05:03
filiiSSR
12012.2K
Case study. There really is so much liturgical variety in the world. I saw these two ceremonies recently and thought that they provided a very deep insight into how two very different cultures approach …More
Case study.

There really is so much liturgical variety in the world. I saw these two ceremonies recently and thought that they provided a very deep insight into how two very different cultures approach the same action the worship of God. Reading the following passage of Holy Scripture made me think a bit: Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are. John17:11.
ReaderMichael
Hello everyone and Merry Christmas to those who will celebrate the Nativity of Our Lord in a few days.
Years ago when I first saw this video I was angry. I know now what actually bothered me the most. It was not so much the idea of converting Orthodox Christians to Roman Catholic Christians.
The problem with this video is the extreme comparison of the most solemn moment in the Orthodox Church year …More
Hello everyone and Merry Christmas to those who will celebrate the Nativity of Our Lord in a few days.

Years ago when I first saw this video I was angry. I know now what actually bothered me the most. It was not so much the idea of converting Orthodox Christians to Roman Catholic Christians.

The problem with this video is the extreme comparison of the most solemn moment in the Orthodox Church year, the service on Holy Friday with a very festive service from Los Angeles. In all fairness I think comparing two services of the same basic content would be most productive. I would like to see how the Roman Church celebrates the moment depicted in the scene from Moscow. I would also like to see a very festive moment in Roman worship compared with a moment of the same content in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Let's be friends, please.

Michael
ReaderMichael
Hello again! I hope I can continue reading enlightened commentary here. My manners have changed quite a lot since I last posted on this site. Please forgive me for past offenses.
ACLumsden
@Iraneaus & StarlightSeraphim - Thank you dear brothers. I rather think that on both sides, there is a lack of definitive knowledge of the other; alot of orthodox go by what they 'hear' Roman Catholicism is all about, rather than reading from the Latin documents themselves. On the other hand, Roman Catholics never darken the door of an Orthodox Church because of old prejudicial and segregationalist …More
@Iraneaus & StarlightSeraphim - Thank you dear brothers. I rather think that on both sides, there is a lack of definitive knowledge of the other; alot of orthodox go by what they 'hear' Roman Catholicism is all about, rather than reading from the Latin documents themselves. On the other hand, Roman Catholics never darken the door of an Orthodox Church because of old prejudicial and segregationalist rules (e.g. in the old Code of Canon Law which forbade any Catholic to enter ANY other church....). Therefore, I do agree that it is something of a chasm which need to be 'healed' - on BOTH sides.

I am so happy to read on this thread such a civilised and erudite discussion. It gives me hope for Gloria.tv and for the quality of Christians on this site. Thanks Iranaeus and StarlightSeraphim.... 😇 🤗
StarlightSeraphim
Iraneus,
Thank you for your continued honest and sincere discussion. I too have a family of Catholic and Orthodox and sincerely pray hope unity comes for the coming generation. As far as it is helpful, I would like to continue.
There was another article also by Fr. Thomas Hopko that talks about the many issues between East and West that would have to be resolved before unity could be restored.
More
Iraneus,
Thank you for your continued honest and sincere discussion. I too have a family of Catholic and Orthodox and sincerely pray hope unity comes for the coming generation. As far as it is helpful, I would like to continue.

There was another article also by Fr. Thomas Hopko that talks about the many issues between East and West that would have to be resolved before unity could be restored.
www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php

A video that draws heavily from this article is here: youtu.be/T1An0kzGTnY

This is not a “we are right and you are wrong” problem, it is a massive failure that needs all of us to repair. It may seem that such unity is impossible, but with God all things are possible. In order to get there, East and West must be open to listening to the other side and not shut down dialogue by getting into debates on things that are not of the Faith. The issue of what role the Pope has is an important one, but aside from the role of the Papacy, and the filoque which we have talked about, the three points from the article that would most need discussion are these:

· He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ's mother Mary from her parents, and Mary's total glorification in the risen Christ "at the right hand of the Father," are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church's "ex cathedra" dogmas on these two articles of faith. The pope would explain that Mary's conception by her parents was pure and holy without a need for God extraordinarily to apply "the merits of Christ" to Joachim and Anna's sexual act of conceiving her in order to free her from "the stain of original sin." And the pope would also have to make it clear that Mary really died, and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death by faith in her Son Jesus.

· The pope would also clearly state that though there may be a purification and cleansing from sin in the process of human dying, there is no state or condition of purgatory where sinners pay off the temporal punishment that they allegedly owe to God for their sins. The pope would also stop the practice of indulgences whereby, through certain pious activities, Christians can allegedly reduce the "days" of purgatorial suffering for themselves and others.

· The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.


The video focuses a lot on Rome, as the orthodox have many concerns that would have to be worked out with honest dialogue between East and West, but only talks about the Orthodox end during the last couple of minutes. The summation of the article is much better.

