Status Of The Orthodox Church

[qfnol31]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1444828' date='Jan 11 2008, 11:00 PM']Maybe when Photius said that the Filioque was heretical.[/quote]Lastly, according to what you said above, the Orthodox Church has no clear head. Therefore, the doctrine of one is not by that fact the doctrine of all. Just because Photius said the Filioque is heretical, does not mean the whole Orthodox Church believes it.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1444854' date='Jan 11 2008, 11:25 PM']To begin...In the end your point of view misunderstands one thing. The Orthodox did not split because of heresy and have not actually espoused any heresy. Rather, they have not accepted the development of doctrine within the Catholic Church, which is quite different. SSPX has done the same thing, would you claim they are heretical? (I would, but that's a different story all together.)

[b]I know this is off topic, but I find your animus against the SSPX ridiculous. It seems like whenever you post something, you relate it to the SSPX and how evil it is. I'm no apologist for the SSPX, but I find the way you accuse it of numerous things it's not guilty of ridiculous. I'd like to ask you what dogma you think the SSPX denies, but I'd better make another thread for that.[/b]

The heretical Churches are recognized by the Orthodox as heretical too.

[b]By heretical, I think the author meant the Churches that are regarded by both the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox to be heretical. [/b]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm[/url] Read the whole article...the Orthodox are not lumped together as part of the heretical Churches.

[b]I understand that. They don't deny any major Christological dogma. Thus they are not considered to be Nestorians or Monophysites or what have you. [/b]

How am I misreading that quote? (It falls under the heading "Reasons of the Present Schism.") I would actually contend that you don't want to answer to what the article is saying, thoughit represents the theology of the Church around the turn of the century.

By the way, during that period, theology was defined by manuals and not theological works, so that is the best way to go to discover pre-Vatican II theology.

[b]I know that. Reading manuals is how I know most of what I know about theology.[/b]


Greek and Russian and Coptic, and ...The Orthodox Church is much more than the Greek Church.

[b]If you want to keep arguing semantics, have fun, but I don't think I'm confusing anyone by using the term Greek Orthodox.[/b]

In fact, the Russians are the ones against it most, not the Greeks. Look up the current Patriarch of Constantinople (the Ecumenical Patriarch actually) and you'll see what he says.

What is the dogma of the Filioque? How do you understand it? How does the Latin Church understand it? How do the Orthodox Churches read it? How did Photius read it? Many disagreements between East and West are not doctrinal disagreements, but wording disagreements. It's because of arrogance, pride, miscommunications, hatred, envy, zealotry, and ignorance that most disagreements between East and West have occured.

[b]It is the dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle. I understand it the Catholic Church understands it. The Latin Church understands it just as the Catholic Church defined it and after its definition expanded on it. I don't know how Photius read it, but I find it difficult how he could have read it as being heretical. And I do agree that it was the pride and arrogance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, a see which only rose to be a patriarchate because the emperor lived there and which was not founded by and apostle, that the East went into schism with the Holy Catholic Church. [/b]

Actually, I accused you of the misunderstanding. It isn't that they deny Peter's primacy (except maybe the ignorant ones). The just don't take it all the way to infallibility.

[b]The last Greek Orthodox person I talked to (unless he doesn't represent the Greek Orthodox very well) said that the five patriarchs were all equal and that the Pope of Rome had no authority over the others.[/b]

And quite honestly, they have the more accurate view of how the Ancient Church understood the Holy Father's position. We let ourselves be blinded to history by the last few councils and can't see beyond 40, 130, or even 500 years. Read, for instance, the life of one of the four great Fathers of the Eastern Church (actually only considered such by the West, not by the East, but that's a different story), St. Athanasius.
As for Photius, what did he say about the Filioque?
[b]I don't think being in schism with the Supreme Pontiff demonstrates that they have a better understanding of his primacy, and Photius considered the Filioque one of several heresies of the West.[/b][/quote]


[quote name='qfnol31' post='1444855' date='Jan 11 2008, 11:27 PM']Lastly, according to what you said above, the Orthodox Church has no clear head. Therefore, the doctrine of one is not by that fact the doctrine of all. Just because Photius said the Filioque is heretical, does not mean the whole Orthodox Church believes it.[/quote]
But if one of their figureheads said it, it is likely that many believe it.

Edited January 12, 2008 by StThomasMore

[qfnol31]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1444979' date='Jan 12 2008, 02:28 PM']But if one of their figureheads said it, it is likely that many believe it.[/quote]

I'll give you that.

So what exactly do they believe?

[Norseman82]

I guess it all depends on whether the Orthodox put an "O" before every word that begins with an "E" ....

But seriously...

As far as the "Filioque" is concerned, I've said this before: look at the model of the Uniate churches and how
they handle it while still being in communion with the Pope.

