Roman/Orthodox Catholic: Unity

IacobPersul (James) and I started a conversation in another thread.... but this is the proper place to have this discussion.

Question: What are the prospects of unity for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Churches?

What are the major conflicts?

How do we achieve unity?

IacobPersul said:

I'm not sure what it would take for reunion in the opinion of other Orthodox, but from my own point of view I'm afraid to say that most of the give would have to be on the Roman Catholic side.

Firstly, we're unlikely to get anywhere while the Uniate issue is so hot. What I mean is, the Uniates in the Ukraine should stop asking for their Cardinal to be a Patriarch, amicable discussions over Church property should be begun etc. I'm not one to suggest the Uniates shouldn't exist, but they need to stop antagonising (often deliberately) the Orthodox. I don't think this should be too hard to achieve, though.

On matters of doctrine, there are really two major issues I can see, and these are the ones that precipitated the Schism in the first place. Firstly, the Pope must be willing to be first in honour without having authority over the other Patriarchs and secondly the filioque must be removed from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. These are really non-negotiable, I feel. I realise that the Roman Catholic understanding of the filioque has started to move closer to the understanding we have of the Holy Spirit only having His origin in the Father and an economic procession through the Son, but the Creed is solely concerned with the origin of the Holy Spirit and not how He comes into the world in history.

There are, of course, a host of lesser issues, but these are the only ones I feel would need to be accepted up front. The others could probably be settled in a council.

Click to expand...

I hope a few others jump in with their views..... if not, I'll start in on this later.

Scott

OK.... I'll get this started.... hopefully James (and others) will jump in later...

IacobPersul said:

On matters of doctrine, there are really two major issues I can see, and these are the ones that precipitated the Schism in the first place. Firstly, the Pope must be willing to be first in honour without having authority over the other Patriarchs

Click to expand...

Why? The Roman Church wants unity, not dominion over the faith.... you keep your Patriarchs and continue doing what you're doing.... nothing would change... well, except we'd like a certain feast day removed from your liturgy. Communion does not mean that the Orthodox faith would fall under the control of the Papacy, and the Pope would not be under the control of a Patriarch or Council.

and secondly the filioque must be removed from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Click to expand...

..... we handled this about 600 years ago at the Council of Florence.... to clarify:
The Second Council of Lyons (1274) reflected the Latin approach in stressing the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (Filioque). The Council of Florence (1438-1440) reaffirmed the Latin approach, but allowed also for the Greek approach, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (per Filium). For the Greeks the Filioque implied a double principle in God; for the Latins the per Filium implied a subordination of Son to Father. Neither side intended what the other side thought was implied, and much of the controversy was, in fact, unnecessary.

To further clarify:
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. ...is 100% correct to a Roman Catholic.

Anything else?

Scott,

Firstly, what feast day is it that you think we'd need to remove from our calendar? I'm afraid I don't know which one you mean. While we're on the subject, though, there are certain problems we would have with the Roman Catholic calendar also. The one that springs to mind is that you have 'Saint' Josaphat Kuntsevich. He would clearly have to be removed from our point of view, given the fact that he was directly responsible for massacring Orthodox Christians. I'm sure we'd both have issues with some of the other's saints, not to mention the date of Easter. The calendars are likely to cause difficulties I would think.
I'm glad to hear that you seem to think Rome would not want dominion over a unified Church, but forgive me for being a little skeptical about this. The Unia does give me cause for concern as it seems that it was achieved on the grounds of submission to the Pope rather than doctrinal unity. This would, of course, be unacceptable to the Orthodox. Maybe you have a different perspective on this and, if so, I'd be interested to hear it. The one thing I'd be a little wary of is where you say the Pope would not be under any council. Even an Ecumenical Council? Our Patriarchs are all under the Ecumenical Councils, even the EP, and I would expect the same for the Pope if we were to reunify. Basically, he'd be first among equals, able to call an Ecumenical Council and have the right to chair it when it sat, but he would be bound by the Council's decision whatever that was. The Pope's approval, however, would not be necessary for determining whether or not a council is Ecumenical. Would that seem acceptable to Roman Catholics?
As for the filioque, you seem to be reading more into what I said than was meant. I did not mean that the current Roman Catholic understanding of the filioque was wrong, but that it has no place in the wording of the Creed. The Creed speaks of the ultimate origin of the persons in the Godhead and not the economic procession of the Holy Spirit in mankind's history. This is why the Orthodox equivalent was never attached to the Creed - they're talking of different things. I can't imagine that any Orthodox, clergy or lay, would budge on this. Sorry.
As for the Council of Florence, for us that settled nothing, as I'm sure you're aware. It was resoundingly rejected by the whole Church for the politically motivated fudge that it was, being more about attempts to get western help against the Turks than anything else. I would have to say that you're right in that we regard a dual principle in God as heretical and hence would not accept the filioque in the Creed, but it goes further than that. For us the filioque (as used in the Creed, note) makes the Holy Spirit ontologically subordinate to the Father and the Son and contradicts Scripture. I don't know what the Roman Catholic position is re. Scriptural support for the filioque. As for your objection to the Son being subordinate to the Father if 'through the Son' is used, I don't quite understand. There is a form of subordination in that the Son voluntarily submits His will to the Father's (as does the Holy Spirit), but I don't see how temporal procession through the Son has any effect on the actual relationship between Father and Son. Could you explain the Roman Catholic understanding of this?