“Enormous goodwill, energy and time would be necessary to refashion the papacy so that the Pope of Rome might be Christianity's world leader as the bishop whose church "presides in love" among all the churches of orthodox faith and catholic tradition. And, as recent popes have insisted, radical repentance would be also be required, beginning with the Roman church itself whose calling, as first among Christian churches, is to show the way to all others.
The Orthodox churches would surely have to undergo many humbling changes in attitude, structure and behavior to be in sacramental communion with the Roman church and to recognize its presidency among the churches in the person of its pope. The Orthodox would certainly have to overcome their own inner struggles over ecclesiastical power and privilege. They would have to candidly admit their sinful contributions to Christian division and disunity, and to repent of them sincerely. They would also have to forego all desires or demands for other churches to repent publicly of their past errors and sins, being willing to allow God to consign everything of the past to oblivion for the sake of bringing about the reconciliation and reunion of Christians at the present time.
In a word, the Orthodox would have to sacrifice everything, excepting only the faith itself, for the sake of building a common future together with Christians who are willing and able to do so with them. Like Roman Catholics and Protestants, they would have to be willing to die with Christ to themselves and their personal, cultural and ecclesiastical interests for the sake of being in full unity with all who desire to be saved by the crucified Lord in the one holy church "which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Eph 1.23), that is "the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1Tim 315)
With God all things are possible. It is with this conviction that we can dare to imagine a global unity of Christians under the leadership of the bishop whose church of Rome was originally the first to "preside in love" among all of Christ's churches on earth.”
irenaeus
Hello StarlightSeraphim,
Catholics do not believe the Pope has authority above an ecumenical council. So technically, it is not as top down as you think. The Pope cannot create new truths. He can only confirm that which has already been revealed as part of the Tradition of the Church. On the extremely rare event in history that a Pope promulgates a dogma. i.e. Immaculate Conception. This is not …More
Hello StarlightSeraphim,

Catholics do not believe the Pope has authority above an ecumenical council. So technically, it is not as top down as you think. The Pope cannot create new truths. He can only confirm that which has already been revealed as part of the Tradition of the Church. On the extremely rare event in history that a Pope promulgates a dogma. i.e. Immaculate Conception. This is not done in a vacuum. It is debated, and its outcome is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Just as Peter was given Wisdom from above in Holy Scripture:

1) At Peters Confession resolving the first doctrinal question of the Church:

"And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." Jn16:17

2) At the Apostolic Council (again guided by the Paraclete) resolving the first doctrinal question post- Acension: After Peter definitively spoke, all were silent. Only afterward, do Paul, Barnabus and James speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon hath related how God first visited ..." Act 15:7-14

Those are the two organs of the Church that can proclaim a dogmatic decree. Of course there are other verses too, but I digress only to say that if you believe in the indefectibility of the Church, then you know that the Church cannot lose the faith. If the gates of hell cannot prevail against a Church built on Peter, then how can Peter fail the Church? If you say his thrice denial, it was a personal fault not a doctrinal one. If you say his dispute with Paul, again it was a personal fault because he did not want to risk losing the stubborn Jews he was evangelizing. When asked to talk with authority he taught Truth at the apostolic council. When asked three time if he loved Christ he poured out his heart in humility and shame for his three denials. Despite having bad popes with personal faults, none have ever bound a heretical teaching to the Catholic Church. So while I understand that you think this kind of petrine authority is too fragile, it is only that if it is set apart from God.
StarlightSeraphim
ACLumsden,
You said "...From conversations with Eastern Orthodox people, one in communion with Rome, the other not in communion with Rome, my impression is that of rigorous resistance to theological development as society progresses and so to, man's experiences of God. Hence the Orthodox Church's growing irrelevance to modern people."
The way I understand it, it is not a resistance to the idea of …More
ACLumsden,

You said "...From conversations with Eastern Orthodox people, one in communion with Rome, the other not in communion with Rome, my impression is that of rigorous resistance to theological development as society progresses and so to, man's experiences of God. Hence the Orthodox Church's growing irrelevance to modern people."

The way I understand it, it is not a resistance to the idea of theological development, but rather the idea that theology can be altered or moved unilaterally. I don’t personally see a problem with the Pope using his authority to nip new ideas that cause heresy and disunity in the bud, what I think is valid to be resistant to is the idea that the Pope can unilaterally cause a change in dogma and accepted belief which then could not be countermanded. Development is healthy if it is done organically through the life of the whole Church, guided by patristic authority but not in such a top down bureaucratic way. In the system where once the bishop of Rome is convinced a change can happen to the whole Church than all pressure to make changes are pushed in this direction and sometimes the Pope caves. This is the type of universal jurisdiction orthodox find troubling. If however, more than one key needs to be turned, so to speak, as in the age of the Councils, than it is more difficult for heresy to envelop the entire Church. To be clear, this is what I meant by quoting Pope St. Gregory’s Epistle XXXIII.

As for “the Church of Rome trying to leap forward before the development of men in order to secure Her relevance.” I’m not sure how it is in Europe but here when I visit the Catholic Church I feel out of place, it seems to have lost something when the English translation was not a real translation but a new Mass. I am interested in seeing the revised work that will be used this Advent. I am very glad that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI took up this issue. As for making it relevent, it is not wise to change liturgical practices top down except in issues of error. The very fact that the Mass had to be changed and that the communion rail came down and that alter moved from the sanctuary caused problems for many over the last several decades. Admittedly, these changes all happened before I was born but having experienced the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the English language, a faithful translation from the original, the Post Vatican II Mass just seemed so short and it was missing so much of the rich tradition that the Church has. It saddens me that people still complain that it is too long; they do this in the Orthodox Church as well and is not a denominational criticism. If people who complained about how much time they spend in Church understood what it really was they would never want it to end. I think that it is in the Liturgy that the real Catechism happens; it is the Heavenly Liturgy breaking into the earthly kingdom. A better understanding of this, a greater sense of reverence for the sacred, and a commitment to becoming real examples of Christ to those in the world are far better remedies than modern innovations that cater to illnesses of a lukewarm society.

