Greek Orthodox relations question

[N/A Gone]

[quote]The expression "from the Father through the Son" is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: "The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).

Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily). [/quote]

Interesting eh? Almost makes me wanna cry

also, I know that they say a greek orthodox can take communion at a catholic church. But what is the status of this from both ends?

[Era Might]

I believe the reunion at Florence was never really based on anything solid. I don't think the Eastern representatives even spoke Latin, so they couldn't really discuss anything critically anyway. Of course, they then had to go back home, where support for reunion was not necessarily overwhelming.

[N/A Gone]

Are you sure? I mean that is very different than what catholic.com said..

and you are from boston..

[Era Might]

From Anthony Dragani, an Eastern Catholic who answers questions over at EWTN:

[quote]The Council of Florence was largely a missed opportunity. Most of the Orthodox participants at the Council were not there out of a burning desire for Christian unity, but because their empire was about to fall to the Muslims. The Byzantine Emperor hoped that by establishing reunion with the Catholic Church that the western nations would send military aid.

Thus, the reunion was one of political expedience. Because of this, the Orthodox representatives readily agreed to everything proposed by the Latin representatives. There was no real theological discussion, and no issues were resolved. Nor could there be, for most of the Latin representatives were schooled in scholastic theology, and addressed the Council in Latin, using scholastic terminology that the Orthodox were completely unfamiliar with. According to the accounts that I have read, the Orthodox delegates sat there in bewildered silence, completely unable to comprehend what the Latins were talking about.

...

Most of the Orthodox delegates wanted to just get the reunion over with as quickly as possible, so that they could secure help for their people. However, one Orthodox Bishop - Mark of Ephesus, wanted a real theological dialogue to take place. He believed that there were serious theological controversies that had to be discussed, and he was appalled that his fellow Orthodox bishops put political expedience over issues of faith. After the Council was over, and reunion was officially proclaimed, the Orthodox bishops returned home. Upon his return Mark of Ephesus wrote vehemently against the Council, calling it a "false union," and he stirred up public opinion against it. However, the Orthodox leadership remained in full communion with Rome right up until Constantinople fell (the promised military aid from the West never materialized). When the Muslims took over the city, they appointed Orthodox bishops who were opposed to the union, and it was officially dissolved.

In my humble opinion, one of the major reasons that the union failed was that it was a union from the top down. The common folk were not supportive of it, and in many cases bitterly opposed it. For a genuine reconciliation to occur, it must be from the bottom up. When Orthodox and Catholic Christians come to recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, they will be willing to work through the issues and reunite as one Church.[/quote]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=370923&Forums=25&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=florence&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=2&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at="]Link[/url]

[Apotheoun]

The Eastern and Western bishops at Florence sadly were talking past each other, rather than with each other at the council.

Now, it is true that the Eastern Church accepts a "procession" (Greek: [i]proeinai[/i]), or -- to be more accurate -- a "manifestation" (which is a better translation of that term) of the Holy Spirit through the Son in the divine energy, but Byzantine theologians reject anything that would make the Son a "cause" (Greek: [i]aitia[/i]) of the Spirit as [i]hypostasis[/i] (i.e., as person). Thus, in Eastern theology a distinction is made between the Holy Spirit's hypostatic origin, which is from the Father alone, and His manifestation as divine energy, which comes from the Father through the Son. That is why Easterners speak of the Spirit as "proceeding" (Greek: [i]ekporeusis[/i]) from the Father, but they refuse to use the term [i]ekporeusis[/i] in connection with the Son; instead, using the term [i]proeinai[/i], which means manifestation, in order to refer to the energetic outflowing of the Spirit as grace (i.e., as divine energy). In other words, the Eastern tradition holds that the Spirit proceeds ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) as person from the Father alone, while He (i.e., the Spirit) is manifested ([i]proeinai[/i]) as divine energy through the Son.

Sadly, theological problems arose between the two sides on this issue because the West used only one word -- the Latin word [i]processio[/i] -- in order to translate these two Greek words (i.e., [i]ekporeusis[/i] and [i]proeinai[/i]), and this resulted in theological differences that continue to affect relations between East and West to this day, both in connection with understanding the "mode of origin" (Greek: [i]tropos hyparxeos[/i]) proper to each of the divine persons in the Trinity, and in connection with the doctrine of grace.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I saw this thread and I was like, I hope Todd sees this.. And I came back later to answer it and here you are. Awesome.