James

IacobPersul said:

Firstly, what feast day is it that you think we'd need to remove from our calendar?

Click to expand...

Me personally? Nothing. I've read that the RCC would like the Feast Day for Photius removed.... but I'm fairly sure that would be open for discussion.
Like I said, I personally would not care to change anything about the Eastern Church....

The one that springs to mind is that you have 'Saint' Josaphat Kuntsevich.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that I'm not educated about the man.... all I can say is that I would not let ANY historical facts prevent unity.

I'm glad to hear that you seem to think Rome would not want dominion over a unified Church, but forgive me for being a little skeptical about this. The Unia does give me cause for concern as it seems that it was achieved on the grounds of submission to the Pope rather than doctrinal unity.

Click to expand...

I understand your skeptisism, but a little reading of post-Vatican II literature will solve that. As far as the Unia: two different issues.... the Unia's inclusion into the Roman Rite is not the same as what I propose for unity of East/West.
Full Communion does not mean that we all must all meld into one Rite, led either by the Pope or the EP's.

The one thing I'd be a little wary of is where you say the Pope would not be under any council. Even an Ecumenical Council?

Click to expand...

What I mean is, the unity would not have to include dominion, by either side.... besides, it's not like there is going to be a EC any time soon... which Emperor is going to call the Council?
Again, to clarify, I mean that the Pope would not be under the dominion of FUTURE EC's.... we'll continue along, and you do the same.

Basically, he'd be first among equals, able to call an Ecumenical Council and have the right to chair it when it sat, but he would be bound by the Council's decision whatever that was. The Pope's approval, however, would not be necessary for determining whether or not a council is Ecumenical. Would that seem acceptable to Roman Catholics?

Click to expand...

Which Ecumenical Council (that Orthodox recognize) was called by a Pope? Not any that I know of.... there will be no future EC..... ever..... there are no longer Emperors to call them..... and even if there was, why would we go? The Eastern Church (as much as I love you guys) has little influence in the world... John Paul II dies and most of the world STOPPED.... most Orthodox Christians I have met could not name all of the Patriarchs (but they knew the Pope's name ).

I did not mean that the current Roman Catholic understanding of the filioque was wrong, but that it has no place in the wording of the Creed.

Click to expand...

It's not in the Creed... Florence allowed for boths forms (with and without the filioque).... for our discussion, it's out.

For us the filioque (as used in the Creed, note) makes the Holy Spirit ontologically subordinate to the Father and the Son and contradicts Scripture.

Click to expand...

Now you seem to be missing the point.... a few minutes of education will show you that the RCC DOES not view the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father and Son.... I can give you some quotes later if you'd like.
This objection is based in your opinion alone... it is not fact.

Scott

SOGFPP said:

Me personally? Nothing. I've read that the RCC would like the Feast Day for Photius removed.... but I'm fairly sure that would be open for discussion.
Like I said, I personally would not care to change anything about the Eastern Church....
I'm sorry that I'm not educated about the man.... all I can say is that I would not let ANY historical facts prevent unity.
I understand your skeptisism, but a little reading of post-Vatican II literature will solve that. As far as the Unia: two different issues.... the Unia's inclusion into the Roman Rite is not the same as what I propose for unity of East/West.
Full Communion does not mean that we all must all meld into one Rite, led either by the Pope or the EP's.
What I mean is, the unity would not have to include dominion, by either side.... besides, it's not like there is going to be a EC any time soon... which Emperor is going to call the Council?
Again, to clarify, I mean that the Pope would not be under the dominion of FUTURE EC's.... we'll continue along, and you do the same.
Which Ecumenical Council (that Orthodox recognize) was called by a Pope? Not any that I know of.... there will be no future EC..... ever..... there are no longer Emperors to call them..... and even if there was, why would we go? The Eastern Church (as much as I love you guys) has little influence in the world... John Paul II dies and most of the world STOPPED.... most Orthodox Christians I have met could not name all of the Patriarchs (but they knew the Pope's name ).
It's not in the Creed... Florence allowed for boths forms (with and without the filioque).... for our discussion, it's out.
Now you seem to be missing the point.... a few minutes of education will show you that the RCC DOES not view the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father and Son.... I can give you some quotes later if you'd like.
This objection is based in your opinion alone... it is not fact.

