Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper; jo kus; Cronos
You're saying these things on purpose, right? Just to drive me crazy!

the last sentence in the universe I would have expected from you is that it is all God and nothing us

No I am not. And I assure you that our Roman Catholic brethren would agree with me. It is arrogant and presumptuous to believe that our contribution to the God-man relationship is anything but a one way affair.

The Protestants echo this, but they forget something: God is everything, yet He is humble. We are nothing and we are arrogant and proud. So, no matter how little or insignificant our love for Him is, He loves us nonetheless.

Was this difference a cause of the split? I vaguely remember from about a million posts ago that the split happened a little after the reformation because of "differences"

The Great Schism occurred five hundred years before Reformation. The main difference was papal authority and the issue of Filioque as it was inserted in the Nicea Creed by the Spanish clergy in the 6th century.

However, the great Palamite theology based on hesychastic practices shows that our thinking with regard to the Holy Spirit is not different at all (namely that the Holy Spirit is the eros that exists between the Father and the Son; the disagreement is on the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone (since the HS is only because of the Father, before all ages) and the illegitimacy of the Latin insertion contrary to the canon.

1,781 posted on 01/20/2006 2:41:46 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1780 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50

Nicea Creed = Nicene Creed


1,782 posted on 01/20/2006 2:43:15 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1781 | View Replies ]

To: kosta50; Forest Keeper
Actually the Schism was brewing right from the time of the collapse of the Western Roman empire. The Papacy was the sole civilising influence in the west while the East had Imperial authority. This was exacerbated by differences in language: the Latin west and the Greek east. And the ethnic mix: Latin/Celtic/Germanic West and the Greek/Slavic East. Then, you had the East threatened byIslam (so the Arab Christian portion got taken away from the East, reducing it to a direct confrontation).

These differences led to miscommunication and the two sides developed their own lines of thought.

The schism never happened as a one-time activity but a gradual movement away.
1,784 posted on 01/20/2006 3:14:19 AM PST by Cronos (Never forget 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1781 | View Replies ]

To: kosta50; Forest Keeper
FK, are you confused yet???!!!

Kosta is correct, but I see he is emphasizing one part of our "relationship" with God - perhaps it might seem he is disregarding the other part.

God gives His own life and friendship to us. We call this gift grace. We do not earn or deserve God's grace. Grace allows us to become God's adopted children and respond to His abundant love. I think this explains both "parts" of the relationship - that God takes the initiative, God provides us with Grace, God provides us the impetus to respond to Him - and YET, We also are called to RESPOND. Thus, because of the existence of free will (the ability to respond to God implies the ability to reject God), we DO, in some manner, are called into a relationship. We give of ourselves, even if it is miniscule compared to God. God is not looking for quantity, but the giving of our SELF. If we are to become like God, we must "act" like Him (which we cannot do without Him - John 15). We must love others, even our enemies. We must place God in our lives first, like Christ did. We must give of ourselves totally, just as Christ did. THAT is the relationship we are in. Through the Incarnation, man CAN be enabled to partake in His most holy divine nature. I feel confident that Kosta agrees that the Incarnation allows us to partake in the divine nature, although he will probably use different words, such as theosis and divinization. But the concept is the same. We are to become like Christ ONLY because He became like us (St. Athanasius said something to that effect - God became man so that we could become "gods" [not ontologically!])

Jesus came to proclaim the Kingdom. God has always desired to share of Himself with us. To do this, Jesus came to establish the Kingdom here, even now, but not yet! Jesus told us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. Not only is it the Church on earth, but it is our relationship with Christ Himself. Through this Church, the people whom we fellowship with, the pastors who teach the Word to us, the priests who administer God's graces to us visibly through the sacraments, the Kingdom is made present even now. And ESPECIALLY through the Mass (Divine Liturgy), the Kingdom of Heaven comes and joins in with our own participation with Christ in His eternal offering of Himself to the Father.

God has covenanted with His people. HE took the initiative and HE binds Himself to this covenant. But was it ALWAYS one-way? The Mosaic Covenant DEMANDS obedience to God. Christ did not change that. We are STILL commanded to obey the Commandments. However, Christ specifically fulfilled the Law by EXPANDING it - "you have heard it said...but I tell you - if you even look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have committed adultery", and so forth. In Matthew 5-7, Jesus tells us what our relationship must be based upon - love of God and neighbor. We are not to be like the hypocrites who follow the Law, but not in their hearts. Thus, we MUST love - and by loving our neighbor, we love God. This is the relationship we are called to partake in. It is not one-sided - although it is ultimately dependent upon God's graces. Would you agree, Kosta?

The Great Schism occurred five hundred years before Reformation. The main difference was papal authority and the issue of Filioque as it was inserted in the Nicea Creed by the Spanish clergy in the 6th century.

I think our respective communities grew apart culturally first. We hardly spoke each other's language. Politically, we were separate after the fall of Rome in the early 400's to the barbarians. Leadership-wise, we took different paths, also. Rome had no or little political pressure for many years, while Constantinople lived under the often-heretical emperor. Thus, East and West took different paths ecclesiastically and culturally many years before the Schism or even the Filioque (which was not listed among the reasons in 1054).

The Filioque was taken as a slap in the face by the Greeks because it was done without a Council and because the Greeks perceived that it was heretical teaching. Simply put, it was a huge misunderstanding and a lack of tact on the part of Rome. Theologically, the formula is acceptable (though I think "through" rather than "and" would be better). The Papacy, I believe, was not a real problem for the East (although I think the Bishops in Constantinople would have desired for Rome to stop "butting in") - they appealed to him over and over again to fight heresy. I believe the split is more over lack of understanding each other culturally. Polemics naturally didn't endear us to each others positions! Theologically, there are very few issues that we disagree on. But because we have different points of view (the Trinity can be approached from more than one direction!!!), we often fail to understand that we agree, but said differently. We pray that God wills that His Church re-unite.

Brother in Christ

1,789 posted on 01/20/2006 7:20:20 AM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1781 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson