Here we go again...

[English Augustine]

First off, I'd like to apologise for asking questions which I'm sure you good folk have dealt with a thousand times, and hope you don't mind answering them again. :-)

As a Latin rite Catholic with some rather "Greek" theological tendencies I pray most earnestly for a reunion of our two Churches. I understand that there are major doctrinal differences between us, and a myriad of cultural and political issues, which would all need to be bridged.

Anyway, I'd basically like to know what Rome would have to change to achieve reunion. Could the filioque be retained, if for example, a statement was made affirming that the procession of the Spirit from the Son in no way detracts from the origin of the whole divinity in the Father? Please excuse me if this sounds like nonsense, I'm unfamiliar with how Orthodox Christians speak about the theology they teach; there is no Orthodox presence in my city.

Anyway, I'm just curious what Latin "innovations" could be retained by Rome, and what (if anything) would count as an insummountable heresy which would unconditionally have to go. Thanks folks.

In Christ,

EA:liturgy:

[Julina]

i think the Pope would have to go

[ArmyMatt]

pretty much what I heard, one of the two Churches would have to cease being what it has claimed to be. from our end, things like the filioque, papal infallibility, papal supremecy, transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, the immaculate conception of Mary, among others would all have to go.

[Julina]

don't Orthodox beleive in transubstansiation too?

[Matrona]

Anyway, I'd basically like to know what Rome would have to change to achieve reunion. Could the filioque be retained, if for example, a statement was made affirming that the procession of the Spirit from the Son in no way detracts from the origin of the whole divinity in the Father?

An unreserved heck nooooo to that, I'm afraid. The filioque is not acceptable and certainly not under those circumstances.

Please excuse me if this sounds like nonsense, I'm unfamiliar with how Orthodox Christians speak about the theology they teach; there is no Orthodox presence in my city.

Are you sure? It may just be a quiet presence...

[Michael the Iconographer]

To be honest with you, Rome would have to become Orthodox. There is a totally different mindset between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism that most Roman Catholics simply can not see. I grew up Roman Catholic and spent a year in seminary and it was a total shock to me after I became Orthodox to see how differently Orthodox see things from the way Catholics do. It goes beyond the Filioque, Papal Infallibility and Supremacy of Jurisdiction, Marian doctrines and original sin. Rome sees everything in a concrete, definable way. There is very little room for faith when everything is explained for you. How does the Eucharist become the body of Christ? Rome has explained it. Rome simply has never left things to mystery the way the Orthodox do. The legalism would have to go and be replaced by the spirituality of the Orthodox Church.
The popes broad range of power gives the Vatican a much stronger controll over its priests and bishops than the Orthodox model. Rome also seems to have a clear disregard for what was said during the 7 Ecumenical Councils and early history of the Church. It did not matter to the Pope in the early 800s that the 3rd Ecumenical Council made it clear that anyone who added or subtracted from the creed without doing so by means of Ecumenical Council was anathema. All that mattered to him was that he was forced to change it by threat of violence from Charlemagne. It did not matter to the Pope in 1870 that early church history clearly shows a more counciliar approach to solving matters than Rome would like, the Pope still declared infallibility. The statues and organs would need to be replaced by icons and a capella singing. Finally, our view of Mary does not come anywhere near deifying her the way Rome does. If you look at the icon of the Theotokos, she never points to herself. She always points to Christ. The new Marian doctrines (Mediatrix of All Graces, Co-Redemptrix) come very close to making Mary the 4th person of the Trinity. Atleast in its official doctrine, Rome seems to have forgotten that Mary was a human being just like you and I.

[English Augustine]

Rome simply has never left things to mystery the way the Orthodox do. The legalism would have to go and be replaced by the spirituality of the Orthodox Church.

I had a rather unsuccesful thread on OBOB about this, entitled "Dogamtism", which was basically me saying that it is a shame that a lot of the mystery of the Gospel has been relegated below the scholastic defenition of dogmas in the West. On the other hand, it has been quite rightly said that the Church in the West has often had to make these pronouncements to defend herself against certain heresies. When one reads theories such as "Transignification" in the Eucharist, one is truly grateful that Transtubstantiated was formally adopted by the Church, despiten my own personal dislike of using Aristotlean terms to explain the Sacred Mysteries.



The popes broad range of power gives the Vatican a much stronger controll over its priests and bishops than the Orthodox model.

This, however, is more a practical obstacle than an accusation of heresy, no? Obviously the "Eastern" approach would be more favourable to the Orthodox, but the jurisdictional powers of the Papacy cannot be a heresy to the faith in themselves, can they?


Rome also seems to have a clear disregard for what was said during the 7 Ecumenical Councils and early history of the Church. It did not matter to the Pope in the early 800s that the 3rd Ecumenical Council made it clear that anyone who added or subtracted from the creed without doing so by means of Ecumenical Council was anathema.