Scott

Click to expand...

It is interesting to read your dialogue but there are some facts that have to be understood before you guys keep going back and forth. There is one major issue neither of you has addressed and I want to see what each of you have to say about it. That is the understanding of the Uncreated Light which the RC historically has rejected and I think it was St. Gregory that expounded on it and was rejected early on by the West categorically. As you both probably know this is also part of the understanding of the three-fold process of salvation.... purification, illumination and Theosis. The RC (to my understanding) does not understand or agree with this. Also the Theological perspective as to whether one is "catophatic" or "apophatic" in there dogmas. (not sure about the spelling) Just thought that I would inject some not so minor issues that should be thrown into the ring. Continue On, I'm enjoying it. I'm not scholarly as you two, so I'll watch again until I can keep quiet no longer

Oh yes, the fact that the Council of Florence was completely rejected by the Orthodox East and with the understanding that I have, we will never ratify it, should be of concern to the RC.

I'm curious Scott, have you read the account of St. Mark of Ephesus?

We can disagree and still love each other.

First of all, let me say:

Joannicius said:

We can disagree and still love each other.

Click to expand...

AMEN!

There is one major issue neither of you has addressed and I want to see what each of you have to say about it. That is the understanding of the Uncreated Light

Click to expand...

Sorry... I must say that I'm ignorant about this.... I don't know how to respond... is this a doctrine? A physical phenomenon?

Also the Theological perspective as to whether one is "catophatic" or "apophatic" in there dogmas.

Click to expand...

Sorry.... no clue here either.

Oh yes, the fact that the Council of Florence was completely rejected by the Orthodox East and with the understanding that I have, we will never ratify it, should be of concern to the RC.

Click to expand...

Well... it's not a concern..... for me at least. Jesus Christ wants us to be united.... everything else is secondary. If the two Churches want to follow the will of the Lord, we'll work things out.

I'm curious Scott, have you read the account of St. Mark of Ephesus?

Click to expand...

Sorry again, no, I have not.

Please keep posting... this is not a one on one debate.... your input is appreciated.

Scott

Scott,

I thought that you might perhaps be referring to St. Photios the Great. I hadn't realised he was a particularly big deal for the Roman Catholic churh, though. Personally, I can't imagine us being willing to remove his feast day, but who knows? It doesn't seem like a major issue compared to some of the others.
As for ecumenical councils, why do you think we couldn't have another? In actual fact we've been working towards another one for some time now, and we don't believe it's necessary that all such councils be called by an Emperor. Maybe, though, this is just a matter of semantics. I thought that the Roman Catholic church considered some of her post-Schism councils to be ecumenical?
Personally, I think that your dismissal of the filioque issue is too soon. We would, generally speaking, have a problem with even allowing the Creed to be recited with the filioque, not just if someone were to try to force it on us because we feel it is bad theology and that any true unity must be based on faith, not just organisational unity. I feel you are taking the issue too lightly, but I'm willing to end this part of the discussion here, after making one last point. I was not suggesting, as you said, that the RC church believed the Holy Spirit was inferior but that from an Orthodox perspective this is precisely the consequence of the filioque. It is not, therefore, mere opinion but fact, but I admit only from our perspective. There is certainly room for debate on this.
As Joannicius pointed out, there are a number of other major theological details that would need to be discussed. One of these is whether God's grace is uncreated or created (we say it's uncreated), theosis (which I don't think is held to in the west at all, the juridical understanding of salvation (linked to the understanding of theosis), etc. A smaller issue raised by Joannicius would be the Orthodox tendency to apophatic and western tendency towards catophatic theology, but that's really more of an issue of perspective, I feel. If you can let us know which of these things you're most interested in discussing, or any other areas you might feel are important then I'll be happy to respond.

James

IacobPersul said:

As for ecumenical councils, why do you think we couldn't have another? In actual fact we've been working towards another one for some time now, and we don't believe it's necessary that all such councils be called by an Emperor.

Click to expand...

Not necessary? I guess not.... but how many in the last 2,000 years were NOT called by an Emperor/ress?

Maybe, though, this is just a matter of semantics. I thought that the Roman Catholic church considered some of her post-Schism councils to be ecumenical?

Click to expand...

I do believe they are called ecumenical.... but in reality, without the Eastern Church there, they are two different things.