“Therefore, I think one needs to look at a more complete picture of the problem, rather than who's right and who's wrong.”

Quite right. Given the image of the Church as Christ’s body I see it like this: Christ as the head of the church with the bishops making up each vertebra of the spine, and the Holy Spirit flowing to the body through the spinal cord and nerves. The Pope is at the top of the spine and when the bishops stand for the faith together and work together to support the function of the body then it functions. Now the back is broken, or at least some discs are displaced, and that has hindered the ability of the Church to function as it should. The article I mentioned in my last post by Fr. Thomas Hopko has something good on this as well:

And here, I would say, on the planet Earth right now, I think –in fact, I am sure – the Orthodox churches around the world are not motivated for unity. In some of the churches, they even think that ecumenism is a heresy. In some churches, there is a feeling that what we just did upstairs – pray together – is not Orthodox. These Orthodox feel we should not pray together with Catholics because they are heretics. Some Orthodox believe that…

So if there is a desire for unity, that will be proved not only by difficult, painful efforts to distinguish between what is essentially of the faith and what is not, but it will also require believers to do absolutely everything they can with others if only who by themselves are convinced would be contrary to the gospel if they did not – in other words – and this became a popular teaching of Pope John XXIII – who said “let us pledge to do together everything that we can, and do separately only the things that are still for us a matter of content and faith.” That’s exactly what John Paul II said in [his 1995 apostolic letter] “Orientale Lumen”… He called on Roman Catholics to affirm whatever is good, true, beautiful, holy, of God, wherever it is…” It’s absolute obligation for an Orthodox – and more than an obligation, a joy – to affirm any agreement anywhere among human beings that we can claim as really true, right and of God. Now, how much more would that be the case if we were talking about the Christian Faith? The gospel? Christ? His divinity? His humanity? If we share all those things in common, then we should affirm them, and stand before the world affirming them in common.

I honestly do not believe most Orthodox leaders are even conscious of that. There is another agenda going on, an agenda that belongs to this world…. That is why we Orthodox ourselves are so weak, miserable and divided, even though we claim a unity of faith (which we have) and a unity of worship (which we have), a unity in saints and tradition (which we have). But to actually do activities that would show this, witness to it, bring it to the world… I don’t think that is there.”
irenaeus
Hello StarlightSeraphim,
No need for apologies. If you seek unity than you are a friend. All love seeks unity.
You stated:
[---
I had seen the Letter of Clement to be the Corinthians before but the language used is with a fraternal exhortation and does not appeal to Peterine texts or claim extraordinary jurisdiction.
---]
A quick comment on Pope St. Clement. His epistle was penned with charity, …More
Hello StarlightSeraphim,

No need for apologies. If you seek unity than you are a friend. All love seeks unity.

You stated:
[---
I had seen the Letter of Clement to be the Corinthians before but the language used is with a fraternal exhortation and does not appeal to Peterine texts or claim extraordinary jurisdiction.
---]

A quick comment on Pope St. Clement. His epistle was penned with charity, but it was also very clear on what should be accepted as part of the Faith. The mere fact he sent the letter exhorting correction, is manifest proof of jurisdiction. If this was illegal, then he would have no business doing such a thing. It should be noted that Clement was ordained by St. Peter himself, and that at the time of this controversey with Corinthians, St John the Apostle was both alive and geographically closer to the Church in Corinth. Yet it was Rome doing the brotherly correction.

You stated:
[---
The letter written by St. Ignatius of Antioch on the way to his martyrdom expresses this He writes, “to the Church that is in charge of affairs in Roman quarters…”
---]

He said that inclusively, and not exclusively. St Ignatius of Antioch also said this of Rome-
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

To preside over love is a powerful thing to say, its interpretation is up to much debate between East and West.

But like you said, there is no need to go back in forth. I pray for unity as well. My immediate family is made up of Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Byzantine Rite Greek Catholic, and Russian Orthodox. I feel the pain of the Great Schism very deeply in my own life. Since the Great Schism, there were two brief periods of rapproachment and unity, I wont see it in my lifetime, but I hope my kids will.
StarlightSeraphim
Ireneaus,
Thank you for clarifying your position. My apologies for taking offense. The reason I used examples beyond the chart was that the point was that the Roman Pontiff is not immune to heresy nor is any one Bishiporic. That is why it was always so important that the Church functioned as it was made to. The role of the papacy did change drastically in the middle ages. I had seen the Letter of …More
Ireneaus,
Thank you for clarifying your position. My apologies for taking offense. The reason I used examples beyond the chart was that the point was that the Roman Pontiff is not immune to heresy nor is any one Bishiporic. That is why it was always so important that the Church functioned as it was made to. The role of the papacy did change drastically in the middle ages. I had seen the Letter of Clement to be the Corinthians before but the language used is with a fraternal exhortation and does not appeal to Peterine texts or claim extraordinary jurisdiction. The letter written by St. Ignatius of Antioch on the way to his martyrdom expresses this He writes, “to the Church that is in charge of affairs in Roman quarters…” and in Cannon 6 of the first council of Nicea we see “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentopolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.”When the Asian Bishops headed by Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, refused to heed the decree and a dispute broke out between he and Pope St. Victor he reminded the Pope in a dignified response that the Church in Asia also had Apostolic origins. Eusebius writes “Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman Church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy … But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and love and unity towards neighbors. We still possess words of these men who sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Iraneaus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whim he was responsible in Gaul.”

