A Roman Catholic view about oriental vs eastern orthodoxy

Hi everyone from Spain

When I was studing christology, I loved the perfection of Trinity, the beauty of the dogma, but when I read about "two wills" in Christ, I felt perplexed.

After that, I began to feel strange in catholicism, because I felt the reality was not orthodox, there´s a lot of contradictions. Per example, I am very anti-protestant (i´m spanish, we made the Trento council, evangeliced Ameria, and fought the protestants in Europe and put a red line through Europe between catholics and protestants), in the spirit of San Ignacio de Loyola; BUT, actually our mass has become protestant, and our morals also has become protestant (after Vatican Council II), so I felt tradicionalism was the way.

After that, I studied about the Great Schism, and I began to think about becoming orthodox; but what orthodoxy? 

After reading pope Shenouda, I though he had the point: fasting, fasting, charity and repentance, and very sober biblical theology. I love his book "the nature of Christ", because it´s logic; specially about the one will of Christ.

Then i googled "filioque orthodoxy", and I went into this forum, I was surprised about what I read; they talked about Fotius¡¡¡ but Fotius was byzantine¡¡ 

The nicene creed stated: The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father; the cesaro-pope said " and the Son", and the byzantines said: "only from the Father". The two statements are additions to Nicene creed¡¡¡¡¡¡ so why anathematize because some people doubt the "only" addition?? Oriental orthodox are not in the fight between romanism and byzantinism¡¡ I think it´s stupid quarreling because this points of view, people from romanism have no problem in accept the nicene creed, but accepting the "monarchy" is weird, from a westerner point of view. This quarrel was after byzantines slaughtered the oriental orthodox christians, I dont understand the aversion, the bizantination of some converts.

Besides that, my piety is very sober and biblical, fasting and praying¡¡ As catholic, I accept coming back not only to the great schism, but also to the schism of Calcedonia; but encountering byzantinism in the oriental orthodoxy if not logical for me. The "antiecumenical" fanatics in oriental orthodoxy awe me; the antiecumenical orthodoxs anatemathice you, oriental christians, in their mass¡¡ they say you have no Christ¡¡ It´s not about veils in the head of women, it´s about fasting and praying¡¡ 

Christ give us his amazing grace¡¡

Comments

  • About my thoughts of filioque; I accept for the love of unity, the nicene creed, but this is the theologumena we, westeners believe:

    The Father engendrated the Logos, the mirror of His Glory; The Father loves the Son and gives Him everything, the Son loves the Father and makes His Will in everything, in these two ethernal actions of love the Holy Ghost arises as an explosion of love of the crash of the two waves of eternal and infinite love, that´s why we say: "The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son".

    Whay i dont understand in the "monarchy" point of view, is that it seems the Father could engendrated the Son but not making the Spirit proceeding from him. So in filioque the Holy Ghost is consecuencie of the engendration of the Logos.
  • That´s why the Holy Ghost is sent by the Father, so He generates in us his Logos, but also the Logos prays to the Father from us with ineffable prayers, so the Spirit is going down-up.
  • Filioque is very rooted in western christianity, in art and the life of the monks, by example, Diego Velazquez "la coronación de la Virgen María":

    image
  • see john 15:26 and orthodoxwiki/Filioque
    adding something to the nicene creed (which was agreed by all the churches including the roman church) was unnecessary.

    the correct way to alter the creed would have been to summon an international (eccumenical) council to debate this properly.
    so we orthodox Christians do not add 'and the son' to our statement of belief.
    the article i linked to above explains it quite well.
  • Agreed, Filioque should not be in the Creed.

    What I mean is that filioque is an addition of roman catholic, the same way Constantinople argued with the monarchy of the Father, that´s also an addition. Maybe they are right, still studing the subject
Sign In or Register to comment.