Personally, I think that your dismissal of the filioque issue is too soon. We would, generally speaking, have a problem with even allowing the Creed to be recited with the filioque, not just if someone were to try to force it on us because we feel it is bad theology and that any true unity must be based on faith, not just organisational unity.

Click to expand...

I agree... organizational unity is not anyone's goal.... but just how much do we have to agree on for theological unity? 50%? 49.674%? 100%? I'm not sure how we could draw a line.

I was not suggesting, as you said, that the RC church believed the Holy Spirit was inferior but that from an Orthodox perspective this is precisely the consequence of the filioque.

Click to expand...

Remind me to start a thread on this issue at a later date.....

One of these is whether God's grace is uncreated or created (we say it's uncreated), theosis (which I don't think is held to in the west at all, the juridical understanding of salvation (linked to the understanding of theosis), etc. A smaller issue raised by Joannicius would be the Orthodox tendency to apophatic and western tendency towards catophatic theology, but that's really more of an issue of perspective

Click to expand...

You pick it..... I must admit I am just learning about the Eastern Church. I read Panayiotis Christou - The Teaching of Gregory Palamas on Man from myriobiblos.gr just last night to learn about the uncreated light. Very good stuff. I have been told my spiritual side and love for contemplative prayer is quite "Eastern" hehe.... I call it more Carmelite, but what's in a word? ....

... my point is, if you'll indulge me, I would like you to teach me more about Eastern Theology..... and in doing so, we'll be able to relate more to the thread topic about unity and its possiblity.

My nous, logos, and pneuma are ready for instruction....

Peace in Christ,
Scott

SOGFPP said:

Not necessary? I guess not.... but how many in the last 2,000 years were NOT called by an Emperor/ress?

Click to expand...

None that I'm aware of, but who calls a council surely doesn't affect its status? After all, there have been councils called by emperors that are not considered ecumenical. Surely it is the ecumenical (i.e. universal) nature of the teachings of a council that is important.

SOGFPP said:

I do believe they are called ecumenical.... but in reality, without the Eastern Church there, they are two different things.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the councils considered ecumenical by Roman Catholics are different, but I don't really see how from a Roman Catholic perspective. Why do you think this? I don't believe that we would need Roman Catholic participation to have an ecumenical council while we remain divided. After all, we both accept councils as ecumenical that occurred after Chalcedon despite the Oriental Orthodox splitting off, don't we? I really don't see the difference, but maybe that is down to our differing ecclesiologies?

SOGFPP said:

I agree... organizational unity is not anyone's goal.... but just how much do we have to agree on for theological unity? 50%? 49.674%? 100%? I'm not sure how we could draw a line.

Click to expand...

I quite agree. Organisational unity without unity of faith would be false union, which I don't believe would be in the interests of either side. As for how much we have to agree on, I can't give you figures. On the fundamentals of the faith I'd say it would have to be total. Otherwise how can we speak of unity? On the terminology used, I don't think we need to agree so much, so long as we mean the same thing. I'm fully aware that apparent disagreements in theology can sometimes be little more than differences in vocabulary. These are obviously unnecessary causes of strife and, so long as we can accept that each side means the same, we should be able to allow for different words to be used, just as different languages will be used by different local churches. And, of course, on the matter of church customs, there is really no need to agree at all. Unless a custom is directly opposed to the faith in some way, I see no reason to oppose it. Keep all the different vestments, beardless priests and the like, just don't expect me to accept that the chalice be witheld from the laiety (I know the latter is a bad example as it is often not the case nowadays but it was once. Please don't pick me up on this, I was just struggling to find a custom that I felt would be opposed to the faith, which goes to prove my point that we need not agree on most of them.) I think the difficulty for any reunification talks will not be to figure out how much we should agree on, but to figure out what is or is not essential to the faith.

SOGFPP said:

... my point is, if you'll indulge me, I would like you to teach me more about Eastern Theology..... and in doing so, we'll be able to relate more to the thread topic about unity and its possiblity.

Click to expand...

