A Problem I have noticed with Byzantine Catholicism in the West

[Vico]

My parish, which is Byzantine, attracts many Latin Catholics who are regulars there. In fact we also have many eastern Catholics of a different sui iuris church as regular attendees also. In addition to the Latin Catholics we have Ukrainian Catholic, Croatian Catholic, Maronite, Romanian Catholic, and Chaldean Catholics, even Christians of the non-apostolic churches. Except for the Latins, they do not have local parishes of their own sui iuris church nearby. The Latins are particularly interested in icons and the different liturgy.

 

[Kielbasi]

And, on the other hand, it is pretty rare for a Latin Catholic to say to themselves “Oh, I see that I’m living in a town that happens to have a GC (or OC) parish. Maybe I’ll check them out and see if it appeals to me.” By which I don’t mean to blame anyone, but it just means that GC and OC parishes tend to have more losses than gains.

St. Ambrose gave us the phrase “when in Rome, do as the Romans”, and he was specifically referring to the issues of religion, where the practices of those in Milan differed from those in Rome.

Its just a fact that the United States (and Australia) are Roman Catholic dominated territories, so the tendency will be for those who belong to different traditions would tend to adhere to the dominant Catholic culture.

 

[Peter_J]

Good quote, Kielbasi … but it’s also possible to take that too far.

To pull something out of my own history. Where I was living a dozen+ years ago there was a UGCC parish and a Melkite parish. I visited both of them a handful of times to check them out – eventually leading to my “going Melkite” (but that’s another story). If there had been, say, a Chaldean parish or a Maronite parish I’m sure I would have checked them out too … but what are y’gonna do, right? Parishes don’t just materialize because you start thinking about them.

But on the other hand, someone might take “when in Rome, do as the Romans” even further and say “Even though there’s a UGCC parish and a Melkite parish around here, they’re a minority. Stay away from them – stick with LC parishes.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

As I mentioned in a previous post, it is against Catholic teaching for any Catholic of whatever liturgical tradition to believe that a soul cannot go to heaven or hell before the Final Judgment.

This language implies someone is denying it, but neither ECs or Orthodox deny such a thing

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes !. We may not rehash and old controversy that surrounded Pope John XXII and his heretical opinion. He taught that no man will experience the beatific vision until the final judgement. The Church decreed otherwise in the papal bull of his successor. The case is closed and as you said,it is against Catholic teaching for any Catholic of whatever liturgical tradition to believe that a soul cannot go to heaven or hell before the Final Judgment

Yes what? Who is saying this except you two Latins?

Please do some research into these before weighing in too deeply: medievalstudies.ceu.edu/courses/20102011/medieval-theological-debates-the-beatific-vision-and-the-hesychast-debate-meds-629-0

 

[rciadan]

Some of these practices are foreign to our rubics. We should return to our roots and should truly be orthodox in communion with rome. That is when the church will be strongest.

Amen, and also, this will be when we have the most opportunities to build bridges between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[rciadan]

… the filioque. You as Catholics believe these doctrines…

This is not a doctrine. The Trinity is a doctrine: the filioque is not; but, this is a discussion for another thread…

 

[Wandile]

Yes what? Who is saying this except you two Latins?

Please do some research into these before weighing in too deeply: medievalstudies.ceu.edu/courses/20102011/medieval-theological-debates-the-beatific-vision-and-the-hesychast-debate-meds-629-0

Yes to what griego catolico said in that no catholic can disagree with the conclusions regarding the beatific vision. Not “Yes” as in “Yes syroMalankara you heretic”. My post wasn’t addressed to you but was a general post as I’ve seen tendency amongst some Eastern Catholics who , in their zeal to being eastern and end up being “more eastern than the Orthdoox”, deny this very teaching and hold the EO point of view on the matter on the basis that the teachings of the CC aren’t “part of their tradition”.

 

[Wandile]

Yes what? Who is saying this except you two Latins?

