Not really, the non-Latin Catholic Churches are not required to believe anything, except that when Latins use it in a Latin context, this is not heretical. Basically give the Latin Church the benefit of the doubt. You are still speaking from a Latin-centric viewpoint, without regard to the various Eastern views.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
Wow! this is the best post I have read so far about the Filoque!east2west.org/ecumenism.htm
Concerning the infamous conflict over the Filioque, it doesn’t appear to be the stumbling block that it once was. In 1995 the Holy Father asked the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to reconsider the issue. At his request, they issued a marvelous document entitled: “The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity - the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions.”
This document acknowledged the Eastern understanding of the Father as the source of the Trinity as being definitive for the Catholic Church. The Orthodox were concerned that Catholics claimed that the Father and Son BOTH were the source of the Trinity. This document puts that fear to rest.
In fact, this document goes so far as to state that the Creed WITHOUT the Filioque is the normative form of the Creed for the entire Catholic Church. It says:
“The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught by the undivided Church,” (paragraph no. 2).
The Holy Father has warmly embraced this document, and has implemented it himself. Whenever concelebrating with Eastern bishops, or during ecumenical prayer services, the Holy Father always celebrates the Creed minus the Filioque.
Filioque #2: Why don’t Roman Catholics go back to reciting the Creed in its original form? If a western Church like the Anglican returns to using the Creed without Filioque, then it seems to imply that many Western Christians (Protestant and Roman Catholic) are professing the “wrong” Creed.
To say that the version of the Creed with the Filioque is the “wrong” creed would be incorrect. It is a legitimate variation of the same Creed that is particular to the Latin liturgical tradition.
When properly understood, the Filioque clause does not compromise the monarchy of the Father - the notion that the Father is the original source of the Son and the Spirit. Indeed, the Latin theological tradition has tended to emphasis the role of Son in the spiration of the Spirit while maintaining the Father’s monarchy. The Filioque clause expresses this Latin theological tradition, which is part of the heritage of the Latin Church. Many Roman Catholic theologians believe that to remove the Filioque from the Creed of the Latin Church would be to abandon an important part of the Latin theological patrimony.
Filioque #3: Who started the fight over the filioque? Did Charlemagne really add it to the creed?
Concerning your question, it has been established that the Filioque was inserted into the Nicene Creed at the request of Charlemagne, over the vocal objection of the reigning Pope. It had previously been recited in parts of Gaul and Spain, but it achieved widespread use in the West through the efforts of Charlemagne. Numerous Popes opposed this addition, and attempted to maintain the original version of the creed for several centuries. Indeed, not a single Pope recited the Filioque until Pope Benedict VIII (1014-15).
Thus, when St. Photius protested the recitation of the Filioque in the Creed, he believed himself to be following in the footsteps of the numerous Popes who also opposed this addition.
I should also mention that some historians believe that Charlemagne added the Filioque to the Creed precisely in order to have an excuse for accusing the Byzantine Emperor of heresy. Since the Byzantine Emperor refused to recite the Filioque, he could be accused of heresy and therefore was not to be regarded as a legitimate Emperor by Charlemagne. This meant that Charlemagne alone was the sole true Emperor of the Christian world. Of course, since the Pope at this time also refused to recite the Filioque, this would also mean that he was a heretic by Charlemagne’s standards, wouldn’t it? Thus, Charlemagne painted himself into a sticky theological corner.
In any case, this issue appears to have been largely resolved in recent years. I will be very thankful when this fight is finally consigned to the dustbin of history.
Filioque #4: Do Eastern Catholics have to believe in the filioque?
Rome does not ask Eastern Catholics to abandon our unique theological tradition. In fact, Vatican II has asked us to preserve our theological traditions, which are part of the wealth of the entire Catholic Church. Therefore, Eastern Catholics are to maintain their traditional Eastern theology of the Trinity, which emphasizes the monarchy of the Father.
