The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
TAFrazer, PNCC Random Guy, Coldstream, CA_Avgvstinus, goalie31
5,767 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (theophan), 107 guests, and 48 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,055
Posts414,075
Members5,767
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 302
A
Roman Catholic
Member
OP Offline
Roman Catholic
Member
A
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 302
Is Eastern Catholic theology and doctrine the same as in the Latin Right of the church if not what are some of the similarities and differences?

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
L
lm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
The doctrine certainly is the same, otherwise we would not be Catholic. The theology may have a different emphasis and expression, but it cannot lead to a different doctrine.

One example of the theological difference is that the East does not use the "filioque" (and the Son) in the Creed. This is not to say that the Latins are wrong for doing so, but it does provide a different and legitimate example of a different emphasis. For the theological reasons for this difference see the article on The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/filioque.html

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
I have no objection at all to saying flatly that the Latins ought not to use the Filioque - it was interpolated unilaterally and has a fratricidal effect.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 302
A
Roman Catholic
Member
OP Offline
Roman Catholic
Member
A
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 302
Fr. Serge I agree with you completely

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 6
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
... the Filioque - it was interpolated unilaterally and has a fratricidal effect.

Yes, "it was interpolated unilaterally," and the historical circumstances are known and have been explained. The dogmatic issue is still sensitive (and properly so) but the Catholic Church professes the same basic and essential understanding of the dogma as the Orthodox. There are fine points where theological views and speculations may differ, but how much should churches (and their theologies) that acknowledge an apophatic approach to the mystery of the Trinity demand of those issues?

Clearly as a matter of protocol (not dogma) the Latin, Roman, West goofed; and at this point in time that has a "fratricidal effect" only if one party decides to make it so, where the issue is in reality no more than a convenient stick used at will by some Orthodox to periodically spank the Catholics. As well deserved (some may say) that the spanking may be, the issue should not be turned into a justification for continuing schism.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
Clearly the filioque does not belong in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed because the creed as it was originally written is referring to the Holy Spirit's procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person, which comes only from the Father as the sole font of divinity.

Interestingly enough, the solution to this theological problem, which can be found in the Letter of St. Maximos to Marinus, was presented at the Council of Florence, but was sadly rejected by the West at that time. Nevertheless, if the West could come to accept what St. Maximos taught, i.e., that ". . . the Father is the only cause (aition) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by generation (gennesin) and the other by procession (ekporeusin)," [1] it follows that the two sides would then be able to make a common profession of faith in the Triune God. Now this solution would simply require that the West accept the difference between hypostatic origination, which comes only from the Father as sole cause within the Godhead and which safeguards the doctrine of the Father’s monarchy, and the manifestation of divine unity, which is revealed in the progression (proienai) of the energies of the Spirit from the Father through the Son. Moreover, this solution has the advantage of satisfying much of what the West wants to say in connection with the unity of the Godhead, while simultaneously protecting the monarchy of the Father as sole cause (aition) of the hypostatic existence (i.e., the subsistent being) of the Son and the Spirit.

[1] Letter of St. Maximos to Marinus, PG 91:136.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
I think that if the western Church would simply change "and the Son" to "through the Son" the problem would be solved.

Joe

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
I think that if the western Church would simply change "and the Son" to "through the Son" the problem would be solved.

Joe

I disagree, because the term ekporeoumenon is used in the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and that term refers specifically to the Spirit's origin as person from the Father alone. The per filium applies only at the level of the divine energy, and not in connection with the Spirit's existential origin, and so its insertion into the creed would blur the distinction that must be made between the Spirit as person and the energies of the Spirit, which reveal and manifest the unity of the Holy Trinity.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
I think that if the western Church would simply change "and the Son" to "through the Son" the problem would be solved.

Joe

I disagree, because the term ekporeoumenon is used in the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and that term refers specifically to the Spirit's origin as person from the Father alone. The per filium applies only at the level of the divine energy, and not in connection with the Spirit's existential origin, and so its insertion into the creed would be a theological error.


Todd, you might be right about this and personally I think that the filioque should simply be removed from the Creed altogether. But it wouldn't hurt things if Rome explained more clearly what is meant by "through the Son."

Joe

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
I think that if the western Church would simply change "and the Son" to "through the Son" the problem would be solved.

Joe

I disagree, because the term ekporeoumenon is used in the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and that term refers specifically to the Spirit's origin as person from the Father alone. The per filium applies only at the level of the divine energy, and not in connection with the Spirit's existential origin, and so its insertion into the creed would be a theological error.