Also, the "Great Schism" was considered to offically date from 1054, when the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated each other, but from what I've read, were these not retracted in 1965?

There is also the problem that many Orthodox Churches have been controlled by various governments even in recent times, especially under the communists in Eastern Europe.

And, from what I've read, there are different rules for divorced and remarriage in the Orthodox chrucres; this
would be more of an issue than anything else, to me.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1444995' date='Jan 12 2008, 02:34 PM']I'll give you that.

So what exactly do they believe?[/quote]

Some believe that the Holy Ghost only proceeds from the Father and not in any way from or through the Son.

[qfnol31]

Can you find a source for that claim? It actually sounds more like the Great Doctors of the Church than anyone I know myself.

And that statement would be considered wrong even by most Orthodox I know, I believe.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1445005' date='Jan 12 2008, 03:56 PM']I guess it all depends on whether the Orthodox put an "O" before every word that begins with an "E" ....

But seriously...

As far as the "Filioque" is concerned, I've said this before: look at the model of the Uniate churches and how
they handle it while still being in communion with the Pope.

Also, the "Great Schism" was considered to offically date from 1054, when the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated each other, but from what I've read, were these not retracted in 1965?

There is also the problem that many Orthodox Churches have been controlled by various governments even in recent times, especially under the communists in Eastern Europe.

And, from what I've read, there are different rules for divorced and remarriage in the Orthodox chrucres; this
would be more of an issue than anything else, to me.[/quote]

I think only the Roman Patriarch lifted the excommunication, but I'm not sure.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1445194' date='Jan 13 2008, 12:51 AM']Can you find a source for that claim? It actually sounds more like the Great Doctors of the Church than anyone I know myself.

And that statement would be considered wrong even by most Orthodox I know, I believe.[/quote]

Hey, that's just what the guy at the middle eastern food fair at a Greek Orthodox church told us when we mentioned we were Catholic and what Photius seems to have believed.

[qfnol31]

The problem is, my best friend is Orthodox and I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that. Also, he doesn't make a big deal out of the Trinity in that sense. Most of the time they're more comfortable just calling it a mystery than trying to explain it.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1445256' date='Jan 13 2008, 11:28 AM']Hey, that's just what the guy at the middle eastern food fair at a Greek Orthodox church told us when we mentioned we were Catholic and what Photius seems to have believed.[/quote]

Ahh, yes, some guy at the food fair = Greek Orthodox magisterium.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1445196' date='Jan 13 2008, 02:53 AM']I think only the Roman Patriarch lifted the excommunication, but I'm not sure.[/quote]
It was a mutual gesture by the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I to be precise.

[Laudate_Dominum]

STM is certainly right (in my experience) that you can find Orthodox Christians who simply deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in any way at all but they are generally not theologians.
The problem with the [i]filioque[/i] doctrine as it is expressed in the Roman creed (as far as Orthodoxy is concerned) is that it implies that the Son is cause [[i]aitia[/i]] or co-cause of the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Holy Spirit. Latin doctrine puts forth an interpretation of [i]procedere[/i] as [i]ekporeusis[/i] which effectively destroys the [i]monarchia[/i] of the Father and results in an understanding of [i]homoousios[/i] that is essentially Sabellian.
According to Orthodox theology the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father through/and the Son according to the term [i]proienai[/i] which refers to the (eternal and uncreated) energetic manifestation of the Spirit and/or the sending of the Spirit in the [i]oikonomia[/i].

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1444791' date='Jan 11 2008, 09:33 PM']There was a discussion on this a while back with Revprodeji.[/quote]


Thanks for the props. Ironically L_D answered almost exactly what I was going to answer so I really do not have much value to add to this topic. Other than to say that throwing the heretic tag on to the east does nothing productive for either side. My opinion is the western and the eastern trinitarian theologies are incomplete on their own and can only have the full revealed apostolic theology if they are understood withing the framework of each other. Since we would rather talk past each other and ignore each other we have developed our own frameworks that in turn come very close to heresy. This is incredibly obvious in the west. Those issues are nonexistent if we bind our theological developments to the revealed truths of the east. (developed in large part by the cappadocians)

So no offense STM, but calling the east heretical for the filioque is not accurate. I have been researching this topic in detail for almost 2 years now and you are wrong theologically as well as ecclesiological with that statement.

