

Kosmas

[Father Anthony]

Kosmas Damianides wrote (and I agree):

>These include the filioque, the infallibility of the
>Popes and the claim to Petrine authority as the primate
>above all bishops in the Church as sole Vicar of Christ.
>There are also many other minor differences that need to
>be sorted out.

The emphasis of this thread has been on the false Latin doctrine called "Filioque" - but as Kosmas points out, that is only a beginning.

In addition to the "Filioque" there are also such heresies as the Latin doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception" which is based on the Latin error of Original Sin. Then there are such other errors as the storehouse of merits/indulgences, purgatory, and other heresies and false beliefs and practices that arose among the Latins after their departure from the Church.

There is no doubt that very many Orthodox (and, no doubt, many Roman Catholics) are ignorant of the important differences between the Orthodox and the Latins. However, ignorance does not change the reality.

As another correspondent of mine wrote some time ago:

"As St. Mark of Ephesus proclaimed: 'The
Latins are heretics and we can, in no wise, compromise
our Sacred Faith with them.' While the Orthodox Church
is *always* willing to engage any interested persons
(or even an entire faith-community) in a conversation
about the Faith, there can be NO compromises or
"limited communion" with heterodoxy. Absolutely none."

Those who believe that the contemporary Latins and the Orthodox can enter into any easy Communion are simply mistaken. There is little or no chance that the Latins will abandon the errors which have developed among them, nor can the Orthodox Church accept anything less and still remain within the Church ourselves. The exception, of course, would be direct action of the Holy Spirit - as occured in the Soviet Union, bringing about the fall of atheistic Communism and the resurgence of the Church there - to cause the Latins to come back to Orthodox belief and practice.

Fr. Anthony

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

This is the time to remind participants of the fact that this community is not the place for Orthodoxy vs. Roman Catholicism, or even specific 'Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism' discussions, unless they are held within the specific context of the exploration of patristic concepts. As a section of the terms of use of this message board (http://www.monachos.net/other/mb_tos.shtml) specify:


(d) The Monachos.net Discussion Community is not an interfaith forum for general discussions on Orthodoxy with respect to other Christian denominations or religious faiths. This means that general discussions on, e.g., ‘Orthodoxy vs. Protestantism’ are discouraged, and conversations which transform to such points of focus will often be terminated. However, discussions which compare doctrinal or practical issues across faiths, and which do so from the broad context of patristic, monastic, liturgical and ecclesiastical consideration are warmly welcomed and encouraged. In such conversations, however, the over-arching theme of discussion under the above purview, and not simply expression of personal opinion, is paramount.

There are many on-line forums where such is precisely the focus and objective; but this is not one of them. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Let's bring the line of this present thread to a close and move onto more on-focus themes.

INXC, Matthew