Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism; Does it matter?


#42

That is the view of many Latin Catholics—that it isn’t really that big of a problem, a misunderstanding of meaning. But to many Eastern Orthodox, the clause is a heresy of the most severe kind. Just like the Catholic Church would say Sola Scriptura is a fundamental heresy.


#43

Yeah out of mercy. They are catholic but they are also in schism.


#44

NO! That is not the theology. It is because, paraphrasing, all that is needed for communions communion itself.

Go read your Ratzinger/Benedict on the issue.

hawk


#45

But they’re in schism, right?


#46

Please quote? I haven’t heard of any such council, but to be fair I’m not too read up on my councils. :slight_smile:

Based on what I’ve read, “from the Son” and “through the Son” mean essentially the same thing based on the context. We know that everything the Son has comes from the Father, and so the Son can send forth the Spirit (even if it says “in origin”) and it will still mean that the absolute origin comes from the Father, since everything the Son has comes from the Father. This is not something one would get just from reading the text, so it’s pretty important to first know that everything the Son has comes from the Father.

I found a verse seeming to support Filioque, and I’ve looked it up on an online Lexicon. However, I’m not very learned in the original languages and I was wondering if you could explain to me how it is or isn’t a good verse to support Filioque? Here it is:

John 15:26
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;”

The bolded part is what I think seems to support Filioque. Although I’ve looked it up on a Lexicon, like I said, I’m not very learned on these languages.

Here is another verse that seems to hint at Filioque, though I don’t know if the original language will have much of a baring:

Galatians 4:6
“And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!””


#47

I will add as well some quotes taken from early Christians shown on Catholic Answers that seem to support Filioque:

Hilary of Poitiers
“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

Didymus the Blind
“As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son” (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Ambrose of Milan
“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).
“The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (ibid., 1:2:120).

The Athanasian Creed
“[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).

Augustine
“If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).
“[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son” (ibid., 15:17:29).
“Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).


#48

I’m not going to pretend to know with certainty that these quotes prove Filioque, since for all I know, they were said in a different language and the translation could be less than faithful. But, assuming they are accurate, then it goes to show that “from the Son” was not a new concept when it was added to the creed in the 11th century.

I know that we can agree on “From the Father through the Son”, so I guess the main issue lies in whether or not “from the Son” and “through the Son” mean the same thing.


#49

Yes. But the Church doesn’t accuse individual Orthodox Christians of the personal sin of schism.


#50

why is everyone defending the orthodox when they don’t accept papal infallibility?


#51

Because the dogma was defined 800 years after the schism became reality. The vast majority of Orthodox Christians were born and baptized into a state of schism with Rome.


#52

sorry i meant papal supremacy/primacy which existed before the schism


#53

Please quote? I haven’t heard of any such council, but to be fair I’m not too read up on my councils. :slight_smile:

The Nicean Creed came from the Council of Nicea :slight_smile: It was further clarified at the Council of Constantinople.

The Filioque unilaterally changed it (and the popes fought and denounced it for a century before suddenly grabbing it to fight the same heresy).

Based on what I’ve read, “from the Son” and “through the Son” mean essentially the same thing based on the context. We know that everything the Son has comes from the Father, and so the Son can send forth the Spirit (even if it says “in origin”) and it will still mean that the absolute origin comes from the Father, since everything the Son has comes from the Father. This is not something one would get just from reading the text, so it’s pretty important to first know that everything the Son has comes from the Father.

To be clear: the EO and EC do NOT dispute that the Spirit proceeds temporally through the Son. Most, at least would agree. But between language and the unilateral modification, it’s a problem for the East.

Note that EC use the original, not modified, creed.

hawk


#54

Which they don’t deny, but don’t let facts get in the way . . .

The entire Orthodox Catholic church ALWAYS accepted Roman primacy.

“supremacy”, in the sense you use it, is a post-schism innovation.

hawk


#55

Could you please provide a quote, though? I don’t want to have to find and read the whole thing myself to find the specific quote, unless the whole council is about it.

Those pesky language barriers always gettin’ in the way of unity.

Yes, this is allowed. Because there is no change in doctrine between the two (at least, as Catholics believe). It’s a semantics thing, I think. Not a doctrine thing.


#56

so dochawk, what’s the essential difference then? the filioque?


#57

Catholics have added the filioque to the creed which was forbidden and anathematized by two infallible ecumencal councils.


#58

Could you quote those councils for us? I’m not saying they don’t exist, but I haven’t seen them myself and if my Church is in heresy then I’d like to know.


#59

Is it OK to add things to the creed, when that has been forbidden by an infallible ecumenical council?


#60
  1. Catholic’s cannot get communion at Orthodox Churches.
  2. Roman Catholics can get communion at Byzantine Catholic Churches.
  3. The Orthodox do not like the pope and therefore refuse to give any Catholics communion in their churches.
  4. I have been to Orthodox churches before, did not have a good experience. The Orthodox priest talked to me like I was going to hell for being Catholic and he pushed conversion to Orthodoxy.

#61

papal infallibility


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.