Please do some research into these before weighing in too deeply: medievalstudies.ceu.edu/courses/20102011/medieval-theological-debates-the-beatific-vision-and-the-hesychast-debate-meds-629-0

This is not a doctrine. The trinity is a doctrine: the filioque is not.

The filioque is a doctrine and DOGMA of the faith just as the Holy Trinity is a Dogma and doctrine. The filioque was formally declared as not just doctrine but a dogma of the faith numerous times under the threat of anathema for all who denied it. The doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). In session 6 of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Florence it was decreed :

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Nevermind that a simple look through the Catholic encyclopedia and the Catechism of the Catholic Church will show this.

 

[rciadan]

Yeah, and how’s that working out for you? By the looks of this discussion, not too well.

I would not lay the blame for that on the EC’s but rather the two “elephants in the room” who refuse to act like adults.

 

[Vico]

The filioque is doctrine and DOGMA of the faith justas the Holy Trinity is as it concerns the Holy Trinity. and was formally declared so numerous times under the threat of anathema for all who denied it. The doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). In session 6 of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Florence it was decreed :

Even earlier – the Catechism has 447 A.D.:247 The affirmation of the *filioque *does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, [76] even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The filioque is not heretical, and makes sense in a Latin context. It is most definitely heretical to impose filioque on the Greek version of the Creed because doing so renders the Son acting in the Father’s sole spiration of the Holy Spirit - a detail confessed equally as True by Latins, Greeks, Syriacs, etc (In other words, “two gods”). Filioque in Latin means proceeds from (e.g.through), in Greek it means proceeds in origin “from the Father and Son”, a detail denied by every Apostolic Church.

As you see here, imposing Latin phrases and terminology on another Patristic Tradition can be detrimental, to the point of heresy.

 

[Wandile]

The filioque is not heretical, and makes sense in a Latin context. It is most definitely heretical to impose filioque on the Greek version of the Creed because doing so renders the Son acting in the Father’s sole spiration of the Holy Spirit - a detail confessed equally as True by Latins, Greeks, Syriacs, etc (In other words, “two gods”). Filioque in Latin means proceeds from (e.g.through), in Greek it means proceeds in origin “from the Father and Son”, a detail denied by every Apostolic Church.

As you see here, imposing Latin phrases and terminology on another Patristic Tradition can be detrimental, to the point of heresy.

It also makes sense in a Greek context. We all know the information you posted above. The creed is not the totality of the Greek tradition. As we know the Greek fathers have numerous works teaching the filioque explicitly. The filioque is compatible with the Greek tradition in so far as the correct words are used.

The Greeks are concerned about the word in the creed “ekporeusis” (εκπορεύομαι), which pertains to an ultimate origin in Greek theology. Even in the Latin Church and theology the Father is the ultimate source of the Holy Spirit. However the filioque does not speak rigidly. It does not concern the beginning of the procession (ultimate origin) but the whole procession. That is, He proceeds from the father by way of the son. This is because the Latin word “processio” means “goes forward” and pertains not to ultimate origin as the word is not rigid in this sense. The complimentary Greek word for “processio” is “proienai” and not ekporeusis which was erroneously assumed as the Greek equivalent thus starting the whole controversy. The filioque is not foreign to the Greek tradition but is actually part of it!

Here are examples of the Greek speaking fathers teaching filioque :

St Cyril if Alexandria

“For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.”

St Athanasius of Alexandria

“David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit.”

"Everything the Spirit has, He has from the Word "

St Basil the Great

“He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts”

St Epiphanios of Salamis

" For if he calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit"

“No one knows the Spirit except the Father and the Son, that is, the one from Whom He proceeds (εκπορεύομαι) and the one from Whom He receives, and that no one knows the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, He Who truly glorifies, Who teaches all things, Who is from the Father and the Son.”

St Gregory of Nyssa

“the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His” [Rom 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be “of the Spirit,” nor does this relative order become reversed”

 

[rciadan]

The filioque is a doctrine and DOGMA of the faith just as the Holy Trinity is a Dogma and doctrine. The filioque was formally declared as not just doctrine but a dogma of the faith numerous times under the threat of anathema for all who denied it. The doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). In session 6 of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Florence it was decreed :

Nevermind that a simple look through the Catholic encyclopedia and the Catechism of the Catholic Church will show this.

So, I ask you, are you stating or implying that us in the Eastern Catholic Churches who recite the Creed without the Filioque included are heretical: anathema? I think not.
Though, this is not the right place for this discussion and I think constitutes a highjacking or this thread if we continue.

 

[Kielbasi]

Good quote, Kielbasi … but it’s also possible to take that too far.

To pull something out of my own history. Where I was living a dozen+ years ago there was a UGCC parish and a Melkite parish. I visited both of them a handful of times to check them out – eventually leading to my “going Melkite” (but that’s another story). If there had been, say, a Chaldean parish or a Maronite parish I’m sure I would have checked them out too … but what are y’gonna do, right? Parishes don’t just materialize because you start thinking about them. "

Parishes are organized when a sufficient number of members are in an area and petition the prelate to send a priest. Pittsburgh had waves of Ukrainian, Rusyn and Syrian immigrants during our industrial era, and those folks organized their parishes more than 100 years ago.

The parishes were located in the communities here where the people decided to settle. When I lived on the South Side, there was both a Ukrainian and Byzantine church.

Of course since then, the original members have all passed on, the 2nd generation are all ancient by now, their other descendants have largely moved elsewhere throughout Pittsburgh or into the Pittsburgh diaspora after the steel collapse. Most undoubtably married outside their ethnic groups.

Just the facts indicate that the original parishes face a lot different challenges than they did when they were organized, one can see where it was almost inevitable that they would adopt some of the spirituality of their friends, neighbors, relatives and they spread out.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The filioque is not foreign to the Greek tradition but is actually part of it!

And the non-filioque Creed is not foreign to the Latin tradition but is actually part of it.
See the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in it’s original Greek and translated Latin.

 

[Peter_J]

The filioque is a doctrine and DOGMA of the faith just as the Holy Trinity is a Dogma and doctrine.

Many, many Catholic “apologists” claim that there aren’t any doctrinal differences between Catholic (ICWR) and Orthodox.

Maybe you could explain to them. (Be aware, however, that they tend to label such explanation as anti-Catholic propaganda. )

 

[Wandile]

So, I ask you, are you stating or implying that us in the Eastern Catholic Churches who recite the Creed without the Filioque included are heretical: anathema? I think not.
Though, this is not the right place for this discussion and I think constitutes a highjacking or this thread if we continue.

NO they are not heretical because all that is required of the eastern catholic churches is belief in the filioque but not necessarily the recitation of the filioque in the creed. Especially in the Byzantine churches as the creed in Greek said with the filioque would be heretical for reasons mentioned in my previous post

 

[Wandile]

So, I ask you, are you stating or implying that us in the Eastern Catholic Churches who recite the Creed without the Filioque included are heretical: anathema? I think not.
Though, this is not the right place for this discussion and I think constitutes a highjacking or this thread if we continue.

Many, many Catholic “apologists” claim that there aren’t any doctrinal differences between Catholic (ICWR) and Orthodox.

This is true only of some orthodox. Some don’t deny the filioque nor the immaculate conception. The issue of primacy is a whole 'nother issue

Maybe you could explain to them. (Be aware, however, that they tend to label such explanation as anti-Catholic propaganda. )

Lol trust me I have tried…but in th end the Church has spoken for herself in the councils.

 

[Wandile]

And the non-filioque Creed is not foreign to the Latin tradition but is actually part of it.
See the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in it’s original Greek and translated Latin.

Indeed I already know this! And the creed with the filioque was officially standardized as the Latin liturgical creed at the 2nd ecumenical council of Lyons and the Holy Ecumenical Council of Florence. Thus it became the standardised version of the creed in the Latin tradition and is so today.