This is a tall order! I'm not a priest, you know. Never mind, I'll try my best and hopefully if I bodge it too badly someone will jump in with a correction.
If I have to start the ball rolling, then I guess I'd like to begin with salvation and theosis. I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, that Roman Catholic soteriology is close to that of the Lutheran church I was brought up in, though not rejecting the place of works. The reason I'd like to start here is that the difference between that and Orthodox soteriology is one of the major things that helped me decide to convert.
The difference between western (RC and Protestant lumped together here. I know they aren't identical but please forgive me. As an ex-Protestant I find this easier) and eastern soteriology, as I see it, is in the importance of the Incarnation and in theosis. In my opinion, western Christians tend to focus in on the idea of God punishing Christ in the place of man to justify His honour. In other words, it seems based on a sort of human understanding of justice. Eastern Christians, on the other hand, don't focus in on the Crucifixion as much. It is a part of the whole, but the entire Incarnation is most important. I'm not saying this idea is totally lacking from western thought, but it doesn't come out often or clearly.
The basic upshot of my hastily sketched impressions is this. In western Christianity, God is seen as justly punishing mankind with death, but in His mercy He sent His Son to die in our stead. He atones for our sins (and only His Son's suffering is of sufficient worth for God to be able to forgive us - which sort of makes God less than omnipotent and necessity into a pseudo-deity, at least in my opinion) and accepting Him and striving to follow Him means that we get to go to Heaven rather than God punishing us with the hell He has created for sinners. In contrast, we believe that Christ's Incarnation divinised human nature, restoring the relationship with God we should have had without the Fall. By dying and rising again, He conquered death and by following Him we can slowly, as a process of synergy between us and God become more like God until we become gods by grace (theosis). God doesn't create hell - we do - those who turn away from God will still experience God's presence in all in the hereafter but it will be intolerable to them - burning like fire. Those of us who turn to God and love Him will feel His presence as joy. God pours out His love equally on the faithful and sinners alike. In this way our idea of salvation is more organic and less juridical than is normal in the west.
I'm afraid that, not being a theologian, I don't explain this well so, if you can overlook the anti-western polemics (which I, despite being Orthodox, find distasteful), I would recommend the following article. I think it explains Orthodox soteriology better than I can - it's just a shame that Dr Kalomiros couldn't do it with a little more charity.

http://http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html

Hope that helps.

James

Scott,

As I said at the beginning, being an ex-Lutheran, I find it easier to contrast Protestant and Orthodox soteriology than Orthodox and Roman Catholic. I never claimed to have a full understanding of the Roman Catholic position and asked you to correct me if what I said was wrong. In what way, then, am I misinformed? Uninformed, surely, would be a more appropriate term.
I'm glad to see that modern Roman Catholic teaching seems more in line with Orthodoxy, though I still see a difference in emphasis. No Roman Catholic lay person I have ever previously spoken to has had a clue about the idea of theosis (though it is apparent that you do) and so, as it is wholly absent from Lutheranism which was based on the Roman Catholic teachings of Luther's time, I don't feel it was too unreasonable of me to believe that the same was true for your church today. Personally, I'm glad to see that this impression is wrong (though it does make me wonder what the average Catholic lay person is being taught) and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop treating me like a hostile witness. I thought the purpose of this thread was to discuss differences and similarities with a view to see whether reunion is possible, not to alienate each other further? I am not, despite what you appear to believe, trying to tell you how wrong you are (for the nth time, I am not and have never been a Roman Catholic), but merely to point out what we believe and see if you believe similarly or not. You cannot expect me to know the answers ahead of time and it was you, not I, who suggested I start the ball rolling.
The one thing that we clearly disagree on from your answers is what hell is. You seem to believe that it is willful separation from God whereas we believe almost the exact opposite, but I don't believe that this is all that important. Hopefully neither of us will ever know the truth! I could probably find Fathers that supported your position and you could certainly find those that support ours. It seems to me, though, that the important point for both of us is that we punish ourselves by rejecting God (whatever effect that has) rather than that God punishes us. In essence, then, we are agreed and I, for one, would be happy to leave the details up to the individual believer.
I don't feel any desire to bring up the next topic of discussion, but would rather leave that up to you. What things do you feel we disagree/agree on? I will be happy to discuss them with you but I'm not going to set myself up as a target for you again. I don't claim to be an expert on Roman Catholicism and I realise we are closer to each other than Orthodoxy is to Protestantism, but several times now you have assumed that I am trying to teach you your own beliefs. It seems, therefore, like this discussion would be more fruitful if you started by telling me what you believe so that I can avoid inadvertently getting said beliefs wrong. I hope that you understand what I am getting at here and also, in fact, that I have misinterpreted your words and intentions in much the same way as you appear to have misinterpreted mine.

James

James,
First of all.... I apologize if you have taken my posts as hostile.... you've been posting here for a while and I thought you knew me better than that. This is a difficult medium to express emotion (good or bad) and I know that sometimes things don't come off the way we intend it. I enjoy this discussion very much, and I pray you continue on.... just keep in mind that I'm just a goofball who enjoys talking and learning about faith.

IacobPersul said:

Uninformed, surely, would be a more appropriate term.

Click to expand...

Again, forgive my oversight...

No Roman Catholic lay person I have ever previously spoken to has had a clue about the idea of theosis (though it is apparent that you do)

Click to expand...

Yeah.... unfortunately, it has been my experience (I'm a Protestant convert as well/2 years as a Catholic) that very few Catholics understand the basics of their faith, let alone any complex theology or the theology of other faiths. The emphasis of the "average" lay Catholic today is on "hot button" morality issues (i.e. abortion, cloning, gay marriage) ..... these things are easy to attack (I'm not saying that they are incorrect) and it avoids having to spend any real brain power learning. Most of the "devout" Catholics standing on abortion picket lines (again, I'm not saying they are wrong) could not explain to you the Trinity/have never read the Catechism/never read the writings of a Church Father/ etc etc....
The post-Vatican II Catholic Church is really quite remarkable.... the broad reaching theological/historical/ecumenical/social teachings that have been defined/illustrated in the last 40 years will take CENTURIES to fully learn and digest..... I pray that Catholics will be better educated in the future... it is what I intend to devote my life to.

In essence, then, we are agreed and I, for one, would be happy to leave the details up to the individual believer.

Click to expand...

Amen.

It seems, therefore, like this discussion would be more fruitful if you started by telling me what you believe so that I can avoid inadvertently getting said beliefs wrong.

Click to expand...

Again, I ask for forgiveness.... it is so rare that I encounter someone who does not profess to be an expert in all things (you know how forums are)... and I am grateful to God for the opportunity to chat with a "kindred" spirit.
I must admit though..... this conversation will die out without your input.... I don't have a problem with Orthodox theology (not saying you do! )... so it makes things difficult to suggest.

.... how about original sin? No*s (Kenneth) and I had a fruitful discussion about this topic (and its relation to the Incarnation) on another thread..... I don't know if you'd like to read it and jump over there.... whatever.

One more time = relax! I'm very likeable/lovable/good looking/intelligent and MODEST ...... don't read into my writing in a negative way.... I'm just Scott.

Peace in Christ

Excuse me you guys. I think the infalability of the Pope is an issue. And I realy don't understand this excathedra or how ever you spell it. Is this worth throwing in?

P.S. James, don't worry. From my observation over the time I've been here there is not a hostile bone in Scott's body, so that can be put to rest. His sense of humor is a little confusing at times though. Excuse me Scott

One more time = relax! I'm very likeable/lovable/good looking/intelligent and MODEST .......

Click to expand...

Is that your Mom's opinion?:sarcastic

Scott,

Sorry about the mutual misunderstanding and I hope we can put it behind us.

As for further discussion, firstly I'd like to second Joannicius' request that we discuss Papal infallibility. To me this idea is simply untenable and an example of a difference between western, rational theology (what I'd call 'either, or' theology) and eastern mystical ('both, and' theology). The idea of any one person (or local church for that matter) being infallible is just nonsensical to me. In fact the whole thing reminds me of Torquemada (the famous one's uncle, I think) at the Council of Florence arguing with St. Mark of Ephesus over Bl. Augustine. Torquemada seemed to think that a Father must be infallible and therefore Augustine contained no errors, whereas St. Mark said that no man was infallible and that Augustine erring on some details of his theology in no way barred him from being a Father. I would hold to the latter view, and Popes would not be excluded from this. What do you think of this Roman Catholic doctrine?

For my own part, I'd like to discuss the Immaculate Conception rather than original sin - you've shown me that you don't believe too differently from us on the latter (though most RCs I've spoken to seem not to - it could just be a theological vocabulary issue, mind). I actually asked you a couple of long questions on this subject here, which you didn't reply to (maybe the discussion was in the wrong place?):

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12670&page=3

Anyway, to summarise, my questions are these: what problem is solved by the Immaculate Conception? Why is it necessary at all? And would you be willing to drop the dogma? The problem, as I see it, is that it smacks of Augustinian original sin and if you don't believe in that I can't understand its purpose. My objections to the dogma would be as follows:

1. Nobody is born guilty of Adam's sin, therefore why should Mary need an 'immaculate' conception to remain sinless?
2. If Mary was saved from sin, directly, by God, then she doesn't need the salvation provided by Christ.
3. If God was willing or able to preserve one person, arbitrarily, from sin, then the same could be true of all and the Incarnation becomes pointless.
4. It seems to go against Mary's free will, therefore making her less rather than more of an example of Christian holiness (it actually seems perrilously close to Calvinist style 'strong' pre-destination).
5. Mary clearly wasn't born free of the consequences of Adam's sin as she was mortal and died.

There are probably more problems than those above, but they'll do as a starting point. As you can probably see, I feel that this is one of the worst, most wrong-headed doctrines that the Roman Catholic church has come up with since the Schism. It seems like a purely philosophical answer to a non-existent theological issue, and I would never be able to accept it. This one doesn't bode well for reunion, I'm afraid, as many RCs seem very emotionally attached to the idea.