I think the best response to this would be another council to write a NEW creed which we might all be able to agree on! The choice of the word "proceeds" for the filioque is in reality so vague that it can be interpreted in several different ways, which is not good for the Church!

The statues and organs would need to be replaced by icons and a capella singing.

Surely not?!? Aren't these merely the cultural trappings of Eastern Christianity? What is heretical about organs? lol

Finally, our view of Mary does not come anywhere near deifying her the way Rome does. If you look at the icon of the Theotokos, she never points to herself. She always points to Christ. The new Marian doctrines (Mediatrix of All Graces, Co-Redemptrix) come very close to making Mary the 4th person of the Trinity. Atleast in its official doctrine, Rome seems to have forgotten that Mary was a human being just like you and I.

I think this is a question of perspective. I find it easy to accept all the present Marian dogmas because, ultimately, they each show just how wonderfully whole our salvation shall be - God will raise us up just as He has raised the Blessed Theotokos up.

In Christ,

EA:liturgy:

[Michael the Iconographer]

I had a rather unsuccesful thread on OBOB about this, entitled "Dogamtism", which was basically me saying that it is a shame that a lot of the mystery of the Gospel has been relegated below the scholastic defenition of dogmas in the West. On the other hand, it has been quite rightly said that the Church in the West has often had to make these pronouncements to defend herself against certain heresies. When one reads theories such as "Transignification" in the Eucharist, one is truly grateful that Transtubstantiated was formally adopted by the Church, despiten my own personal dislike of using Aristotlean terms to explain the Sacred Mysteries.

How can you possibly say you are glad the Roman Church has defined everything to the point where there simply is no room for mystery or faith? How is man even remotely capable of understanding what goes on during the Eucharistic Anaphora that enables the bread and wine to become the body of Christ? And what if Rome is dead wrong in how it explains the mystery and held responsible by Christ for teaching that at the second coming? I am sorry but the study of St. Thomas Aquinas in the second semester of Seminary studies pushed me even further away from the Roman Catholic Church than I had already gone on my own.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I think the best response to this would be another council to write a NEW creed which we might all be able to agree on! The choice of the word "proceeds" for the filioque is in reality so vague that it can be interpreted in several different ways, which is not good for the Church!



An 8th Ecumenical Council would only include the Roman Bishops if they renounced their heresey and became Orthodox. Orthodox do not invite schismatics and heretics to Ecumenical Councils the way Rome did in inviting protestant theologians to Vatican II. The fact of the matter is the western church anathematized itself when it officially accepted the Filioque and the only way it could ever come back to Orthodoxy is if it first denounced the Filioque as heresy.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Surely not?!? Aren't these merely the cultural trappings of Eastern Christianity? What is heretical about organs? lol


Your laugh shows your lack of understanding and respect for Orthodoxy. Organs and oil paintings both have an amount of sensuality to them that is foreign to the spirituality of Orthodox Christianity.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I think this is a question of perspective. I find it easy to accept all the present Marian dogmas because, ultimately, they each show just how wonderfully whole our salvation shall be - God will raise us up just as He has raised the Blessed Theotokos up.

In Christ,

EA:liturgy:

Really? You find it easy to accept the Immaculate Conception, the Mediatrix of All Graces, and the Co-Redemptrix? Have you read what these 3 doctrines teach? It is quite disturbing when you get down to the essence of these doctrines.

[Julina]

quick question about the Filioque: why was it added in the first place?

[Julina]

Surely not?!? Aren't these merely the cultural trappings of Eastern Christianity? What is heretical about organs? lol

Icons are NOT "cultural trappings." i asked my priest if statuary would ever be in an Orthodox church, and he said no because they're borderline graven images. This article helped me understand that better:
http://www.protomartyr.org/image.html

[Michael the Iconographer]

quick question about the Filioque: why was it added in the first place?

The Filioque was added by a local Third Council of Toledo, Spain in 589 A.D. to combat the Arian heresy which was ubiqitous in Iberia and Gaul.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Surely not?!? Aren't these merely the cultural trappings of Eastern Christianity?

Icons are theological statements about what Orthodoxy teaches. Icons are theology in color, not graven images. Statues and paintings of God the Father are against the canons of the Church and quite frankly, idols. The reason we can have images of Christ is he made his human face known to us at the Incarnation. You can not make an image of an unseen God, that is idolatry. But you can make an image of Christ because he became man. There is no uniform teaching structure in the statuary or paintings of the Roman Church. One can not look at an image of the Theotokos written in the 11th century and see the same image in one written in the 20th century when looking at Roman art. There is no code to the meaning of gestures and colors, and quite often the subjects in Roman paintings are not even named. How can you pray before a painting of St. Peter and know it is him if you don't have a name on the painting and the style of Roman painting changes with the whims of the painter? Thus you get Roman art which borders on idolatry. Your making this statement shows a complete ignorance of the teaching of Orthodoxy and is an insult to those who are Orthodox.

