Regarding an Orthodox objection to the Filioque..

[TrentCath]

Ostroumov and  Fortescue are both problematic sources in this matter.  Both are more polemical than anything else.

The truth is, Florence taught the doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers.  To deny Florence is to deny St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and the Patristic Faith as a whole, if Florence is properly understood.  Some of the Greek and Slavic Florentine Fathers embraced it wholeheartedly, to the point of martyrdom, red and white.  Some signed in a wishy-washy manner, and Mark of Ephesus refused to sign on principle.  The doctrine is firm, but the union was built on shaky ground.

I'm sorry but Fortescue is not 'polemical' (whatever thats supposed to mean), he simply states the truth, Catholics have in the last 50 or so years got used to simply accepting the Orthodox side of the story that we 'bullied them', that 'cardinal humbert was an idiot' and so on, none of this true.

If you disagree with Fortescues facts, show where he is wrong, the all embracing 'he's polemical' isn't going to cut it.

[Parmandur]

Ostroumov and  Fortescue are both problematic sources in this matter.  Both are more polemical than anything else.

The truth is, Florence taught the doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers.  To deny Florence is to deny St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and the Patristic Faith as a whole, if Florence is properly understood.  Some of the Greek and Slavic Florentine Fathers embraced it wholeheartedly, to the point of martyrdom, red and white.  Some signed in a wishy-washy manner, and Mark of Ephesus refused to sign on principle.  The doctrine is firm, but the union was built on shaky ground.

I'm sorry but Fortescue is not 'polemical' (whatever thats supposed to mean), he simply states the truth, Catholics have in the last 50 or so years got used to simply accepting the Orthodox side of the story that we 'bullied them', that 'cardinal humbert was an idiot' and so on, none of this true.

If you disagree with Fortescues facts, show where he is wrong, the all embracing 'he's polemical' isn't going to cut it.

Ostroumov and his followers would say the same thing.  I've read Fortescue on Eastern matters.  He often puts polemics ahead of truth, for example in his article on Gregory Palamas in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.  He makes claims about Gregory and hesychasm which simply are not true.  You can say he "simply states the truth," but he has an agenda as much as the next guy.

[TrentCath]

Ostroumov and  Fortescue are both problematic sources in this matter.  Both are more polemical than anything else.

The truth is, Florence taught the doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers.  To deny Florence is to deny St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and the Patristic Faith as a whole, if Florence is properly understood.  Some of the Greek and Slavic Florentine Fathers embraced it wholeheartedly, to the point of martyrdom, red and white.  Some signed in a wishy-washy manner, and Mark of Ephesus refused to sign on principle.  The doctrine is firm, but the union was built on shaky ground.

I'm sorry but Fortescue is not 'polemical' (whatever thats supposed to mean), he simply states the truth, Catholics have in the last 50 or so years got used to simply accepting the Orthodox side of the story that we 'bullied them', that 'cardinal humbert was an idiot' and so on, none of this true.

If you disagree with Fortescues facts, show where he is wrong, the all embracing 'he's polemical' isn't going to cut it.

Ostroumov and his followers would say the same thing.  I've read Fortescue on Eastern matters.  He often puts polemics ahead of truth, for example in his article on Gregory Palamas in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.  He makes claims about Gregory and hesychasm which simply are not true.  You can say he "simply states the truth," but he has an agenda as much as the next guy.

That I'm afraid is irrelevant, we are not discussing whether he has an 'agenda', the question is whether the facts he are stating are true or not. Ostroumov can say all he wants, if he has facts to back them up, I don't believe he does. Aside from that for obvious reasons I'll take the word of a Catholic over that of an Orthodox, especially when I've seen the other nonsense their patriarchs have come up with over the centuries that back up Fortescues claims.  As for Hesychasm to what exactly are you referring? If you mean it being called quietism etc.. that is the general opinion amongst pre conciliar theologians.

[Silouan]

It sounds like I'm wrong about the different Orthodox churches disagreeing on what councils they recognize. Is that so? Do they all recognize the same ones?

No, they don't. Even among the Eastern Orthodox, there are disagreements, as some will attempt to claim the Palamite synods as ecumenical. Others will cite the Council of Blachernae in 1285 as ecumenical since it was essentially a condemnation of Lyons II.

That's a very legalistic way of looking at it. Whether or not they are called "ecumenical" has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they are accepted. All of the councils you mention are universally accepted, period, because they express the faith of the Church.

[Melkite]

Trent, how could Fortescue have considered becoming Eastern Catholic, since during his lifetime Latin Catholics were not permitted to transfer to Eastern churches?