The filioque is part of the Latin theological tradition. Since we are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholics believe that the filioque is a legitimate understanding of the Trinity, particular to the Latin tradition. In other words, it is a true understanding of the Trinity, equal and complementary with the Eastern understanding. While we do not express our understanding of the Trinity in this way, it is perfectly legitimate for the Latin Church to do so. The Eastern and Western understandings of the Trinity are different but complementary. So when push comes to shove, we believe that the filioque is true, but it is not how we express the mystery.
There is an interesting history behind this. In all of its dealings with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church has never asked the Orthodox to embrace the filioque as their understanding of the faith. On the contrary, Rome has only asked the Orthodox to acknowledge that it is not heretical. Unfortunately, for many centuries the Orthodox were unwilling to concede this. Some Orthodox Christians still remain so.
I’m not a theologian, but “when properly understood” this seems to be OK. What I don’t understand is the belief that the Father and the Son love each other so much they create the Spirit. That, to me, implies that the Spirit depends on the Son just to exist eternally.When properly understood, the Filioque clause does not compromise the monarchy of the Father - the notion that the Father is the original source of the Son and the Spirit. Indeed, the Latin theological tradition has tended to emphasis the role of Son in the spiration of the Spirit while maintaining the Father’s monarchy. The Filioque clause expresses this Latin theological tradition, which is part of the heritage of the Latin Church. Many Roman Catholic theologians believe that to remove the Filioque from the Creed of the Latin Church would be to abandon an important part of the Latin theological patrimony.
Yeseast2west.org/ecumenism.htm
“The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught by the undivided Church,” (paragraph no. 2).
This is also fine because of reasons stated aboveThe Holy Father has warmly embraced this document, and has implemented it himself. Whenever concelebrating with Eastern bishops, or during ecumenical prayer services, the Holy Father always celebrates the Creed minus the Filioque.
Yeah the same Anglicans who ordain women and preach branch theory. They aren’t so reliable. The liturgical creed in the west is fine as it ism it reflects western theological development and tradition. Further it is normative for different churches to have different liturgical and baptismal creeds. The Armenians are one example of a different liturgical creed and the and the Assyrian Church of the east another. It was really the Byzantines who wish to have one version of the creed used liturgically but this was foreign to the early church.Filioque #2: Why don’t Roman Catholics go back to reciting the Creed in its original form? If a western Church like the Anglican returns to using the Creed without Filioque, then it seems to imply that many Western Christians (Protestant and Roman Catholic) are professing the “wrong” Creed.
Yup yet every one of the popes who opposed the recitation of the filioque explicitly taught it. They rejected the insertion of the filioque for the sake of church unity as the Byzantines in the east were known to be overly touchy on this issue although in reality the council of Ephesus allowed the insertion of the filioque. That is the creed could be expanded on to make an implicit truth explicit Just as the Council of Constantinople did when expanding the creed.it has been established that the Filioque was inserted into the Nicene Creed at the request of Charlemagne, over the vocal objection of the reigning Pope. It had previously been recited in parts of Gaul and Spain, but it achieved widespread use in the West through the efforts of Charlemagne. Numerous Popes opposed this addition, and attempted to maintain the original version of the creed for several centuries. Indeed, not a single Pope recited the Filioque until Pope Benedict VIII (1014-15).
He did more than this. He thought the filioque was heretical in its theology and he taught that the Son had no participation in the spiration of the Holy Ghost other than in the temporal mission of salvation but not eternally. This was a direct breach with his own Greek theological tradition and heresy within itself. Material heresy for his sake.Thus, when St. Photius protested the recitation of the Filioque in the Creed, he believed himself to be following in the footsteps of the numerous Popes who also opposed this addition.
IndeedRome does not ask Eastern Catholics to abandon our unique theological tradition. In fact, Vatican II has asked us to preserve our theological traditions, which are part of the wealth of the entire Catholic Church. Therefore, Eastern Catholics are to maintain their traditional Eastern theology of the Trinity, which emphasizes the monarchy of the Father.