One final, brief, question. Does Roman Catholicism still teach that unbaptised infants cannot go to heaven? I know this was once the case (and resulted in some strange concept of 'limbo' or whatever it was called). I'm interested because this would be another pointer to a belief in Augustinian style original sin (though not a conclusive one I concede) and the idea that baptism washes us of Adam's stain. The more I find out about modern RC teachings on original sin, the Immaculate Conception and baptism, the more confused I get - it seems so inconsistent. Maybe you can clarify things for me?

James

IacobPersul said:

Sorry about the mutual misunderstanding and I hope we can put it behind us.

Click to expand...

Consider it forgotten..... and thank you Joannicius for the kind words.

(Papal Infallibility)To me this idea is simply untenable and an example of a difference between western, rational theology (what I'd call 'either, or' theology) and eastern mystical ('both, and' theology). The idea of any one person (or local church for that matter) being infallible is just nonsensical to me. What do you think of this Roman Catholic doctrine?

Click to expand...

I am quite sure that you consider the Ecumenical Councils infallible... and I doubt you consider the Ecumenical Councils a good example of "eastern mystical" theology.... so I'm confused why this subject is so "nonsensical" to you. That the Office of the Papacy is infallible seems just as sensible (to me) that the Church in a Council can collectively be infallible. The Holy Spirit has power. The Holy Spirit (we believe) will not lead the Roman Pontiff to teach error when he proclaims, in an absolute decision, a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. This same Holy Spirit guards the E.Councils from similar error, and is not "bound by numbers"... what I mean is that the Holy Spirit does not need 10 people, 20, or 5,000 people together in Council to be "effective".

The Holy Spirit can just as easily guide the Roman Pontiff as guide a group of Church men in an Ecumenical Council.

I am writing this with the assumption that you have a basic understanding of what Infallibility means to a Catholic.... if this is not the case.... I will follow up after your reply.

Anyway, to summarise, my questions are these: what problem is solved by the Immaculate Conception?

Click to expand...

I confused as to why you think a problem needs to be "solved"?

Why is it necessary at all? And would you be willing to drop the dogma?

Click to expand...

It is "necessary" in the sense that it was revealed and properly understood to be part of the deposit of faith..... again, I'm confused as to your questions, but I'll wait for you follow up so as to ensure I don't make any unfounded conclusions.
I would not be willing to "drop" this or any dogma of the Church..... that has never happened and it never will.

Nobody is born guilty of Adam's sin, therefore why should Mary need an 'immaculate' conception to remain sinless?

Click to expand...

So.... it is possible for any human being to be free on sin for their entire lifetime? I don't believe that is possible.... and the Scriptures seem pretty clear to me about the subject: (Rom 3:23)..... the only way for Mary to be without sin and live a life without sin is to be "full of grace".... to "speak your language" = Mary would have to be one with the Uncreated Light... Mary would have to be more in touch with divine energy than any human ever born.... this is a singular event in the history of man.

If Mary was saved from sin, directly, by God, then she doesn't need the salvation provided by Christ.

Click to expand...

To understand this dogma, it is necessary to understand the source of Mary's glory..... Mary's glory is wholly FROM CHRIST.... as the moon's glory is wholly from the sun..... "(Mary) is redeemed....by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492).
Mary, too, needed Christ for her salvation, just as we do, but she was saved before she sinned, while we were saved after we sinned. It is like one person being saved from a disease by an innoculation to prevent it - and another person being saved from the same disease by an operation to cure it - by the same Doctor (Christ).

If God was willing or able to preserve one person, arbitrarily, from sin, then the same could be true of all and the Incarnation becomes pointless.

Click to expand...

So...... God's power is limited????? I'm trying really hard to not read into this, but it seems pretty clear that you may have misspoke.... God could have saved us all with just His will.... God can do ANYTHING.... I really doubt that you don't believe God is not all-powerful.

It seems to go against Mary's free will, therefore making her less rather than more of an example of Christian holiness (it actually seems perrilously close to Calvinist style 'strong' pre-destination).

Click to expand...

Mary being born full of God's grace means that she is more human than anyone that ever lived. Mary is human perfection.... and it is our (humanity in general)vocation to be one with God, to be Holy.... to be TRULY human means that free will is still there, but divine energy/grace fills the soul and orders all thought and deeds. When we are one with God in Heaven we will still have free will....nothing "Calvinist" about that.... Mary is just graced by that ideal state while on this earth.

Mary clearly wasn't born free of the consequences of Adam's sin as she was mortal and died.

Click to expand...