This back and forth is something that we could do forever, as we are dealing with a thousand year divorce there are many strong emotions and offenses between East and West I apologize for making a litany of complaints as this is not the place and that is not helpful. As I said before I truly do desire unity between East and West. I do not believe that the Catholic Church is heretical, nor is that the official position of the Orthodox Church, despite the opinions of many Orthodox. Rome’s position is also that the East is not heretical. We recognize the validity of each other’s sacraments and Apostolic Succession but disagree mainly over mechanics, liturgics and theological concepts that are not outside what can be reconciled. This is not the same thing as Protestants who deny the Sacraments of Communion and Confession among other things and are rightly called heretics. Even so, we are all brothers in Christ and we should be lamenting this division and trying to do something about it that may all worship together in spirit and in truth.
There is a great article by Fr. Thomas Hopko on what we Orthodox would have to do to achieve unity with Rome, I will put up the link so as not to go on and on, save one quote.
“… my opinion is that what is really required of the Orthodox most of all above everything, is a real desire for unity…to want to be one, to suffer over the division, to weep over it, to carry it around like a sword in your soul that we who claim Christ and praise God in Christ (especially in this world which is getting less and less Christian as the clock ticks), that Christians would be divided… A lot of Christians these days don’t even claim that and are not interested in that. But the members of the St. John Chrysostom Society … exist because of that. We claim to belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ, the church that teaches the gospel truly, fully, that prays properly, that acts and teaches the right way to behave according to Christ, according to God Almighty, according to the Holy Scriptures, the canons, the saints, the fathers, etc. So the most important thing of all is the desire to be one, and to prove that desire, not only by praying – because we pray for unity at every single liturgy – but prayer without activity, without work, is just blasphemous. To be praying all these things and not to be working, not be ready to make any possible sacrifice you could make that doesn’t violate the essence of the faith. In other words, the Orthodox have to desire unity and be ready to sacrifice everything that they can without violating their convictions about the gospel in order to be one, particularly with Roman Catholics.”
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1698562/posts
ACLumsden
@Iranaeus - I rather think you will find that your efforts are like unto trying to uproot British Isles from their Continental Shelf and place then into warmer a warmer climate.
The East are resolute in their paralysis and as SBpfu said, quite ossified. However, all the best with this effort if you should choose to continue.
😇 🤗More
@Iranaeus - I rather think you will find that your efforts are like unto trying to uproot British Isles from their Continental Shelf and place then into warmer a warmer climate.

The East are resolute in their paralysis and as SBpfu said, quite ossified. However, all the best with this effort if you should choose to continue.
😇 🤗
irenaeus
Hello StarlightSeraphim,
You stated:
[---
If you are trying to show by this chart that the East is led by heretics and Rome alone is free from error that is untrue and not support by history nor is that attitude consistent with the Faith of the Apostles. The Church has always been conciliar. All must work together to preserve it, any bishop or Pope can be in error but the truth is preserved by …More
Hello StarlightSeraphim,
You stated:

[---

If you are trying to show by this chart that the East is led by heretics and Rome alone is free from error that is untrue and not support by history nor is that attitude consistent with the Faith of the Apostles. The Church has always been conciliar. All must work together to preserve it, any bishop or Pope can be in error but the truth is preserved by keeping what was passed down to us. Peter himself was publicly resisted to his face by St. Paul because he endangered the truth of the Gospel. We must keep to the traditional Faith handed down from the Fathers.

---]

This was not meant in that way. However, as I wrote earlier, Pope Agathos letter to the council was read and joyfully accepted and it said just that. Rome never lost the faith. As you said, this council was confirmed by succeeeding ones. The East was a mess compared to the West during the years in the chart. Even if you do color in the Honorius row. But the reason I was showing the chart was to illustrate the role Rome had to constantly play in defending the true orthodox Catholic faith.

Here are some quotes to quell any doubt that the Vicar of Christ exercised universal jurisdiction in the early Church.

"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate..." Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius' Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).

"Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons." Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret's EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372).

"We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry....Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church....I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body....And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons." Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392).

"Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth." Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400).

"In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated ... by bishops ... as you have done, the example of ancient tradition ... For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived ... that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)...you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once." Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417).

"It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches...Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office." Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417).

"Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter...For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat...Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time...and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision." Pope Zosimus [regn. A.D. 417-418], To the Council of Carthage (c. A.D. 418).

"For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To Rufus bishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 420).

"The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420).

"None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, the judgment of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would judge in his turn." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus and bishops of Macedonia (c. A.D. 420).

"Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our see and using our stead and place with power, you will deliver this sentence with utmost severity." Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-427], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 1 1 (A.D. 430).

"The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?" Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433).

"But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445).

"And so he too rejoices over your good feeling and welcomes your respect for the Lord’s own institution as shown towards the partners of His honour, commending the well ordered love of the whole Church, which ever finds Peter in Peter's See, and from affection for so great a shepherd grows not lukewarm even over so inferior a successor as myself."
Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 2 (A.D ante 461).

