What you need to know about the Orthodox-Catholic split and hopes for reunification

Aleteia ^ | 09/27/2017 | Alicia Ambrosio

[SeekAndFind]

When, why and how did it happen? And when will it come to an end?

In 1054, Pope Leo IX of Rome and Patriarch Michael I Kiroularious of Constantinople excommunicated each other. This mutual act crowned a number of East-West disputes, resulting in an East-West schism in the Church. Western dioceses remaining in union with Rome came to be known as Roman Catholic, while Eastern dioceses remaining loyal to Constantinople claimed the banner of Orthodoxy. Nearly 1,000 years went by before a joint Catholic-Orthodox commission was created to study the causes of the division and work toward possible reunification.

While the official schism between East and West can be pinned to 1054, the split was actually a long time in the making. Over centuries, Eastern and Western Christendom developed different theological emphases and liturgical practices, as well as differing notions of Church governance.

One of the key issues that drove East and West apart was the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Eastern Christians did not deny that the See of Rome held primacy over all other churches, even Constantinople, but they did dispute the juridical claims that bishops of Rome were increasingly making regarding this primacy. A particular flashpoint in the debate can be seen in what is known as the Filioque Controversy. Beginning in the 7th century, some Western Christians added the phrase “and the Son” (filioque) to the Nicene Creed’s teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father.” Although Eastern and Western Church Fathers affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, Eastern Christians objected to the pope’s adoption of the phrase “and the Son” into the Roman liturgy in the early 11th century. They argued that the pope alone has no authority to change what a church council—in this case, the Council of Nicaea—had decreed.

Other issues aggravating tensions between Eastern and Western Christians were different approaches to sacramental discipline and clerical celibacy.

Nevertheless, if Pope Francis could tell a Lutheran delegation last year that “what unites us is far greater than what divides us,” then we should apply his words particularly to members of the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy retains a true apostolic succession among its bishops, and thus its bishops and priests celebrate the sacraments validly. Also together with Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians revere the Blessed Mother, they foster devotion to the saints (especially the martyrs), and they fast and feast according to the seasons of the liturgical year.

With so much in common, and given Christ’s prayer and wish that his children “might all be one” (Jn 17:21), Catholic and Orthodox pastors today rightly dedicate themselves to constructive dialogue, with the aim of a return to unity.

The journey toward reunification began officially in 1964 when Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople met for the first time in Jerusalem. The following year they signed a joint declaration lifting the sentences of excommunication their predecessors had conferred on each other 900 years before. Since then popes and Eastern patriarchs have exchanged visits and signed declarations on a variety of occasions, most recently on September 1, the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, a day observed by both Rome and Constantinople.

It 1979 Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios I formally established the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue. The commission includes representatives from the Greek Orthodox patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as well as the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow and the Orthodox patriarchates of Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Poland, Albania, Finland and Estonia. Since the commission’s creation, 14 meetings have been held, which have produced nine documents of ecumenical importance.

The most recent document was issued in 2016. It studies the roles played by bishops, and in particular by the Bishop of Rome, in the first millennium, before the schism occurred. By remembering the shared past of East and West, the commission hopes to create common understanding of today’s circumstances.

With the 2016 document, an important phase of the joint commission’s work ended. A planning committee met in Greece earlier this month, September 5-7, to develop possible agendas for future meetings.

Read more: Catholic-Orthodox Communion: The Goal of Francis and Bartholomew

In his address last year to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople for the feast of St. Andrew, held as a patron by the Orthodox, Francis said noted that the journey will continue, sustained much more from heaven than by efforts on earth.

“In this journey towards the restoration of eucharistic communion between us, we are sustained by the intercession not only of our patron saints, but by the array of martyrs from every age,” he said, “who ‘despite the tragedy of our divisions… have preserved an attachment to Christ and to the Father so radical and absolute as to lead even to the shedding of blood’ (Saint Pope John Paul II, Ut unum sint, 83).”

[Martin Tell]

While I agree with the spirit of this article (May we all be one), the author does not seem to understand what the filioque means to Orthodox.

The statement, "Although Eastern and Western Church Fathers affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" is not true. Scripture (and the Fathers) are clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Christ sends the Holy Spirit, but that is different from "proceeding." The filique reduces the Holy Spirit to a junior partner in the Holy Trinity. Interestingly, the text of the Creed on the doors of the Vatican (in bronze, I think) does not contain the filioque.

There are other theological differences, mostly stemming from the western concept of original sin from Augustine. Some of Augustine's teaching are not accepted by the Orthodox.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Just a clarification for FReepers who may just read the first and last paragraphs:

"[Our martyrs] have preserved an attachment to Christ and to the Father so radical and absolute as to lead even to the shedding of blood" --- means the martyrs are willing to shed their own blood, not to shed the blood of others.

One must make such clarifications in this Age of Jihad, when the Muslims claim "martyr" (shahid) status for those who murder others.

[RitaOK]

This is an interesting revelation to me. I had not thought about it, actually. After decades as a Protestant, our Bibles called the Holy Spirit our “Comforter”. I loved that, frankly.