Catholics believe that "when the course of her earthly life was finished, (Mary) was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory." Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950)

It seems like a purely philosophical answer to a non-existent theological issue, and I would never be able to accept it. This one doesn't bode well for reunion, I'm afraid, as many RCs seem very emotionally attached to the idea.

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Church is not and would never be "required" to accept it.... unification does not mean that we have to agree on everything.

One final, brief, question. Does Roman Catholicism still teach that unbaptised infants cannot go to heaven?

Click to expand...

NO. The Church teaches, in #1261 of the CCC, that children who have died without Baptism, we entrust them to the mercy of God and hope that there is a way for salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

I just thought you should see this Scott, since you said you wasn't familiar with St. Mark of Ephesus.......

Don't underestimate the power of the Laity on the Orthodox Church and what the Holy Spirit can accomplish through them.

The Council of Florence (in 1438-39)? The Byzantine Empire was under heavy pressure from the Turks and a number of Bishops, along with the Emperor (John VIII) met with leaders from Rome and asked for their military help.

The Pope said he would offer assistance if they would sign a document recognizing Papal Power, Purgatory and the Filioque clause in the Creed. Everyone signed except one Bishop. Do you remember who that was?

Mark of Ephesus was the only Bishop who refused to sign. However, when all of the other Bishops eventually announced (what they assumed was good news) back in Constantinople- the Laity were so furious with the Bishops that they refused to attend Church all throughout Lent. Can you imagine the Churches virtually empty in that Holy Season?

This forced the new Emperor and the Bishops to rescind their signatures on what Bishop Mark of Ephesus called the “Unrighteous Union.” The Church eventually canonized him- St. Mark of Ephesus.

Joannicius said:

I just thought you should see this Scott, since you said you wasn't familiar with St. Mark of Ephesus.......

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.....

** MOD POST **

Just a reminder, this is a Same Faith Debate Forum.... if you are not a member of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox faith, YOU MAY NOT POST IN THIS THREAD.

.... Joannicius, just wanted to let you know that I deleted your reply to the member who posted in the incorrect forum.

SOGFPP said:

Like I said, I personally would not care to change anything about the Eastern Church....
Scott

Click to expand...

Someone else may have answered you (I'm new to this whole forum and have only just started reading this thread).

Your posts to this point seem to lack knowledge of the Orthodox faith. We're not just another form of Catholicism, only without a Pope.

Our views on Salvation differ from the Catholic/Protestant notions (we don't have "Original Sin", but "Original Guilt"). Most people think that the split between our churches was soley one of papal power. This is not so. Even on this issue, we believe that the structure of the Church is a proper reflection of the unity in diversity of the triune God. We can't just lob a Pope ontop of our organisation any more than we can change the nature of God.

As to the nature of the Trinity, you changed your ideas on God when you added the filioque to the Nicene Creed. This created a 'double procession' of the Holy Spirit that is not a part of the Orthodox knowing of God.

We don't share the idea of 'development of dogma' that you do. Sure we believe that dogma can be better expressed, but there is no change to dogma. Thus there is no debate over whether or not Mary should be deemed a 'co-redepmtress' (or as I've seen it elsewhere 'co-redemptrix').

The very reason you have movements for 'gay priests' and 'women priests' is, I believe, in a sense a product of your stance on doctrine. For Orthodox, there's no change so it's not really an issue. For you, your doctrines have changed, and therefore these people believe that your doctrine can (and should) change for them as well.

I strongly recommend "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church (Faith Catechism)" by Clark Carlton which was written expressly to discuss how Catholicism differs from Orthodoxy.

Joannicius said:

Don't underestimate the power of the Laity on the Orthodox Church and what the Holy Spirit can accomplish through them.

Click to expand...

Another good example is that of the Iconaclasm movement. It was officially announced in one council that images were wrong. The Laity and many monks & priests simply hid their icons and continued to venerate them.

They held fast to the Orthodox faith.

Montalban said:

Someone else may have answered you (I'm new to this whole forum and have only just started reading this thread).

Click to expand...

Yes... it would help to actually read the discussion in a thread before posting... it helps so you don't start "making points" that have already been discussed.... or stray off topic.

Our views on Salvation differ from the Catholic/Protestant notions (we don't have "Original Sin", but "Original Guilt").

Click to expand...

A very good example of why you must read the entire thread.... this has been discussed and your error should be evident if you read it.

I strongly recommend "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church (Faith Catechism)" by Clark Carlton which was written expressly to discuss how Catholicism differs from Orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

I strongly reccomend reading more of my posts before you post again.... you have to pay attention to the topic of the thread (unity) and then hop back on.... it will be nice to have another Orthodox Christian in the discussion.

Scott

** MOD POST **
Deleted off topic posts