"'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and every tongue which confesses the Lord, accepts the instruction his voice conveys. This Faith conquers the devil, and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. It uproots us from this earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. For with such solidity is it endued by God that the depravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of the heathen overcome it." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 3:2-3 (A.D ante 461).

"Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).
irenaeus
Hello StartlightSeraphim,
You stated:
[---
St. Athanasius, was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. St. Athanasius told us that “Catholics faithful to Tradition” can be “reduced to a handful”. He wrote during the Arian crisis, when the global episcopacy defected to Arianism and Pope Liberius went into heresy, signed a …More
Hello StartlightSeraphim,

You stated:

[---

St. Athanasius, was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. St. Athanasius told us that “Catholics faithful to Tradition” can be “reduced to a handful”. He wrote during the Arian crisis, when the global episcopacy defected to Arianism and Pope Liberius went into heresy, signed a heretical Arian creed and invalidly excommunicated St. Athanasius, as did the heretical bishops of the East.

---]

The Catholic faithful can be reduced to a remnant as scripture testifies to. Pope Liberius was not a heretic, nor was he legally deposed, there were politics and forgery at play as can be seen by the letters of Liberius (which were in possession of St. Hilary of Poitiers). St. Robert Bellarmine also goes into great length on this topic. I mean think about it, Pope Liberius has writings before and after the supposed “lapse” in time where he tows the orthodox Catholic position.

You stated:

[---

Pope Innocent III stated that a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not believe” the Faith.“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.”

---]

The above statement is true, although it has nothing to do with the chart since Innocent III was in the 12th century. There is nothing wrong with it or even counter to what I am saying. Even the Pope can privately be a heretic which will bring judgment.

You stated:

[---
Pope John XXII taught the false doctrine that those who died in the faith did not see the presence of God until the Last Judgment, though eventually he repented of this.

---]

This has nothing to do with the chart as this is 14th century, but even still, Pope John was never a heretic. He delivered some local sermons in ignorance at Rome, and mispoke. When it was brought to his attention, he did not persist and eventually apologized. This is a far cry from what you are purporting it to be. He never bound what was in his homily on the Church.

You stated:

[---
Pope Adrian VI stated that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees. He also stated “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”. “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII”

---]

This is true. When speaking in a private capacity that is not binding on the whole Church. Note that what you quoted says when he teaches "by his own judgment or decretal". This is saying the same thing as I said. However he can not teach error when speaking ex-cathedra on faith and morals.

You stated:

[---
At the very bottom of the chart you have this:

“* Honorius was condemned by the sixth ecumenical council not for heresy, but for failing to declare ex cathedra the Catholic faith on the dispute at hand”

To allow the Council to speak for itself is enough to dispel this assertion. Honorius was personally condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This was ratified by two succeeding Ecumenical Councils. He was also condemned by name by Pope Leo II, and by every pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office. Roman Catholic historian and bishop of Rottenburg, Karl Joseph von Hefele (1809-1893). His work on the ecumenical councils is very highly regarded by Catholic theologians.

---]
The first Vatican Council considered this point and debated it for quite some time as to what Honorius was guilty of. He was guilty and rightfully anathematized / excommunicated. But what was the extent of his guilt? If we look at how Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at the council which met in Constantinople in 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter. He emphatically declares, remembering Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error. This letter was well recieved by the Council. While it is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; however, he is to be considered to have been condemned in the same sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. He never bound the errors in his private letters to Sergius on the Church.
ACLumsden
HUmmmm... however, the Constantinopolitan Emperor was possesed of similar powers. The Church of the East cannot seem to evolve, because the Emperor is to convene an oecumenical council. But there is no Emperor anymore, therefore, no possibility of any progess in this regard.
From conversations with Eastern Orthodox people, one in communion with Rome, the other not in communion with Rome, my impression …More
HUmmmm... however, the Constantinopolitan Emperor was possesed of similar powers. The Church of the East cannot seem to evolve, because the Emperor is to convene an oecumenical council. But there is no Emperor anymore, therefore, no possibility of any progess in this regard.

From conversations with Eastern Orthodox people, one in communion with Rome, the other not in communion with Rome, my impression is that of rigorous resistence to theological development as society progresses and so to, man's experiences of God. Hence the Orthodox Church's growing irrelevence to modern people.

On the other hand, we have the Church of Rome trying to leap forward before the development of men in order to secure Her relevence. This is just as bad as not progressing at all. This is our plight in the West.

The Orthodox chap not in communion with Rome, spoke of a very literal read of the Scriptures: Adam and Eve were real people and that the earth is really 6000yrs old and that science is to be rejected. Meanwhile, the Orthodox chap in communion with Rome, spoke of a more balanced view however, had difficulties with liturgical developments in the West since 1500.

Therefore, I think one needs to look at a more complete picture of the problem, rather than who's right and who's wrong.

😇 🤗
StarlightSeraphim
The Gregorian reforms of the 11th century signaled a radical departure in the Western Church from the Church of the Ecumenical Councils. The ancient collegial structure of Church government, which offered a common forum for churches both East and West to settle differences and thus provide a common bond, was to be replaced in the West by a Papal Monarchy, exercising an authoritarian, highly centralized …More
The Gregorian reforms of the 11th century signaled a radical departure in the Western Church from the Church of the Ecumenical Councils. The ancient collegial structure of Church government, which offered a common forum for churches both East and West to settle differences and thus provide a common bond, was to be replaced in the West by a Papal Monarchy, exercising an authoritarian, highly centralized form of Church government that ultimately controlled every aspect of Church life. Through its newfound claims of temporal power, the papacy would conduct wars, sign treaties, form alliances, and depose kingdoms, and would challenge Europe’s concept of the divine right of kings. With these reforms Rome would “substitute, perhaps fatally, visible organizational unity for the unity of love and mixed the kind of power represented by the Roman Empire with that of the Cross and the Resurrection.” (Kenneth Scott Latourette A History of Christianity)
The evils of investiture, resulting in simony and clerical corruption were the rallying cry of the Gregorian reform but it was a revolution that breached its boundaries. The ultimate aim of the revolutionary ideologists was not reform of the prevailing system but replacing it with a new order. The creed manifesto for the Gregorian reform is to be found in the Dictus Papea published by Gregory VII. The claims were breathtaking. Some of them would be considered blasphemous by such Popes as St. Gregory the Great who wrote, “whosoever calls himself, or wishes to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation precursor of Antichrist” (Epistle XXXIII, Pope St. Gregory to Mauricus Augustus)
Also we have the Pseudo-Isidorean (False) Decretals, the most extensive and influential set of forgeries found in medieval Canon law. The authors were a group of Frankish clerics writing in the second quarter of the ninth century under the pseudonym Isidore Mercator. They aimed to defend the position of bishops against metropolitans and secular authorities by creating false documents purportedly authored by early popes, together with interpolated conciliar documents.
Dictatus papae
That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
That the pope may depose the absent.
That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
That this is the only name in the world.
That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
That he himself may be judged by no one.
That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.
StarlightSeraphim
In regards to your chart:
St. Athanasius, was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. St. Athanasius told us that “Catholics faithful to Tradition” can be “reduced to a handful”. He wrote during the Arian crisis, when the global episcopacy defected to Arianism and Pope Liberius went into heresy, signed a heretical Arian creed …More
In regards to your chart:

St. Athanasius, was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. St. Athanasius told us that “Catholics faithful to Tradition” can be “reduced to a handful”. He wrote during the Arian crisis, when the global episcopacy defected to Arianism and Pope Liberius went into heresy, signed a heretical Arian creed and invalidly excommunicated St. Athanasius, as did the heretical bishops of the East.

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Epistle to the Catholics)

St. Vincent of Lerins is the Father of the Church most associated with the defence of unchanging doctrinal tradition. It is the subject of his main treatise, the Commonitory. He foresaw that if the whole Church should go into heresy we must keep to the traditional Faith handed down from the Fathers.

Pope Innocent III stated that a pope can “wither away into heresy” and “not believe” the Faith.
“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.

Pope John XXII taught the false doctrine that those who died in the faith did not see the presence of God until the Last Judgment, though eventually he repented of this.

Pope Adrian VI stated that “it is beyond question” that a pope can “err in matters touching the Faith”, he can “teach heresy” in decrees. He also stated “many Roman Pontiffs were heretics”.

“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII”

At the very bottom of the chart you have this:

“* Honorius was condemned by the sixth ecumenical council not for heresy, but for failing to declare ex cathedra the Catholic faith on the dispute at hand”

To allow the Council to speak for itself is enough to dispel this assertion. Honorius was personally condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This was ratified by two succeeding Ecumenical Councils. He was also condemned by name by Pope Leo II, and by every pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office. Roman Catholic historian and bishop of Rottenburg, Karl Joseph von Hefele (1809-1893). His work on the ecumenical councils is very highly regarded by Catholic theologians.

“The standard work of Hefele’s, however, is the ‘Conciliengeschichte’ in seven volumes, reaching to the fifteenth century and embracing the history of dogma, canon law, liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and political history, so far as necessary. Von Funk rightly says that ‘as one of the most detailed and thorough works on church history, it has attained a prominent place in the learned literature of our time.’” (Johannes Baptist Sägmüller, Karl Joseph von Hefele, Catholic Encyclopedia 1910)

He wrote of the condemnations of Honorius as follows.

“It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!…That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him:

“At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says: ‘After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign...to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor...them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.’

“Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.
Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: ‘Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus!’

Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: ‘The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.’

“It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius...in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council...in his letter to the Spanish bishops...and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by...the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after...Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: ‘We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning...Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.’ The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places...To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath...according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that ‘he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius.’” (A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).

In The Seven Ecumenical Councils by Henry R. Percival, which is likewise very informative on the matter. He wrote, “most Roman controversialists of recent years have admitted both the fact of Pope Honorius’s condemnation, and the Monothelite (and therefore heretical) character of his epistles.”

“I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.

2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.

3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed ‘Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.’

4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that ‘the originator of all evil ... found a fit tool for his will in ... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.’

5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that ‘Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome’ they had ‘punished with exclusion and anathema’ because he followed the monothelites.

6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it ‘has slain with anathema Honorius.’

7. The imperial decree speaks of the ‘unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed’ and mentions among them ‘Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.’ The Emperor goes on to anathematize ‘Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.’

8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.

‘Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt.’

9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).

10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

11. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)

12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the [eighth] to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., ‘smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.’

13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: ‘They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Have they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight.’