Yes! This js what I’ve been saying. In the end all Catholics believe it as it is a truth. How we choose to express this truth is another matter but the filioque is dogma as the ecumenical councils taught.The filioque is part of the Latin theological tradition. Since we are in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholics believe that the filioque is a legitimate understanding of the Trinity, particular to the Latin tradition. In other words, it is a true understanding of the Trinity, equal and complementary with the Eastern understanding. While we do not express our understanding of the Trinity in this way, it is perfectly legitimate for the Latin Church to do so. The Eastern and Western understandings of the Trinity are different but complementary. **So when push comes to shove, we believe that the filioque is true, but it is not how we express the mystery. **
BULL OF OUR MOST HOLY LORD PIUS IV., BY PROVIDENCE OF GOD, POPE, TOUCHING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE OECUMENICAL (AND) GENERAL COUNCIL OF TRENT.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html
Sessions – see Session 6, CANON XXX and Session 25
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html
The Latin understanding of Purgatory as purgatorial fire, and in particular, the medieval notion of Purgatory as a place are not dogma. However, purgatory as the purification of those who have died but who still remain attached to venial sins (to use a Latin category) is dogmatic.You have provided some great sources however; I have called personal friends who are Priests (both Latin and UGCC) as well as Archpriests, and Metropolitans. I am also awaiting receipt of the UGCC Catechism in Ukrainian (and I am also awaiting the translation into English) as a reference.
In the mean time. Not a single one of the people I contacted support your claim that Purgatory is a Dogma… all are in agreement that it is a doctrine. Maybe we’re still confused over what is a Dogma and what is a Doctrine. There are numerous doctrines that are not Dogma. Doctrine is not required belief of the faithful whereas Dogma is. If we UGCs follow our byzantine theology from inception (e.g. Thesis) to end, purgatory (at least the Latin version) is inconsistent with our teachings. Now, is there something in that split second “transition from mortal to mortal life,” God knows and we do not therefore, we trust in God’s mercy. My point is that the latin “version” if purgatory is nonsensical in eastern concepts and therefore not Dogmatic.
I would point out that it the early church, kneeling on Sunday was also anathema but you can clearly see that things aren’t that way today.
We as byzantines dont even distinguish between venial and mortal. We confess all sins, even those we dont remember doing or forgottenThe Latin understanding of Purgatory as purgatorial fire, and in particular, the medieval notion of Purgatory as a place are not dogma. However, purgatory as the purification of those who have died but who still remain attached to venial sins (to use a Latin category) is dogmatic.
Now if we were to use the restrictive definition of the term ‘dogma’ advocated by Dr. Mark Miravalle, there would be only three Marian dogmas: the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and Mary as the Mother of God. For the infallible teaching of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity has not been solemnly defined, but is infallibly taught under the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Therefore, the so-called ‘proposed dogma’ would then be, if it were defined next, fourth and not fifth.
More importantly, if we include as Marian dogmas those fundamental doctrines about the Virgin Mary which have been taught infallibly by a Pope, or an Ecumenical Council, or even the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, then certainly there are already more than five Marian dogmas.
I would say that we don’t utilize the language of venial vs. mortal, however I would disagree that we don’t make the distinction, as we clearly acknowledge that some sins are more grace than others. Also, in my post I acknowledged that venial is a Latin category.We as byzantines dont even distinguish between venial and mortal. We confess all sins, even those we dont remember doing or forgotten
Do I assume correctly that the highlighted word was a typo (may the infamous “auto-correct”) and should read “graVe” …?… we clearly acknowledge that some sins are more grace than others.
Yes! I happen to like Charles Dickens works.graVee?
(Any big Dickens fans here?)
Which Church authorities have you contacted?You have provided some great sources however; I have called personal friends who are Priests (both Latin and UGCC) as well as Archpriests, and Metropolitans. …
Yes, you assume correctly.Do I assume correctly that the highlighted word was a typo (may the infamous “auto-correct”) and should read “graVe” …?