[Azurestone]

Ostroumov and  Fortescue are both problematic sources in this matter.  Both are more polemical than anything else.

I agree. I did try to caveat my post with it being the only source I could find at the moment. Your point is valid.

[Parmandur]

Ostroumov and  Fortescue are both problematic sources in this matter.  Both are more polemical than anything else.

The truth is, Florence taught the doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers.  To deny Florence is to deny St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and the Patristic Faith as a whole, if Florence is properly understood.  Some of the Greek and Slavic Florentine Fathers embraced it wholeheartedly, to the point of martyrdom, red and white.  Some signed in a wishy-washy manner, and Mark of Ephesus refused to sign on principle.  The doctrine is firm, but the union was built on shaky ground.

I'm sorry but Fortescue is not 'polemical' (whatever thats supposed to mean), he simply states the truth, Catholics have in the last 50 or so years got used to simply accepting the Orthodox side of the story that we 'bullied them', that 'cardinal humbert was an idiot' and so on, none of this true.

If you disagree with Fortescues facts, show where he is wrong, the all embracing 'he's polemical' isn't going to cut it.

Ostroumov and his followers would say the same thing.  I've read Fortescue on Eastern matters.  He often puts polemics ahead of truth, for example in his article on Gregory Palamas in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.  He makes claims about Gregory and hesychasm which simply are not true.  You can say he "simply states the truth," but he has an agenda as much as the next guy.

That I'm afraid is irrelevant, we are not discussing whether he has an 'agenda', the question is whether the facts he are stating are true or not. Ostroumov can say all he wants, if he has facts to back them up, I don't believe he does. Aside from that for obvious reasons I'll take the word of a Catholic over that of an Orthodox, especially when I've seen the other nonsense their patriarchs have come up with over the centuries that back up Fortescues claims.  As for Hesychasm to what exactly are you referring? If you mean it being called quietism etc.. that is the general opinion amongst pre conciliar theologians.

That is what they thought, but just because an opinion is popular doesn't make it true.  Hesychasm is not Quietist.  Quietism is "the doctrine which declares that man's highest perfection consists in a sort of psychical self-annihilation and a consequent absorption of the soul into the Divine Essence even during the present life" as Edward Pace writes in the old encyclopedia.  Have you ever read Palamas?  Because he is quite clear that the end-goal of hesychastic meditation is to receive the charismatic gifts, such as prophecy and healing, for doing good for the Church in evangelizing the world.  It is geared towards action.  Hesychasm is in no way "the doctrine which declares that man's highest perfection consists in a sort of psychical self-annihilation and a consequent absorption of the soul into the Divine Essence even during the present life."  Ergo, Hesychasm is not Quietism.  It is essentially identical with the practices of Trappist and Carthusian monks.  To claim it is Quietism is simply wrong.  To claim it is so because Fortescue thought it was is just to be wrong on the basis of an authority.

[TrentCath]

Trent, how could Fortescue have considered becoming Eastern Catholic, since during his lifetime Latin Catholics were not permitted to transfer to Eastern churches?

Is that actually true? I am pretty sure that is what he asked for, under the service of the catholic patriarch of either Jerusalem or Antioch I believe, I'll google it.

[TrentCath]

Ostroumov and  Fortescue are both problematic sources in this matter.  Both are more polemical than anything else.

The truth is, Florence taught the doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers.  To deny Florence is to deny St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and the Patristic Faith as a whole, if Florence is properly understood.  Some of the Greek and Slavic Florentine Fathers embraced it wholeheartedly, to the point of martyrdom, red and white.  Some signed in a wishy-washy manner, and Mark of Ephesus refused to sign on principle.  The doctrine is firm, but the union was built on shaky ground.

I'm sorry but Fortescue is not 'polemical' (whatever thats supposed to mean), he simply states the truth, Catholics have in the last 50 or so years got used to simply accepting the Orthodox side of the story that we 'bullied them', that 'cardinal humbert was an idiot' and so on, none of this true.

If you disagree with Fortescues facts, show where he is wrong, the all embracing 'he's polemical' isn't going to cut it.

Ostroumov and his followers would say the same thing.  I've read Fortescue on Eastern matters.  He often puts polemics ahead of truth, for example in his article on Gregory Palamas in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.  He makes claims about Gregory and hesychasm which simply are not true.  You can say he "simply states the truth," but he has an agenda as much as the next guy.