“With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: Clark, 1899))

Unsurprisingly, some Catholic theologians deceived on this matter and some apologists still do, refusing to admit that the pope was condemned and excommunicated as a heretic by the council. Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils. All newly elected popes had to profess his condemnation before they could assume their office until the eleventh century and all Latin priests recited it in their breviary until the sixteenth. It is incredible that ecumenical councils under the care of papal legates and approved by popes would anathematize and excommunicate a pope without the utmost care and that Rome would have all her popes and priests confess it for a thousand years were it not justified. There is no room for doubt here. His heretical letters were burnt by order of the council and only a scrap survived; it is ridiculous that some should try to construct a case to acquit Honorious on the basis of the scrap and in the face of so much historical testimony.

If you are trying to show by this chart that the East is led by heretics and Rome alone is free from error that is untrue and not support by history nor is that attitude consistent with the Faith of the Apostles. The Church has always been conciliar. All must work together to preserve it, any bishop or Pope can be in error but the truth is preserved by keeping what was passed down to us. Peter himself was publicly resisted to his face by St. Paul because he endangered the truth of the Gospel. We must keep to the traditional Faith handed down from the Fathers.
ACLumsden
@irenaeus - A fine discussion indeed!! Keep it up that man! 👍
irenaeus
Hello StarlightSeraphim,
You stated "In the Greek this talks about origin, it is clear that while Christ sends the Spirit it originates from the Father, defined in Orthodoxy as the font of Divinity."
Yes, the origin is something different than the cause. If I have a fountain of water, and I give you a cup of it, where does the water proceed from? The person that caused it to be in your hands or …More
Hello StarlightSeraphim,

You stated "In the Greek this talks about origin, it is clear that while Christ sends the Spirit it originates from the Father, defined in Orthodoxy as the font of Divinity."

Yes, the origin is something different than the cause. If I have a fountain of water, and I give you a cup of it, where does the water proceed from? The person that caused it to be in your hands or its origin? I would say the person that caused it to be in your hands because the existence/origin is a principle not an action as denoted by sent or proceeds. However, when we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son we are not saying originates, we are not saying caused in the sense of created, but rather we are saying caused as in willed into action.....

Gregory of Nyssa states: “When we say cause and caused, we do not mean by these terms natures. For we do not employ these terms as substitutes for essence or nature; rather we illustrate how precisely Father and Son differ, namely we show how the Son is not begotten of anyone.”

When it comes to the exercise of Petrine authority, there have been many examples of this in the early Church. Yes, primacy is not in question beause there is only one candidate, but the primatial stuctures and what kind of authority the Chair of Peter can exercise need to be discussed in the future. Although you point out the 11th century for the decline of the West, I would say the the East was in decline with the arrival of Constantine and his court. That was when various Sees of the East increaslingly fell into different heresies. I think much of it had to do with the mixture of politics and wealth. The chart below illustrates what i mean. Even in the early Church, Rome had to robustly exercise its authority to condemn and cajole those fallen away into orthodoxy.

www.azoic.com/cbs/Heresies of the…
StarlightSeraphim
Irenaus-
"I am not sure who Paul Owens is but I dont think he chooses his words carefully enough. He described the Trinity as three modes which is the heresy of Modalism. Catholics dont believe Trinity is represented by three modes. Perhaps he meant three relations/persons?"
I think that is what he meant too.
Right about Latin and Greek, for Orthodox the problem is that in John 15:26 Christ said …More
Irenaus-

"I am not sure who Paul Owens is but I dont think he chooses his words carefully enough. He described the Trinity as three modes which is the heresy of Modalism. Catholics dont believe Trinity is represented by three modes. Perhaps he meant three relations/persons?"

I think that is what he meant too.

Right about Latin and Greek, for Orthodox the problem is that in John 15:26 Christ said He will send the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father. In the Greek this talks about origin, it is clear that while Christ sends the Spirit it originates from the Father, defined in Orthodoxy as the font of Divinity. The problem is not so much a conflict with Jn 20:22 but with language describing both the nature of and operation of the Trinity. If the Spirit originates in person of the Father it does not also originate in the person of the Son, though they are as one essence.

This is not a Theological issue that is irresolvable between East and West, the real issue that was being fought over was that the Creed could be further defined without an Ecumenical Council. The history is long and complicated beging with an insertion by local councils in Spain to combat Arianism and later spreading in the West. We know Pope Leo III forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed be engraved on silver tablets displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future. Pope Leo III agreed with the filioque phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome because he wanted to preserve Church unity as Charlemagne wanted to use it as a wedge against the East. Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was known in the West with the filioque, after the Gospel. Forty years later the East was accused of heresy for not using the filioque and the Bull of Excumunication was place on the alter of the Hagia Sophia.

The real conflict has more to do with a clash of the Western idea of Papal Monarchy and the Eastern idea of Collegial Tradition and in the way the crisis was handled than the actual theological debate over the filiouque. The Orthodox actually believe in Papal primacy. They believe that Christ called Peter to be the first among the Apostles, and that his successor in Rome was gifted with a special charism of leadership. The Eastern Orthodox believe, however, that the Papacy began to misuse this power in the eleventh century. By claiming universal jurisdiction, they believe that the Papacy overstepped the primacy given to it by Christ. Dialogue between East and West have resumed to come to terms with this very issue, which must be resolved if there is to be reunification, which I whole heartedly pray for.
irenaeus
Hello StarlightSeraphim,
I am not sure who Paul Owens is but I dont think he chooses his words carefully enough. He described the Trinity as three modes which is the heresy of Modalism. Catholics dont believe Trinity is represented by three modes. Perhaps he meant three relations/persons?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism
If you want an authentic Catholic perspective on the Trinity, I would read …More
Hello StarlightSeraphim,

I am not sure who Paul Owens is but I dont think he chooses his words carefully enough. He described the Trinity as three modes which is the heresy of Modalism. Catholics dont believe Trinity is represented by three modes. Perhaps he meant three relations/persons?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

If you want an authentic Catholic perspective on the Trinity, I would read someone with better credentials such as St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa or Contra Errores Graecorum. The latter is penned with charity. The major reason Catholics believe in the 'filioque' is because it was revealed as so by Christ in scripture.