I tend to stay away from these arguments, as they usually flame out into a frat war of my party is better than yours and that sense of polemics is very destructive. I would recommend reading some of the many legit academic articles written on this topic rather than listening to rants from people with a strong bias

(again, no offense STM, I hope you know I do not think anything less about you--this is just not an issue we see eye to eye on)

Papa, that is a sad site with sad words, but that is not the majority view of the greek church. In the same way as every group of people has some idiots we need to understand that we do and so do they. We have said negative things about the east, and the east has said negative stuff on us. We have tried to make them latin by almost erasing their traditions which are apostolic and should be a part of our faith as well. Because they see this constant threat of assimulation they defend against that. There is so much pain this this struggle.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1445275' date='Jan 13 2008, 01:08 PM']The problem is, my best friend is Orthodox and I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that. Also, he doesn't make a big deal out of the Trinity in that sense. Most of the time they're more comfortable just calling it a mystery than trying to explain it.[/quote]
Gotta love the East. They really do love mystery.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1445315' date='Jan 13 2008, 02:43 PM']STM is certainly right (in my experience) that you can find Orthodox Christians who simply deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in any way at all but they are generally not theologians.
The problem with the [i]filioque[/i] doctrine as it is expressed in the Roman creed (as far as Orthodoxy is concerned) is that it implies that the Son is cause [[i]aitia[/i]] or co-cause of the [i]hypostasis[/i] of the Holy Spirit. Latin doctrine puts forth an interpretation of [i]procedere[/i] as [i]ekporeusis[/i] which effectively destroys the [i]monarchia[/i] of the Father and results in an understanding of [i]homoousios[/i] that is essentially Sabellian.
According to Orthodox theology the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father through/and the Son according to the term [i]proienai[/i] which refers to the (eternal and uncreated) energetic manifestation of the Spirit and/or the sending of the Spirit in the [i]oikonomia[/i].[/quote]
Wewt! L_D said what I was thinking on page one but I didn't know how to express it. Gotta love the scholarly types.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1445373' date='Jan 13 2008, 05:18 PM']Thanks for the props. Ironically L_D answered almost exactly what I was going to answer so I really do not have much value to add to this topic. Other than to say that throwing the heretic tag on to the east does nothing productive for either side. My opinion is the western and the eastern trinitarian theologies are incomplete on their own and can only have the full revealed apostolic theology if they are understood withing the framework of each other. Since we would rather talk past each other and ignore each other we have developed our own frameworks that in turn come very close to heresy. This is incredibly obvious in the west. Those issues are nonexistent if we bind our theological developments to the revealed truths of the east. (developed in large part by the cappadocians)[/quote]
Np. L_D was consise and on the money. Heretic tag, though is quite... spiteful. Anywho, I agree with your thoughts on east and west theology. Pope JPII did as well... he gave a great analogy of lungs when it came to east and west. Interesting that you think both east and west are close to heresy. I'll save that for another day, though. I think I'll smile and nod.

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1445373' date='Jan 13 2008, 05:18 PM']Papa, that is a sad site with sad words, but that is not the majority view of the greek church. In the same way as every group of people has some idiots we need to understand that we do and so do they. We have said negative things about the east, and the east has said negative stuff on us. We have tried to make them latin by almost erasing their traditions which are apostolic and should be a part of our faith as well. Because they see this constant threat of assimulation they defend against that. There is so much pain this this struggle.[/quote]
I think you added quite a bit to the post with this last part. We both really do need humility to see eye to eye again. To be honest, I'd love to regularly go to some Eastern Liturgies, maybe even study some theology in the Eastern light. At the same time, I'm a young Catholic kid who still wants to restore tradition to the west. I got my work cut out for me.

[u][b][url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72774&hl="]Here[/url][/b][/u] is Revprodeji's thread for those in the mood for some "light" reading

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1445465' date='Jan 13 2008, 10:50 PM']Interesting that you think both east and west are close to heresy. I'll save that for another day, though. I think I'll smile and nod.[/quote]

Let me explain this statement with a little better clarity. Almost every one of the great heresies were a truth perverted. There were aspects of truth involved which made it so dangerous. The problem is when they "pushed" these truths they ended up in heresy. As catholics we have "protection" against those heresies because the church came together as one, and brought with it the sum of the apostolic witness to answer the issue.

Now, with the trinitarian theology we have the problem of a severed apostolic witness. In the west that means (as we spoke about briefly in the paper) is that we accidently and often compromise the monarchy of the father, as well as our theology can confuse the father and the Son. (somewhat of a modalistic issue) Now, the original Augustinian theology was not intended to do these 2 things, and if you apply augustine's filioque within the teachings of the eastern apostolic fathers then you do not have these problems (somewhat the message of my paper) but the issue is that we simply do not take the eastern teachings with us. Unless someone goes out of their way to study the eastern teaching they are left with a western trinitarian theology that is dangerously close to heresy. Not because the western root is bad, but as an incomplete theology it is open to heresy.

(There are examples for the east also, but being that you are not eastern I do not need to mention them and they would only light a fire under anti-eastern people)

I believe I sent you the article from Robert Letham. He is protestant, but his understandings of trinitarian theology are very good. He also sees the fuller threat of western trinitarian issues because protestant trintarian theology is kind of a mess for the most part.