Just for fun here is a latin perspective : :

Intelligentiam autem controversiae Latinorum et Graecorum et originem eius notandum est, quod circa processionem Spiritus sancti de Filio est duo considerare, scilicet articuli cognitionem et eiusdem cogniti professionem. In primo orta est differentia, in secundo controversia.
Cognitio autem huius articuli fundamentum habet a Scriptura, profectum vel incrementum a ratione, sed consummationem a revelatione. In Scripturae auctoritate Graeci et Latini conveniunt, quae dicit, Spiritum sanctum esse Filii et mitti a Filio; sed in ratione et revelatione differunt.
In ratione quidem intelligendi. Nam cum Scriptura dicat; Spiritum sanctum procedere, Graeci ad intelligendum usi sunt alio modo et alia similitudine processionis, alio modo Latini. Nam cum processio dicatur in creaturis motus localis ab uno in alium et dicatur motus causalis unius ex alio, Graeci intellexerunt processionem primo modo, ab uno in alium; Latini vero secundo modo. Et in hoc melius intellexerunt Latini quam Graeci, quia comparaverunt processionem aeternam processioni magis spirituali; et ideo magis simili comparaverunt, et sic melius.
Similiter, Scriptura dicit, Spiritum sanctum per spirationem procedere. Et cum duplex sit spiratio, scilicet flatus exterioris et amoris interioris, Graeci comparaverunt Spiritum spirationi flatus exterioris; sed Latini spirationi amoris interioris: et ideo Latini melius, quia spiritualiori et similiori similitudini aptaverunt.
Similiter, cum Scriptura dicat, Spiritum sanctum procedere ut nexum et communionem, et duplex possit esse nexus, vel sicut medium iungens unum, alteri, vel sicut extremum, in quo coniunguntur; Graeci comparaverunt primo modo, Latini secundo, et ideo spiritualiori modo et similiori, quia ille nexus magis habet similitudinem personae. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod processio est ab uno in alium; dicendum, quod verum est de processione locali, sed non est verum de processione causali, sicut infra melius patebit; cum procedere in alium sit dupliciter, aut quia in alium tendit sicut obiectum; et sic Spiritus sanctus est amor, quo Filius amat Patrem, sicut e converso; si autem sic dicatur procedere in aliquem, ut ab eo recipiatur, omnino stultus est intellectus. Est enim dicere, quod amor, qui est Spiritus sanctus, oriatur a Patre et susistat in Filio, sicut rivus oritur a fonte et requiescit in lacu profundo. Ad illud quod obiicitur de spiratione, quod praecedit verbum; dicendum, quod verum est de exteriori verbo, et non de interiori: et exterius non est simile.

[N/A Gone]

Sean repost that in english please..your words have no value if I can not read them..

**and Im bigger than you

[Apotheoun]

The text quoted by Laudate_Dominum in Latin can be found in Latin and English at the following website:

[url="http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon01209.html"]Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum[/url]

Byzantine theologians would not accept the position taken by St. Bonaventure in his "Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences," because the East makes distinctions in connection with the triad of divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] that the West does not make, and these distinctions are not reflected in St. Bonaventure's theology.

As St. John Damascene said: ". . . we do not speak of the Spirit as [i][b]from the Son[/b][/i], but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son." [St. John Damascene, [u]De Fide Orthodoxa[/u], Book I, Chapter 8] Thus, in Byzantine theology the Spirit can be called "the Spirit of the Son," but He can never be said to proceed from the Son, because the Son is not a "cause" (Greek: [i]aitia[/i]) within the Trinity. The Father alone is the principle, source, cause, and origin, within the Godhead, and so He alone generates the Son as [i]hypostasis[/i], and He alone spirates the Spirit as [i]hypostasis[/i].

[Laudate_Dominum]

Apotheoun and I once had a little discussion about that quotation from Bonaventure so I posted it to ruffle his feathers.

yeah dawg.


But in quasi-seriousness, there are many theologians (including doctors of the church) in the west who are very much at odds with the assertion that we cannot speak of the Son as a "cause" within the Trinity. And Apotheoun just stated that "He [the Spirit] can never be said to proceed from the Son" but this is precisely what the Creed that Roman Catholics have been saying at Mass for a thousand years proclaims.
I'm just pointing this out so that people realize that this is a big east/west difference and more than just a couple misunderstood words in need of clarification.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='978864' date='May 11 2006, 05:26 PM']
Apotheoun and I once had a little discussion about that quotation from Bonaventure so I posted it to ruffle his feathers.

yeah dawg.
But in quasi-seriousness, there are many theologians (including doctors of the church) in the west who are very much at odds with the assertion that we cannot speak of the Son as a "cause" within the Trinity. And Apotheoun just stated that "He [the Spirit] can never be said to proceed from the Son" but this is precisely what the Creed that we have been saying at Mass for a thousand years proclaims.
[/quote]
Yes, the Latin Church altered the creed, adding the word [i]filioque[/i] at Rome in A.D. 1014, but the Holy See itself -- back in the mid 1990s -- has recognized the normative and irrevocable character of the creed, as set forth at Nicea I and Constantinople I, without the [i]filioque[/i].

From the Vatican's [i]Official Clarification on the Filioque[/i]:

"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."