“When he[Jesus] had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” Jn 20:22

One cannot give what one does not possess.

True enough, there were also complications with translations for such technical language as well....

“Second, because many things which sound well enough in Greek do not perhaps, sound well in Latin. Hence, Latins and Greeks professing the same faith do so using different words. For among the Greeks it is said, correctly, and in a Catholic way, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three hypostases. But with the Latins it does not sound right to say that there are three substantiae, even though on a purely verbal basis the term hypostasis in Greek means the same as the term substantia in Latin. The fact is, substantia in Latin is more frequently used to signify essence. And both we and the Greeks hold that in God there is but one essence. So where the Greeks speak of three hypostases, we Latins speak of three personae, as Augustine in the seventh book on the Trinity also teaches. And, doubtless, there are many similar instances. "
-St Thomas Aquinas
StarlightSeraphim
In an outstanding article on the Trinity written by Paul Owen, this distinction is well explained:
“First of all, mainstream Christians distinguish between the Trinitarian economy of God, and the Trinitarian ontology of God. What does that mean? These terms are an attempt to come to grips with two aspects of God’s relationship to the world: his otherness (transcendence), and his presence in the …More
In an outstanding article on the Trinity written by Paul Owen, this distinction is well explained:
“First of all, mainstream Christians distinguish between the Trinitarian economy of God, and the Trinitarian ontology of God. What does that mean? These terms are an attempt to come to grips with two aspects of God’s relationship to the world: his otherness (transcendence), and his presence in the world (immanence). God is not, in his essence, a part of the space-time continuum which we might designate the “created order.” It is necessary to distinguish between the Life of God, which is grounded in Divine Sovereignty (Exodus 3:14) and the life of the contingent world.”

John 15:26 is the key text for the theological issue of the filioque whhich was and remains a major cause of debate and disagreement between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity. The question is how the “functional” operations of God in our world relate to the eternal, ontological question of the “begotten-ness” and “procession” of the Son and Spirit. The Nicea-Constantinple Creed was developed in an ecumenical way, the unilateral insertion into the ecumenical Creed is problematic considering John 15:26.

“When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Fathe,r the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me.”

“Filioque” (“and the Son”) seriously challenges, if not totally destroys, the originally-intended meaning of this Creedal statement. The introduction of the Filioque is clearly a departure from the original intention and design of the A.D. 381 version of the Constantinopolitan Creed. However, it is not a departure from apostolic orthodoxy.
In other words, official Roman Catholicism teaches that the Latin procedit used in the Vulgate to translate the Greek ekporeutai had in fact a wider meaning, not only that of ‘having its cause and origin in,’ but “a wide implication.” In fact, it is explained that procedit was understood as equivalent to proinai, a concept which can be a source of confusion between economy and ontology.

Hence, apart from the issue of the canonical legitimacy of this modification, the real question seems simple: is the underlying theology correct?

Because Paul Owen writes from a Western perspective, his presentation quickly reveals the root of the difference between the Greek and Latin perspectives:
“Orthodox Christians believe that God is one eternal, personal and spiritual divine substance who exists in three modes of subsistence, or three self distinctions.”

Here, “Orthodox Christians” refers to ‘mainstream (Western) Christians,’not to the Eastern Orthodox. In fact, the authentic Eastern Orthodox mind would disagree with the above statement which seems to confuse “personal” and “substance.” The Greek Fathers would have written quite a different summary, something along the lines of:
“Orthodox Christians believe in one God the Father, whose person is uncaused and unoriginate, who, because He is love and communion, always exists with His Word and Spirit.”

The Father alone is unbegotten and non-proceeding. But does the Monarchy, the font of Deity, reside in the Father’s person, or in his Being? Is the Son begotten of the Father’s person, or his Being? Does the Spirit proceed from the Father’s person, or his Being? If, as the Eastern Church insists, the font of Deity resides in the Father’s person, then the Spirit clearly must proceed from the Father alone, since the Son does not possess the Father’s person. But if the font of Deity resides in the Father’s Being, then the conclusion may be drawn that the
Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, since all are agreed that the Father and the Son are con-substantial, that is, that they are identical in essence.

This is exactly what St. Photius had explained in his Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit:
“If the Father is cause of the hypostases produced from Him not by reason of nature, but by reason of the hypostasis; and if, up to now, no one has preached the impiety that the Son’s hypostasis consists of the principle of the Father’s hypostasis… then there can be no way the Son is cause of any hypostasis in the Trinity.”
Hilarion
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, well this video is worth a million words! The contrast between the two liturgies couldn't be any more polar from one another. Watching this video reinforced in me the reason why I converted to Orthodoxy. I didn't leave the Church, the post modern Vatican II Catholic Church left me.