Todd, you might be right about this and personally I think that the filioque should simply be removed from the Creed altogether. But it wouldn't hurt things if Rome explained more clearly what is meant by "through the Son."

Joe

It would be helpful if Rome would clarify its views on the filioque, but that really is not all that pertinent to the discussion at hand, because the creed as it was originally written is talking about the origin of the Spirit, and the Spirit receives His hypostatic existence (i.e., His ekporeusis) only from the Father.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 6
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Clearly the filioque does not belong in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed ...
Though the original received Latin and Greek texts differ slightly, the filioque is clearly a much later addition.


Originally Posted by Apotheoun
... because the creed as it was originally written is referring to the Holy Spirit's procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person, which comes only from the Father as the sole font of divinity.
This is the accepted understanding but was this, in its fullness, the original understanding at the time?

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Interestingly enough, the solution to this theological problem, which can be found in the Letter of St. Maximos to Marinus,...
To be noted also is that St. Maximos accepted the West's explanation.


Originally Posted by Apotheoun
... was presented at the Council of Florence, but was sadly rejected by the West at that time.
Ah, the intrigues and vicissitudes of history, whatever they may have actually been.


Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Nevertheless, if the West could come to accept what St. Maximos taught, i.e., that ". . . the Father is the only cause (aition) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by generation (gennesin) and the other by procession (ekporeusin)," [1] it follows that the two sides would then be able to make a common profession of faith in the Triune God. Now this solution would simply require that the West accept the difference between hypostatic origination, which comes only from the Father as sole cause within the Godhead and which safeguards the doctrine of the Father’s monarchy, and the manifestation of divine unity,
Indeed, from Rome's 1995 Clarification
Quote
The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's Monarchy," and the Western tradition, following St Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father "principaliter", that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, PL 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Αἰτία) or Principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.


Originally Posted by Apotheoun
... which is revealed in the progression (proienai) of the energies of the Spirit from the Father through the Son. Moreover, this solution has the advantage of satisfying much of what the West wants to say in connection with the unity of the Godhead, while simultaneously protecting the monarchy of the Father as sole cause (aition) of the hypostatic existence (i.e., the subsistent being) of the Son and the Spirit.

[1] Letter of St. Maximos to Marinus, PG 91:136.

Personally I think that the concept of "energies" has weaker doctrinal and theological basis than the filioque.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by ajk
Personally I think that the concept of "energies" has weaker doctrinal and theological basis than the filioque.

Personally I think that your viewpoint is theologically untenable.


Below are some helpful texts that discuss the Eastern position on this issue:


Henny Fiska Hagg. Clement of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Apophaticism. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Richard Haugh. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975.

Hussey, M. Edmund. The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas. (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Publishing, 1972.

George Maloney, S.J. A Theology of Uncreated Energies. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Marquette University Press, 1978.

John Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology. New York: Fordham University Press, 1979, pp. 91-94.

Aristeides Papadakis. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283–1289). New York: Fordham University Press, 1983.

Aristeides Papadakis. The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994, pp. 232-238 and 379-408.

Pentecost, Scott F. Quest for the Divine Presence: Metaphysics of Participation and the Relation of Philosophy to Theology in St. Gregory Palamas’s Triads and One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1999.

Duncan Reid. Energies of the Spirit: Trinitarian Models in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.

A. Edward Siecienski. The Use of Maximus the Confessor's Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439). Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.

1 member likes this: CathariC
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 6
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 6
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by ajk
Personally I think that the concept of "energies" has weaker doctrinal and theological basis than the filioque.

Personally I think that your viewpoint is theologically untenable.


Below are some helpful texts that discuss the Eastern position on this issue: ...


Thanks for the references for this interesting and potentially useful theologoumenon. Is there anywhere the Church in its liturgy professes the notion of Energies as put forth therein?

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Originally Posted by ajk
Personally I think that the concept of "energies" has weaker doctrinal and theological basis than the filioque.

Personally I think that your viewpoint is theologically untenable.


Below are some helpful texts that discuss the Eastern position on this issue: ...


Thanks for the references for this interesting and potentially useful theologoumenon. Is there anywhere the Church in its liturgy professes the notion of Energies as put forth therein?

The doctrine of divine energies is set forth in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which is supposed to be chanted on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in the Byzantine Churches.

P.S. - The Synodikon, which is perhaps the central dogmatic liturgical text within the Byzantine Tradition, also states explicitly that ". . . the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the Gospel," and that anyone who says otherwise "shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized."

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Here is a link to a translation of the Synodikon:

Synodikon of Orthodoxy

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5