That I'm afraid is irrelevant, we are not discussing whether he has an 'agenda', the question is whether the facts he are stating are true or not. Ostroumov can say all he wants, if he has facts to back them up, I don't believe he does. Aside from that for obvious reasons I'll take the word of a Catholic over that of an Orthodox, especially when I've seen the other nonsense their patriarchs have come up with over the centuries that back up Fortescues claims.  As for Hesychasm to what exactly are you referring? If you mean it being called quietism etc.. that is the general opinion amongst pre conciliar theologians.

That is what they thought, but just because an opinion is popular doesn't make it true.  Hesychasm is not Quietist.  Quietism is "the doctrine which declares that man's highest perfection consists in a sort of psychical self-annihilation and a consequent absorption of the soul into the Divine Essence even during the present life" as Edward Pace writes in the old encyclopedia.  Have you ever read Palamas?  Because he is quite clear that the end-goal of hesychastic meditation is to receive the charismatic gifts, such as prophecy and healing, for doing good for the Church in evangelizing the world.  It is geared towards action.  Hesychasm is in no way "the doctrine which declares that man's highest perfection consists in a sort of psychical self-annihilation and a consequent absorption of the soul into the Divine Essence even during the present life."  Ergo, Hesychasm is not Quietism.  It is essentially identical with the practices of Trappist and Carthusian monks.  To claim it is Quietism is simply wrong.  To claim it is so because Fortescue thought it was is just to be wrong on the basis of an authority.

You'll note that I myself made no comment on the subject, frankly though you don't understand fortescue if you read it that way, his entire criticism is based on the fact that aside from the quietism issue it is based on an idea that seems to contradict divine simplicity by introducing a division between uncreated and created light etc...

[Parmandur]

Ostroumov and  Fortescue are both problematic sources in this matter.  Both are more polemical than anything else.

The truth is, Florence taught the doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers.  To deny Florence is to deny St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and the Patristic Faith as a whole, if Florence is properly understood.  Some of the Greek and Slavic Florentine Fathers embraced it wholeheartedly, to the point of martyrdom, red and white.  Some signed in a wishy-washy manner, and Mark of Ephesus refused to sign on principle.  The doctrine is firm, but the union was built on shaky ground.

I'm sorry but Fortescue is not 'polemical' (whatever thats supposed to mean), he simply states the truth, Catholics have in the last 50 or so years got used to simply accepting the Orthodox side of the story that we 'bullied them', that 'cardinal humbert was an idiot' and so on, none of this true.

If you disagree with Fortescues facts, show where he is wrong, the all embracing 'he's polemical' isn't going to cut it.

Ostroumov and his followers would say the same thing.  I've read Fortescue on Eastern matters.  He often puts polemics ahead of truth, for example in his article on Gregory Palamas in the old Catholic Encyclopedia.  He makes claims about Gregory and hesychasm which simply are not true.  You can say he "simply states the truth," but he has an agenda as much as the next guy.

That I'm afraid is irrelevant, we are not discussing whether he has an 'agenda', the question is whether the facts he are stating are true or not. Ostroumov can say all he wants, if he has facts to back them up, I don't believe he does. Aside from that for obvious reasons I'll take the word of a Catholic over that of an Orthodox, especially when I've seen the other nonsense their patriarchs have come up with over the centuries that back up Fortescues claims.  As for Hesychasm to what exactly are you referring? If you mean it being called quietism etc.. that is the general opinion amongst pre conciliar theologians.

That is what they thought, but just because an opinion is popular doesn't make it true.  Hesychasm is not Quietist.  Quietism is "the doctrine which declares that man's highest perfection consists in a sort of psychical self-annihilation and a consequent absorption of the soul into the Divine Essence even during the present life" as Edward Pace writes in the old encyclopedia.  Have you ever read Palamas?  Because he is quite clear that the end-goal of hesychastic meditation is to receive the charismatic gifts, such as prophecy and healing, for doing good for the Church in evangelizing the world.  It is geared towards action.  Hesychasm is in no way "the doctrine which declares that man's highest perfection consists in a sort of psychical self-annihilation and a consequent absorption of the soul into the Divine Essence even during the present life."  Ergo, Hesychasm is not Quietism.  It is essentially identical with the practices of Trappist and Carthusian monks.  To claim it is Quietism is simply wrong.  To claim it is so because Fortescue thought it was is just to be wrong on the basis of an authority.

You'll note that I myself made no comment on the subject, frankly though you don't understand fortescue if you read it that way, his entire criticism is based on the fact that aside from the quietism issue it is based on an idea that seems to contradict divine simplicity by introducing a division between uncreated and created light etc...

But again, Palamas explicitly says he is defending Divine simplicity against his interlocutor, who by all appearances was a Nominalist.  I'm not saying Palamas' system is perfect, but Fortescue's reading lacks a certain accuracy to what Palamas actually said.