Posted on 04/04/2005 10:01:53 AM PDT by annalex
MOSCOW, April 4. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) - It seems the only place the pope wanted but could not visit was Moscow. His patience was boundless, but he did not live long enough to see changes in the Russian Orthodox Church.
He, however, was open to the whole world, including Russians. It turned out that establishing contacts with the secular authorities of the new Russia was much easier than with the hierarchs of the Russian Church. The pontiff received Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin, the latter of whom has sent the Vatican an unusual letter of condolences. More than a matter of protocol, it was warm and sincere, evidently expressing the President's respect for John Paul II.
Polish-born Karol Wojtyla was the first pope since the Apostles to enter a synagogue. He called Jews the elder brothers of Christians and prayed at the Wailing Wall. As the head of the Catholic Church, he visited a mosque and almost every country, including Orthodox ones, but was not allowed to pray in only one place, Moscow. The pope respected the Christian canons and waited for the Russian Church to change its mind. He has been waiting until his death.
It is not for me to reach a conclusion on the reasons behind the inflexibility of the Church leaders, but their formal explanations about Catholics seizing Orthodox houses of worship are not particularly convincing. In fact, the Vatican could make similar claims in many cases, as in the 20th century and even earlier many temples changed their terrestrial owners several times, all the while serving the same celestial Father. A papal visit to Moscow could have resolved half the contradictions.
I am almost certain that the first Slavic pope was not allowed to the Russian Church's congregation for the same reason that earlier had driven the Communist Party to cover up Western voices: the fear of comparison.
The point is that the Catholic Church was lucky: a man of the greatest moral authority andcharisma occupied its throne, whose personal influence was far greater than that of the Church itself. No matter how much the sick Russian Orthodox Church might have wanted, it could not find his equal, as it had still not made a full recovery after the decades of persecution under the Soviet authorities. Orthodox hierarchs could not bear the thought of the pope in a crowded Moscow square or, even worse, in the Christ the Savior Cathedral. After all, they are only human.
It also explains the unhealthy, not so much religious, as human, response to any movement of the Catholic Church in Russia, even though this competition is not about oil or aluminum, but human souls, which in a democratic country are expected to choose freely. The words "shepherd" and "flock" are just images, because people are obviously not sheep. People that have a right to choose, i.e., to enter the church they want.
I believe that Russia has missed a historic opportunity for rapprochement with the Catholics and, consequently, with much of Western culture. The last man of power in Russia who seriously preached ecumenism and rapprochement with the Catholics was Emperor Paul I of Russia. The last pontiff who perceived Russia, its contradictions and spiritual trials so shrewdly was John Paul II. It was not coincidence that he prayed before a Russian icon as well others.
There are few chances that an equal to the late pontiff will succeed him. After all, when he was a student, some jokers put a sign "beginner saint" - and it seems justly - on his door.
An ordinary archbishop will most probably succeed this rock of a person, who was not afraid to voice words of apology for the Catholic Church's previous sins. A person educated and worthy, but without the traits Karol Wojtyla had. There are people who cannot be replaced.
Certainly, the new pontiff will not be a Slav, and the relations between Moscow and the Roman throne will enter the usual bureaucratic dimension. Delegations will visit each other, agree on something, sign something and mark time.
In other words, a person of the 21st century, the late John Paul II, will be replaced by a person of the 20th century, who will hardly bring about any breakthrough in the future.
As a result, everyone will lose: the Vatican, whose authority will decline inevitably and quickly, Catholicism on the whole, Catholics in Russia and, naturally, the Russian Orthodox Church, which has lost a huge incentive for self-improvement. This is regrettable, as even many Orthodox priests admit that complete recovery is still a distant possibility.
Once John Paul II was asked whether he ever cried, and he said, "Never outside."
Today, a significant part of humanity, regardless of religion, is crying both inside and outside. Everyone in his or her own manner. Together and on their own. Karol Wojtyla deserved this.
I would be interested in reading authoritative interpretations of the filioque which explicitly reject the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Son, and which explicitly state that the only "valid" interpretation of the filioque is in terms of Christ sending the Spirit in the context of creation and our salvation.
I was wrong in one thing. Catholicism does teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son both externally (in the economy of salvation) and internally (in the Trinity):
The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).It also teaches that everything the Son has is from the Father, hence both "and from the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing.
But you will not see a rejection of the Ghost proceeding from the Son. Both formulas are valid.
Perhaps I should post the Filioque article separately, because this is a theological topic wholly separate from the issue of the appropriatemness and desirability of the Papal visit to Moscow.