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='978876' date='May 11 2006, 06:37 PM']
Yes, the Latin Church altered the creed, adding the word [i]filioque[/i] at Rome in A.D. 1014, but the Holy See itself -- back in the mid 1990s -- has recognized the normative and irrevocable character of the creed, as set forth at Nicea I and Constantinople I, without the [i]filioque[/i].
[/quote]
Yes, but while this document is good for ecumenism it is hardly the end of the discussion. I've never had a problem with people (or churches) using the Nicae I creed anymore than I have issues with using the apostle's creed in the rosary. The issue is rather the orthodoxy of the filioque clause (or at least the orthodox understanding of it).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='978881' date='May 11 2006, 05:43 PM']
Yes, but while this document is good for ecumenism it is hardly the end of the discussion. I've never had a problem with people (or churches) using the Nicae I creed anymore than I have issues with using the apostle's creed in the rosary. The issue is rather the orthodoxy of the filioque clause (or at least the orthodox understanding of it).
[/quote]
The Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, make a distinction between the [i]hypostatic[/i] procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Spirit from the Father, and His energetic manifestation ([i]proeinai[/i]) from the Father through the Son.

There is a document on the USCCB website that deals quite nicely with this issue. Click the link below in order to read the document:

[url="http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml"]The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

I mean, an easy way out of the problem might be to say that the West cannot digest the Eastern understanding because of the centrality of the ousia/energeiai paradigm. But is it not fair to say that the full elucidation of this distinction did not occur until pretty late in the history of Christian triadology? I mean, there may be a faint vestige of this idea in that passage from Bonaventure where he contrasts what he sees as an eastern understanding of procession and the western understanding. The distinction I can recall from older sources has more to do with the mission of the spirit, or something more akin to the distinction of God in se and God in the oikonomia.. or God ad intra vs. God ad extra as the latins like to say.
I'm quite rusty when it comes to this topic so forgive me.. I'm just curious to know your view.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='978884' date='May 11 2006, 06:49 PM']
The Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, make a distinction between the [i]hypostatic[/i] procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Spirit from the Father, and His energetic manifestation ([i]proeinai[/i]) from the Father through the Son.

There is a document on the USCCB website that deals quite nicely with this issue. Click the link below in order to read the document:

[url="http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml"]The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?[/url]
[/quote]
I do think it has a great deal to do with how east and west view the persons as distinct.. you know, the bit about the persons being distinct in their relations. According to the western way of understanding distinctions, you could not conceive of a distinct Holy Spirit apart from the fact that this Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, hypostatically.

I believe I've read that document before.. I'll have to check it out.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='978888' date='May 11 2006, 05:52 PM']
I mean, an easy way out of the problem might be to say that the West cannot digest the Eastern understanding because of the centrality of the ousia/energeiai paradigm. But is it not fair to say that the full elucidation of this distinction did not occur until pretty late in the history of Christian triadology? I mean, there may be a faint vestige of this idea in that passage from Bonaventure where he contrasts what he sees as an eastern understanding of procession and the western understanding. The distinction I can recall from older sources has more to do with the mission of the spirit, or something more akin to the distinction of God in se and God in the oikonomia.. or God ad intra vs. God ad extra as the latins like to say.
I'm quite rusty when it comes to this topic so forgive me.. I'm just curious to know your view.
[/quote]
The essence / energy distinction is present in the writings of St. Athanasios and the Cappadocian Fathers, and it is also present in the writings of St. Maximos the Confessor and St. John Damascene. Moreover, the Cappadocians refused to ever use the word "cause" (Greek: [i]aitia[/i]) in connection with the Son in the immanent Trinity. As St. Gregory Nazianzen said, ". . . all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." [St. Gregory Nazianzen, [i]Oration 34[/i], no. 10]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='978901' date='May 11 2006, 06:59 PM']
The essence / energy distinction is present in the writings of St. Athanasios and the Cappadocian Fathers, and it is also present in the writings of St. Maximos the Confessor and St. John Damascene. Moreover, the Cappadocians refused to ever use the word "cause" (Greek: [i]aitia[/i]) in connection with the Son in the immanent Trinity. As St. Gregory Nazianzen said, ". . . all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." [St. Gregory Nazianzen, [i]Oration 34[/i], no. 10]
[/quote]
Yes, but when used in the context of the immanent Trinity [i]aitia[/i] has a particular connotation. Certainly the Father alone is the first principle, and sole unbegotten, and when speaking of the Trinity it makes sense to refer [i]aitia[/i] to the Father alone. This point isn't really very striking to me and I certainly don't think its decisive. It is just an affirmation of the priority of the Father, who alone is the source of the Godhead.

And it seems a bit too much to say that the essence / energies distinction is in x, y, z fathers without qualification. Patristic sources that I've seen for this are often implicit or incidental. I think we may be mixing issues a bit, but its interesting that St. Maximos defended the filioque.