[Michael the Iconographer]

As a Latin rite Catholic with some rather "Greek" theological tendencies...

Please, explain this comment. It is very puzzling to me!

[Barky]

Your laugh shows your lack of understanding and respect for Orthodoxy. Organs and oil paintings both have an amount of sensuality to them that is foreign to the spirituality of Orthodox Christianity.

the Greek Orthodox cathedral in my hometown uses an organ :blush:

[Historynut]

I think it is worth noting that while Icons are an essential part of Orthodoxy their use in church decoration varies greatly from parish to parish I mean look at the western Rite churches that have very very few icons on display. Statuary though has been rather roundly condemned by the Orthodox church and would probably need to be abandoned.


As far as the chanting goes it looks to be totally cultural to me. In America instrumental use during the liturgy varies from parish to parish as does the style of chanting. In the old countries the style of chant varies from nation to nation. I doubt that the early church had a totally homogeneous use of plain chant either. So could the Western church keep a form of Latin or Gregorian chant? I would say absolutely.

As far as theology goes that needs to change others have already covered it well so I wont comment.

[Michael the Iconographer]

the Greek Orthodox cathedral in my hometown uses an organ :blush:

The Greeks in the United States are an aberation of the norm in Orthodox Churches which use a capella singing.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I think it is worth noting that while Icons are an essential part of Orthodoxy their use in church decoration varies greatly from parish to parish I mean look at the western Rite churches that have very very few icons on display. Statuary though has been rather roundly condemned by the Orthodox church and would probably need to be abandoned.


As far as the chanting goes it looks to be totally cultural to me. In America instrumental use during the liturgy varies from parish to parish as does the style of chanting. In the old countries the style of chant varies from nation to nation. I doubt that the early church had a totally homogeneous use of plain chant either. So could the Western church keep a form of Latin or Gregorian chant? I would say absolutely.

As far as theology goes that needs to change others have already covered it well so I wont comment.

Icons are not decoration. They are theological statements and their arangement in churches follows a closely set pattern on iconostases and often in the rest of the church.

The style of chant may vary from parish to parish, but with the exception of Greek parishes (and maybe the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parishes) who use organs, musical instruments are not used in Orthodox worship.

[Historynut]

I think you misunderstood me Micheal I noted that Icons are a required part of orthodoxy but their use in Orthodox church buildings is not always the same. I used the Western Rite as my example for this, as their churches usually have no iconostases or other apparent icons in their layout. This shows that there is a variety of experience within the orthodox church, meaning that unless something changes allowing an otherwise Orthodox Roman church back into communion would not hing on them using Icons in their church.

Which is the same point I was getting at with the music while instruments are rare in Orthodox churches they are not unheard of and while some find them distasteful I have not seen any official pronouncements declaring their use schismatic.

[Andrew21091]

Our choir uses an organ during Liturgy, well it's not really an organ, it is an electronic keyboard and it's mainly used just to get the choir in tune. My church has a real organ that they used to play a lot more (before I got there) but they had it locked up. During Matins and Vespers though, we use the pure Byzantine chant. The only reason you find organs and pews in Orthodox churches is because when the original immigrants came from the old country, they were discriminated against as many immigrants were and many Greeks and Arabs put pews and organs in the churches to fit it in so they wouldn't appear so "weird" as "normal" Americans. That is what my SF told me because I was talking of my severe dislike of pews and organs.

On the topic of icons, they are what should be used, not statues because those are pretty much graven images. I don't have as much as a problem with Western style art in churches, just as long as they aren't used for veneration. At the Albanian Orthodox Cathedral in Boston, they had a lot of really beautiful Western style paintings that I thought looked were beautiful.

[Dorothea]

the Greek Orthodox cathedral in my hometown uses an organ :blush:
The one in Dayton, OH did too. I didn't know it was such a bad thing. I thought it was acceptable in churches.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I think you misunderstood me Micheal I noted that Icons are a required part of orthodoxy but their use in Orthodox church buildings is not always the same. I used the Western Rite as my example for this, as their churches usually have no iconostases or other apparent icons in their layout. This shows that there is a variety of experience within the orthodox church, meaning that unless something changes allowing an otherwise Orthodox Roman church back into communion would not hing on them using Icons in their church.

Which is the same point I was getting at with the music while instruments are rare in Orthodox churches they are not unheard of and while some find them distasteful I have not seen any official pronouncements declaring their use schismatic.

Western Rite Orthodox are such a minority in Orthodoxy they almost require an asterix. The use of icons might not be the hinge on which a Roman Catholic Church re-enters communion with Orthodoxy, but Orthodox theology clearly has a problem with the nature of the paintings in Roman Churches. The oil paint is far too sensual a medium for use in Orthodox liturgies and the lack of any teaching form that is able to be read by the general church population poses a huge problem in Roman art.