What do you mean, BTW, by "both formulas are valid?" Where is there a Catholic formulation that is the same as the Orthodox understanding? And how could it be just as valid as an interpretation that is completely different? Or do you mean something else by that?
My objection to the Catholic lines of discussion on this point is that the claim is often made that "we mean the same thing." I just don't see that.
A similar claim is that "both interpretations are equally valid." In some points of theology this could certainly be true, but not in this one.
A final approach is the proposition that "well, we'll just take the filioque out to please the Orthodox but we won't reject the theological truthfulness of the filioque." This seems disingenuous.
When all the talking is done, this seems to be one where we have to agree to disagree, and understand that this is a key theological point that will keep us apart. There are other things for us to talk about in the meantime.
Thanks for the link:
http://www.goarch.org/print/en/news/releases/articles/release8676.asp
After reading it, I have some comments.
It seems to me that you have presumed I knew about this North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation under the joint chairmanship of Metropolitan Maximos of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh and Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati. I did not.
You say: that the Consultation
>>has urged us to "refrain" from refering to each other's formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit as heretical, but since various Romans on these threads feel no compunction about adopting the Frankish position of the barbarian Charlemagne (a position rejected by the then Pope, by the way) that the original counciliar formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit is heretical, let me state as clearly as I can that the Roman formulation of filioque, a formulation which the Consultation urged be dropped in all new translations of the Creed and in catechetical settings, is a massive heresy!<<
In other words, even though you knew about the directive for us to "refrain" from refering to each other's formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit as heretical, you now choose to ignore that directive (to which you owe deference?) when you have observed someone else (who is not subject) possibly ignoring it, even if you are wrong in assuming that he even knew it existed!
If this is any clue to how this problem has progressed over the centuries, I can understand now WHY there is a problem!
>>It proclaims a strange double procession of the Holy Spirit which destroys the unity of the Trinity both within and without the Godhead.<<
I am really sorry, but I cannot follow you here. I do not see how the unity of the Trinity is at risk in any way, here. This "strange double procession" is nothing but the reciprocal divine, eternal love of the Father for the Son and of the Son for the Father. It's the same divine love we (Roman Catholics, anyway) contemplate before the crucifix (and before the Blessed Sacrament), which is at the very foundation of our faith. How does that "destroy the unity of the Trinity?!"
Apparently I, and perhaps others, have hit your hot buttons but you do not have the patience (or do you?) to deal with the irritation in a manner becoming one who seeks to help resolve the dispute. If that's true, that's unfortunate. If it's true of the Orthodox at large, it becomes clear to me why the resolution of this dispute would not reasonably be expected to come from the Orthodox side.
>>[B]oth sides of the debate have often caricatured the positions of the other… The Consultation recommends that the Catholic Church declare that the anathema pronounced by the Second Council of Lyons against those who deny that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is no longer applicable.<<
This statement would require a fundamental denial of all Apostolic tradition. IF defined dogma can be obliterated, THEN nothing is possible to define AND Peter did not recieve the Keys from Our Lord AND all previous definitions are up for grabs. How's that for logic? Any Catholic who agrees that such anathemas are "no longer applicable" put themselves outside the Church. I don't look at this principle as a "deep hole into which the Western Church has dug itself" but rather a bastion of defense against the attacks of errors on divine Revelation. One ultra-Modernist prelate has proclaimed that the Church's bastions must be demolished. JPII ("the great?") did not condemn him for saying this.
Frankly, I am a bit scandalized that a prelate of the Roman Church (Pilarczyk) would participate in negotiations with schismatics toward his contradiction of previously defined articles of the Faith. This would appear to constitute his own latae sententiae excommunication. And if it does, no Catholic owes him ANY obedience, especially in the very error for which he is at fault.
On one point, it is not fair for you to characterize "a formulation which the Consultation urged be dropped in all new translations of the Creed and in catechetical settings" as "a massive heresy!" because the recently deceased Pontiff was apparently not included in the discussion (if JPII's approval was included, I'm sure the Consultation would have announced it loudly!). Are Catholics supposed to break ranks and follow the lead of the Greek Orthodox?? It would seem to me that Archbishop Pilarczyk of Cincinnati participated in an event embarrassing for the Pope. Since I am not under the authority of Pilarczyk, especially if he is in error, I have no obligation to observe his directives on which the Pope did not pronounce.
Now Orthodox are (or at least one is!) going around pronoucing "Massive Heresy!" on Roman Catholics who recite the Creed the same way they have been praying it for over one millenium. Are you okay with that?
(As an aside, I am wondering what kind of form this type of discussion would take if women from each group were debating, knowing the cat fights in which they are known to engage!)
Well, not being able to read the pertinent parts of the 10,000 pages, I have to ask whether it adresses something that is of great theological consequence; for the link you provided does not mention it. But I will:
The Gospel of John (ch. 1) refers to Jesus Christ as "the only begotten of the Father." Now, if the Son proceeds from the Father, and we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father but NOT from the Son, doesn't that at least confuse the identification of the Son as the "only begotten?"
Since you say He proceeds only from the Father, how would you respond to a cult that springs up announcing that the Son has a twin brother(?!?!), or whatever, and the Holy Ghost (or Spirit), is therefore... (fill in the blank)?
Some examples: the twin brother of Jesus is satan (Mormonism), the Holy Spirit was incarnated in St. Joseph (a cult in California holds this error), or that the Holy Spirit is coming for a New Pentecost in which the whole world will receive the new revelation for the New Age, which makes the Revelation of Jesus obsolete? I hope I don't have to point out how the Antichrist would squeal with diabolical glee over such a false doctrine becoming widely accepted.
I don't pretend omniscience, or ability to list all the possibilities. I just want to know how the Greek Orthodox would deal with this confusion.
The Roman explanation that has the Holy Ghost as an eternal reciprocation between the Father and the Son, and an equal sharer in the Diviity of Persons, etc., makes these errors, above, impossible. But if the Holy Ghost is something like a twin brother of Jesus, we are left open to such further errors, are we not?
I repeat, for what it's worth, that I don't expect we can resolve anything here, but I desire a deeper and clearer comprehension of the nature of this ancient dispute between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. In case it is not evident, as a traditional Catholic, I feel a large degree of appreciation toward the Orthodox congregations for maintaining as well as they have the multiplicity of trappings and their liturgical beauty under the modern assault on same.
Well, that ends our discussion. The Orthodox are not banging on the "open" Vatican doors demanding to be accepted. Rather, we are waiting for you (the Latins) to come back to the Church your professed for the first 1,000 years, before inventions and additions. If that doesn't happen, oh well, so be it.
Orthodox theology does not prevent Rome from "incorporating" us into the Mother Church as you see it, because all your Uniates use Orthodox theology. Thus our rejection of the Immaculate Conception, "original sin," filioque, the Purgatory, etc. is wiped clean by your "both formulas are correct" mentality -- theology doesn't matter to the Latins as long as "non-Catholics" recognize the Pope as the ruler of the Church. It's not about theology; it's about the cult of the Pope.
So, spare us your philosophical hyperbolas of "both formulas are correct" because this is not at all about out theological "nuances."
You may close the door now. Thank you.
The Holy Ghost cannot proceed from the Father in the trinitarian eternal realm any differently than He proceeds from the Father in the temporal realm. The latter procession is from the Father through the Son and, the Catholics teach, the former must be also.
AugustineBoth "through the Son" and "and the son" are equally valid because of the interpenetration of the Father and the Son persons relative to the Holy Ghost, as the above quote explains."If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).
"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
If the Orthodox understanding is that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed symmetrically from the Father, and not sequentially, first the Son and then the Holy Ghost, then indeed that is not compatible. But is it truly Orthodox understanding? Why is it that Christ alone claims to be at the beginning of Creation in John? Why is the temporal order in salvation history different than the procession order in the Trinity? Isn't it true that we only perceive Trinity through salvation history?
Know what. I will post that Filoque article tonight along with the relevant cathechism. If you feel like a brief comment here, I'd appreciate it, but I think it is worth a dedicated thread, so hold your horses till then, OK?
See my preceding post. I agree now that theological difficulties exist, and not merely difficulties of procedure. The fact that the Uniates accept the authority of the Pope despite the difference in understanding of the Trinity shows that the door is open, even if the threshhold is a bit steeper than I originally thought.
>>I think we can agree that God is essentially unknowable<<
You presume too much. For a Catholic to believe this, he rejects defined dogma which is the action of a heretic. To say God is not knowable is one of the oldest heresies. It goes back to ancient times:
There is no truth/
Even if there was truth, it could not be knowable/
Even if it were knowable, it could not be communicated.
All three of these lies are entirely false.
We are apophatic. I guess I never knew you guys were not.
Clearly not a heresy. Just something you have not grasped, I would think. It can be tough, that is not meant to offend you.
