We're getting the band back together

Never thought I’d see the day Rome converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, but here we are.https://t.co/oaYjLBKMiF pic.twitter.com/vHlCyQsguJ

— Steve (@StephenP369523) June 13, 2024

What's it mean?

I'm confused.

Just reading the highlighted parts, I'm not seeing anything earth shattering. Maybe I'm missing it?

Study document is a study document

Yes it's just a study document, nothing earth shattering. Still want a hug from the orthobros

From the couple of YouTube clips I have caught, it's also saying that Paster Aeternis could be reevaluated to bring the Roman church inline with the East. Potentially a huge interpretation change.

But it's a big document and these are early returns.

Quote:

---

We're getting the band back together

---

The Holy Spirit proceeds from...

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

We're getting the band back together

---

The Holy Spirit proceeds from...

---

The Father and Through the Son, which is what the Creed teaches even if the words are confusing to some.

TSJ said:

---

From the couple of YouTube clips I have caught, it's also saying that Paster Aeternis could be reevaluated to bring the Roman church inline with the East. Potentially a huge interpretation change.

But it's a big document and these are early returns.

---

This is why I was so initially excited; it's the first acknowledgment I've seen that the office of Pope is more to be seen as a "Speaker of the House" than "Emperor". I think "Speaker of the House" may still be too powerful for the Orthodox to accept, but I'm hoping we can continue to move towards a place of "there need not be 100% overlap in certain points of view to warrant communion" and that there may be a possibility of communion between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as currently exists between the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches.

If they changed procession from the Son to procession through the Son or sending by the Son that would fix it. The bone of contention has always been procession from the Son.

Can the pope infallibly declare he isn't infallible?

Zobel said:

---

If they changed procession from the Son to procession through the Son or sending by the Son that would fix it. The bone of contention has always been procession from the Son.

---

Its understood to be "and through the son" even though the verbiage in the Roman Catholic Church just says "and the son". However, it shouldn't be a major bone of contention as the Eastern Catholic Church don't use the filioque.

Zobel said:

---

Can the pope infallibly declare he isn't infallible?

---

This is going to be a stumbling block, not necessarily a forward looking one, but one from the past; namely the immaculate conception. How can Mary be saved from Original Sin if Original Sin doesn't exist? How can Orthodox be both Anathema and in-communion for not believing in it?

Serviam said:

---

Zobel said:

---

If they changed procession from the Son to procession through the Son or sending by the Son that would fix it. The bone of contention has always been procession from the Son.

---

Its understood to be "and through the son" even though the verbiage in the Roman Catholic Church just says "and the son". However, it shouldn't be a major bone of contention as the Eastern Catholic Church don't use the filioque.

---

Every time I hear a debate about EO and the filioque, and the original texts....it still seems to come down to semantics with out a distinction. The Catholic creed states 'proceeds from the Father and Son'...To me it's still 'through the Son". External relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships.

Shrug. Lots of ink has been spilled and it is not as simple as "this just means through the Son". Otherwise they would have solved it long ago. There were absolutely people teaching dual procession in the West that specifically rejected sending through as inadequate.

The issue has always been the causal nature of procession and the monarchia of the Father. The notion of dual procession subordinates the persons to the essence and the result is modern thinking like the beatific vision. In the end the different theology does lead to different praxis.

More than you wanted to read:
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2818901

It's not what they said it's how they said it.

Narrator: It was what they said too.

Zobel said:

---

What's it mean?

---

Much ado about nothing.

Is "… proceeds from the father and having first proceeded from the father proceeds from the son…" the sort of statement our Orthodox brethren are looking for?

Serious question. Not trying to be cute or cynical. Always praying for Jesus to reunite his church so that it breathes freely with both lungs.

PS - attended a Melkite ByzantIne Rite Divine Liturgy last Sunday and loved it. The liturgy was half English and half Arabic. The priest had a beautiful voice and his singing really made it feel special. Noted that the creed didn't have the filioque. Loved how reverent everything was and how focused it was on the blessed sacrament. Another interesting thing is that the consecrated bread was leavened, unlike what I am used to in the Latin Rite. Also loved the intinction with bread and wine. I wish Rome would find more ways to bring in some aspects of the eastern rites' liturgical traditions to the Latin Rite. Maybe a reunification of east and west would be the impetus for exactly that? One can hope.

The Spirit proceeds from the Father in the same way the Son is begotten by the Father. It is as strange to me to say the Spirit proceeds from the Son as it would be to say the Son is Begotten of the Spirit.

Would it be ok to say the Son is begotten of the Father and having first been begotten of the Father is begotten of the Father and the Spirit?

Zobel said:

---

The Spirit proceeds from the Father in the same way the Son is begotten by the Father. It is as strange to me to say the Spirit proceeds from the Son as it would be to say the Son is Begotten of the Spirit.

Would it be ok to say the Son is begotten of the Father and having first been begotten of the Father is begotten of the Father and the Spirit?

---

Thanks. That helps.

My understanding of the third person of the Trinity is that it is the communication of love among the first person and the second person of the Trinity. The love among the father and the son is the Holy Spirit. If that is true, the there would seem to be a "procession" of some sort from the son to the father even if only as a reciprocation ? If I have mischaracterized this then I beg forgiveness. I don't intend to be heretical.

Thanks for indulging me.

John 14:26: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things."

John 15:26: "But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me."

Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I go not away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you (John 16:7, emphasis added).

"Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the lamb" (Rev. 22:1).

+++

It would seem that Orthodox believe in "Father alone" not unlike "faith alone"?

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty.

We agree on that point. Do we agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son?

Once again your bias seems to blind you from even your own doctrine.

ETA: Excommunication has been lifted by both sides in 1965.

That's exactly how we believe the EO position stands. I've just whittled down to the essential argument.

No. And the scriptures you quoted show exactly why. The Lord says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Spirit is that of the Son, and is sent by the Son. The Spirit does not proceed from the Son, and both scripture and tradition attest to this.

It is an unfortunate heresy that sprang up among the Franks who apparently piously believed the filioque was original to Nicaea which of course is not true. They also were piously motivated to combat Arianism. However this was not the way to do it.

Eventually this heresy spread to the Rome, and ultimately caused the schism. Since that time the schism has led to a multitude of other mischiefs such as the claim of papal infallibility.

Based on what you seem to think the matter of contention is I expect your err in your understanding of your own churches theology on the matter of the monarchia of the Father.

This is a perfect answer for any sane person.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2023/08/19/the-filioque-dispute/

The issue is the insertion of it into the creed, and the knock-on claims to infallibility that accreted around it.

PabloSerna said:

---

Once again your bias seems to blind you from even your own doctrine.

ETA: Excommunication has been lifted by both sides in 1965.

---

But they had been excommunicated, as HAD the SSPX, which was my point, Professor

Like many before us, we will disagree completely on this point. Your assertion of further doctrinal error is baseless since you are not Catholic. That would be like me making a judgement call on the Russian Orthodox Church when I have no standing.

Here are the words from the Second Council of Lyons, 1274:

" We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike.

"But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one."

+++

In summary, I don't see how this will ever work it's way out unless there is a compromise on both sides. Since no one here is a trained theologian, all we can do is post what we understand. This I understand. That is why I remain Catholic.

The essence is not the principle of the Godhead. The Father is. That's the issue.

1274 is a continuance of the heresy. Quoting something 300+ years after the fact just shows that by that time the heresy was fully held in the West.

It's absurd to claim that the change to the creed makes those who hold to the original some kind of novelty.