To your point, I read that Jesus deigns that the Apostles must “... wait on the Holy Spirit..”. That is as close to “proceed” as my reason can get at this unsophisticated level of my knowledge on this revelation that “the Son” was *added*.

[ebb tide]

And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. John 14:16 Douay-Rheims

The above is sufficient for me to accept the filioque.

[ebb tide]

And then there's a third opinion of the Holy Trinity, which is that of Pope Francis:

“Inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors, but on the outside they give the picture of unity.”

[ADSUM]

I do not understand your comment that the Holy Spirit is a junior partner.

—The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion—the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches is the revelation regarding God’s nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. (https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity)

[Martin Tell]

I agree with you. The point I was making was that by changing the Nicene Creed to have the Holy Spirit proceed from both the Father AND the Son, the Holy Spirit was placed in a subordinate position to the Father and the Son - a type of junior partner.

I believe the Holy spirit is in fact a full person in the Trinity.

Forgive me, I am not a theologian, but I recall hearing that each member of the Holy Trinity has a role, and that in a type of reciprocity, they are equal. The filique interferes with that, and leads to notions such as the Holy Spirit being God's love or some type of emanation of God. To be clear, I don't believe that.

[RitaOK]

Amen.

[ADSUM]

I guess I didn’t read it that way.

Anyway, we can look forward to learning about the mysteries of the Trinity.

[ebb tide]

The same Catholic Nicene Creed contains:

For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven, and by the Holy Ghost was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

How does this same creed reduce the Holy Ghost to a "junior partner"?

[Martin Tell]

OK, just a little research yielded the following;

"We confess the three persons or hypostases of the Holy Trinity, the only God. Since their divine essence or nature is one, the three hypostases, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit possess all in common, except their personal or hypostatic properties:

- the property that distinguishes the Father is that He is unbegotten;

- the property that distinguishes the Son is that He is begotten of the Father;

- the property that distinguishes the Spirit is that He proceeds from the Father.

As St. Gregory the Theologian says: What is common to the Father, to the Son and to the Holy Spirit is the divinity or uncreated nature. (What is common to the Son and to the Holy Spirit is to have their origin form the Father.) The attribute proper to the Father is to be unbegotten, generation is proper to the Son and procession is proper to the Holy Spirit.

Likewise St. John Damascene says: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all things, except for being unbegotten, for being begotten and for proceeding. The three hypostases differ from one another merely in these personal properties, but not in their essence."

So when the West unilaterally decided that the Holy Spirit can "proceed" from both the Father and the Son, it changed the essential personal characteristics of the Trinity.

Yes, the filioque very much reduces the status of the Holy Spirit. And it's wrong. And it was done without a council. And a council was how the Creed was formulated in the first place.

[ebb tide]

- the property that distinguishes the Son is that He is begotten of the Father;

You forgot "by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. "

[daniel1212]

One of the key issues that drove East and West apart was the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

A particular flashpoint in the debate can be seen in what is known as the Filioque Controversy.

Other issues aggravating tensions between Eastern and Western Christians were different approaches to sacramental discipline and clerical celibacy.

Which is typical minimization, for there are some substantial issues besides these, while the rejection of the Roman papacy is so substantial that it alone prevent reconciliation

Meanwhile both (Rome more so) hold to distinctives which the NT church manifestly did not believe as seen in the only wholly inspired substantive record of what it believed and how it understood the gospels (Acts onward).

►The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

►Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

►The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God.

Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

►Such a “vain deceit” is the teaching of the Immaculate Conception by Anna of the Virgin Mary, which at first sight exalts, but in actual fact belittles Her. Like every lie, it is a seed of the “father of lies” (John 8:44), the devil, who has succeeded by it in blaspheme the Virgin Mary. Together with it there should also be rejected all the other teachings which have come from it or are akin to it. — "Saint" John Maximovitch; http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/06/24/the-error-of-the-immaculate-conception/

►It is evident from the Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only; this was the belief from the very beginning of the One Undivided Church. When the church in the West inserted the "filioque" phrase into the Creed, this innovation precipitated the Great Schism of the Undivided Church. The "filioque" phrase is an error. It is not found in the Scripture. It was not believed by the Undivided Church for eight centuries, including the church in the West. It introduces a strange teaching of a double procession of the Holy Spirit and refers to two origins of the Spirit's existence, thus denying the unity of the Godhead.

The Church of Christ from the beginning baptized its members by a priest immersing them thrice in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Immersion baptism was the practice of the early Church.

...the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, have believed that their decisions are infallible. Their decisions, however, are not considered permanent until they are accepted by the "Conscience of the Church," the whole body of the faithful, clergy and laity, who must give their consent.— http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7063

►Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25 27).- http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

►In the Nicene Creed of faith our Church is described as the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church": "One" because there can only be one true Church with one head Who is Christ... Each of these titles is limiting in some respects, since they define Christians belonging to particular historical or regional Churches of the Orthodox communion..

“because it has all the proper attributes, the Orthodox Church is the living realization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” — http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076

Then there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago. — http://www.orthodox.net/articles/against-ecumenism.html

►The Church preserves unity in diversity. In the Orthodox Church there is no hierarch with universal jurisdiction since its One True Shepherd, our Lord Jesus, has never left His Church (Matthew 28:20). The Apostle Peter does not replace or substitute for Him. The Scriptures do indeed indicate that Peter exercises an important role as leader among the Apostles but his primacy is exercised in equality or collegiality ("primus inter pares") as the Book of Acts clearly shows. The Rock upon which the Church is built is our Lord Himself as we proclaim during Matins: "The Stone which the builders rejected has become the Cornerstone; this is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes" (from Psalm 118:2 - also the most often repeated phrase from the Old in the New Testament: Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:7). Peter, a leader among the Apostles, was first to proclaim the Church's faith in our Lord upon Whom it is built: "You are the the Christ (i.e. the Messiah, God's Chosen and Annointed One - igk), the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:15). He did not see himself as that Rock. Such, at any rate, is the conviction of the Orthodox Church. — http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/questions/2007/appostolic.html

► In the Roman Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession itself resides in the person of the Pope, who is Christ’s Vicar on earth. While modern Latin theologians have tried to restate or even reject it, and while the ecumenical pronouncements of the Latin Church have tried to downplay the significance of Papocentrism, it is the fundamental dogma of Roman Catholicism and a principle repeatedly defended by the present Pope. Even collegiality and shared primacy with the Eastern Patriarchates are subject to the magisterium of the Papacy.

And herein lies one of the most important differences between the Latin and Orthodox Churches in general: the Latin Church’s appeal to the authority of the Roman See and the Orthodox Church’s dependence on the authority of the wholeness of ecclesiastical tradition, the very Body of the Church. - http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/rome_orth.aspx

►Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.

Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.

All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

►There is nothing Orthodox about the charismatic movement. It is incompatible with Orthodoxy, in that it justifies itself only by perverting the message of the Fathers, suggesting that the Church of Christ needs renewal, and indulging in the theological imagery of, Pentecostal cultism. With such things, one cannot be too bold in his language of condemnation and reprobation. - http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.aspx

►Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, argues the difference in East and West is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and its outgrowth, scholasticism) rather than the mystical, actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Roman Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky argues that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have become "different men".[18] Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides[19] and Metropolitan Hierotheos[20][21] say the same

Roman Catholicism teaches, also, that, in the Age to Come, man will, with his intellect and with the assistance of grace, behold the Essence of God. The Orthodox declare that it is impossible to behold God in Himself. Not even divine grace, will give us such power. The saved will see, however, God as the glorified flesh of Christ.

According to Metropolitan Hierotheos that because the Roman Catholic Church uses philosophical speculation rather that an actual experience of God to derive their theology they are lead into the many errors that Orthodox call into question about their theology including the filioque[66]. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox__Roman_Catholic_theological_differences

► Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997; http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b.

More, by God's grace.

[RegulatorCountry]

Rome is in schism from the church as far as the EO are concerned. I realize this will get the RC defenders of the faith in a dither, but it is true.

[Martin Tell]

Actually the Son was eternally begotten of the Father, before the Incarnation - or one could say “begotten before all worlds,” in the words of the Creed. The distinguishing personality of the Son is that he is begotten of the Father. But yes, your quotation from the Creed is correct!

[Elsie]

What you need to know about the Orthodox-Catholic split and hopes for reunification
 When, why and how did it happen? And when will it come to an end?

 

Likewise...

 

 

What you need to know about the Protestant-Catholic split and hopes for reunification

 When, why and how did it happen? And when will it come to an end?

[ebb tide]

Actually the Son was eternally begotten of the Father, before the Incarnation - or one could say “begotten before all worlds,” in the words of the Creed. The distinguishing personality of the Son is that he is begotten of the Father. But yes, your quotation from the Creed is correct!

So using your logic why could one not argue that the Son, like the Holy Ghost, is not a junior partner to the Father?

[Martin Tell]

You apparently not grasping the importance of distinct personalities. Having the Holy Spirit proceed from BOTH the Father and Son interferes with the distinct personality of each person of the Trinity. I supplied you with quotations from two Church Fathers regarding the importance of the distinct personalities.

Orthodox insist on precise Christology and distinctions regarding the Trinity. The filioque muddies these waters and yes, whether you agree or not, reduces the status and role of the Holy Spirit.

Regardless, as our debate amply demonstrates, Roman Catholics and Orthodox do emphatically NOT agree that the filioque belongs in the Creed. The Orthodox position is that there are theological (and scriptural) reasons for not adopting the filioque.

So the statement in the original post that Roman Catholics and Orthodox agree on this point is simply wrong. It's not just a matter of breach of counciliarity. If you don't believe me, Google "Orthodox position on the filioque" and you will see.

[ebb tide]

I do grasp it; see the bible quote in Post #5. If distinct personalities are not displayed in that one sentence, I can’t help you.