"The western world in general does not understand that sometimes knowing less really can, paradoxically, lead to a greater understanding."
" We deny in order to affirm. We say that something is not in order to say that it is. The way of negation turns out to be the way of super-affirmation. Our laying aside of words and concepts serves as a springboard or trampoline, from which we leap into the divine mystery.
Apophatic theology, in its true and full meaning, leads not to an absence but to a presence, not to agnosticism but to a union of love. Thus apophatic theology is much more than a purely verbal exercise, whereby we balance positive statements with negations. Its aim is to bring us to a direct meeting with a personal God, who infinitely surpasses everything that we can say of him, whether negative or positive." Even (then) Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan comments: "Throughout the history of patristic theology, Eastern but also Western, this accent on the apophatic had functioned as a check, and one that was often necessary, on the pretentions of the theologians."
Jaroslav of course recently converted to the Orthodox church, at 80 something, as I recall, along with his wife.
ping
Now you're really going to confuse them! I was thinking of quoting the Cappadocian maxim "God does not exist. I believe in God." but thought better of it. Oops! :)
I do like Pelikan.
Real quick observation on Augustine's pneumatology.... He couldn't read Greek and got confused by the "only begotten" term meaning the same thing as "proceeds". Really, as I look at it now, it may be more a confusion between "proceeds" (not really a good word at all since its root is the Latin procedere and not the Greek word) and "lavete" which the KJV translates as "receive" but which really means take or grasp as in "Take, Eat, This is my Body...." (Lavete, Fagete etc.) His lack of Greek most likely accounts in great measure for his doctrine of Original Sin too.
I don't recall the Fathers using words like symmetrical, but if I am understanding you correctly, then you are on the right track to understanding what Orthodoxy teaches.
One father wrote (can't remember which) that each person has a characteristic unique to Him: The Father is the source, the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds. Orthodox arguments regarding the filioque are ultimately patristic, scriptural, spiritual, and practical, and not based on theoretical or metaphysical arguments of symmetry or asymmetry, but the observation was made by a father, and I thought I'd pass it on.
I am glad that you have come to the realization that there are genuine substantive differences, and not just differences in terminology. Probably the most important thing that can come of these kinds of threads is an understanding of what the other believes.
Orthodox theology has been pretty highly developed by the Eastern Fathers, who were no slouches -- not in a systematic theology kind of way, but in terms of in-depth readings of the Scriptures and the earlier Fathers in order to understand the consensus teaching of the Church. Those of us on this thread who are Orthodox are steeped in that patristic mindset, and we already knew that the differences were substantive, and have tried to point this out.
Which is why these kinds of threads really don't go anywhere, which is OK, as long as we all raise a toast at the end and drink each other's health rather than get upset. If it hasn't been hammered out by now, I very much doubt that a bunch of armchair theologians in pajamas on FR are going to do so...
Thank you for your post. I will start a thread on the Filioque article and the Catachism in a minute.
A conversion, when happens, is never a result of some intellection. One who attempts to gain a convert with clever arguments is bound to fail. I remember my conversion. It happened through sheepish attendance at the Mass I did not understand. Questions came much later.
I am glad we are discussing this because it will give a better understanding of the Holy Trinity to both.
I find no trace of confusion in Augustine's quotes even if his terminology offends you.
His terminology doesn't offend me at all. He just doesn't know Greek and thinks begotten means proceed (or perhaps better takes its essence from) or take means proceed. But then again, Latin isn't Greek. Is there really any point in continuing this discussion. For reasons best known and sufficient to you you left Orthodoxy and embraced Roman Catholicism. I wouldn't expect anything less from you than that which you have posted. But it is highly unlikely, is it not, that you would now want to concede that perhaps in this area of the Faith Rome might have it wrong? I'm not condemning you for that at all; in fact I think its both natural and appropriate. But 96 posts into this matter, and considering where we are all coming from, indicates to me that we're going nowhere except unfortunately into a rather contentious place which will advance the theosis of none of us. God Bless you.
I gained a better understanding of the Orthodox concept of the Holy Trinity and thus was able to better understand the Catholic concept of the same. You, with others, successfully demonstrated to me that the Filioque is a substantial problem in ecumentism. We both progressed.
This is what our Greek deacon and also the Greek priest who is in our Scout troop have suggested as well.
I should ask Despina about this. I find it intriguing. So many confusing inaccuracies put forth because of language and poor translations. I would love to hear more from you about this if you have time, or when you have time.
MarMema, I love you my sister in Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.