Are you really Catholic? Let's do the Creeds

[Bluegoat]

I can recite the 3 - Nicean, Apostles, and Athanasian, with complete conviction. If someone asked me what the substance of my religion is, I would recite the Nicean Creed.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

My argument for the removal of it is that the Creed was forumated at an Ecumenical Council and that is what it takes to make changes to it. The filoque was added at a local council of the Latin Church in Europe so it should not be there.

I would add that many popes even opposed adding Filioque to the Creed after it was added at the Third Council of Toledo (589), which was not an Ecumenical Council but a local one. Pope Leo III even had two silver shields made with the original text of the Creed as approved in the First Council of Constantinople (381) in both Latin and Greek. In fact, the* Filioque* was not recited as part of the Creed in Rome (although it was used in other parts of the West) until 1014 when Pope Benedict VIII added it at the request of Henry II, who had restored him to the papal throne.

My understanding is that Eastern Catholics accept the Catholic interpretation of the Filioque; that is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father** through** the Son, and are not required to recite it. While I also accept this interpretation by the Church, I find it hard to understand why the Church have not changed the wording of the Creed to state “through” and not “and” if that is what *Filioque *really means.

 

[Shin]

The filoque in its deeper theology is not understood by most everyone, and since in scripture Christ sends us the Holy Spirit, is perfectly acceptable to say.

Theologians can always argue its signficance, but most everyone simply does not understand it, nor misunderstand it. Even those who argue about it in the end normally do not.

It is a tempest in a tea-pot, an excuse used for schism when the real reason for it was power-politics.

But enough criticism. Let’s see some love, eh? Of what the Holy Spirit has delivered to the Churches.

The Tridentine Creed in fact is especially hallowed by not one, but two Ecumenical Councils. And there is far more to its great and Godly history than even this for those who look!

 

[Dogmatist]

Just to be precise in the terms we use I believe that the filoque is a doctrine not dogma. I believe, from the research I have done for a paper I wrote when I was an undergraduate on the filoque, that I can support it.

I would counter with the question as to how can a single Church change a formulation of an Ecumenical Council without another Ecumenical Council?

The Filioque was solemnly defined as a dogma of the faith at Fourth Lateran Council, the Second council of Lyons, and the Council of Florence:

“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.” - From the Sixth Session of the Council of Florence

It’s another thing entirely if you don’t accept that these are Ecumenical Councils. If you believe that they are merely local councils which presumed to adopt an authority which was not theirs, then you reject the claims and authority of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishops in communion with him. How can such a position be tenable for an Eastern Catholic?

I also am tired of a litmus test for Eastern Catholics set up by Latin Catholics to test our Catholicity.

That’s how the Catholic religion works. You either believe it in its entirety, or you don’t believe it at all. Every single doctrine of the Church is a litmus test of orthodoxy.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That’s how the Catholic religion works. You either believe it in its entirety, or you don’t believe it at all. Every single doctrine of the Church is a litmus test of orthodoxy.

No that is not how Catholicism works. No lay person has any authority to determine or pronounce on the Catholicity of anyone.

 

[juliamajor]

No that is not how Catholicism works. No lay person has any authority to determine or pronounce on the Catholicity of anyone.

And thank God for that!Some people actually believe that the are more Catholic than the Pope!

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Just to be precise in the terms we use I believe that the filoque is a doctrine not dogma.

Why do you think the filioque, which was taugth at the Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence, is not a dogma? When the Eastern Schismatics returned to union with Rome at the Council of Florence, they were required to accept the filioque. Why do you think that was?

And it is also part of the Athanasian Creed.
Athanasiam Creed:

Athanasian Creed
Quicumque vult

WHOEVER wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.

This is what the Catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal. Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being. So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being. Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being.

Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. However, there are not three lords, but one Lord. For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone. The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why do you think the filioque, which was taugth at the Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence, is not a dogma? When the Eastern Schismatics returned to union with Rome at the Council of Florence, they were required to accept the filioque. Why do you think that was?

I have not said that it is not dogma, but could you provide the actual dogmatic statement?

I have said that it should not have been added to the Creed without a council.

And it is also part of the Athanasian Creed.

That’s not the issue.

I have not even stated what I believe on the filoque.

It is only on the basis that I said that I do not recite it at Liturgy, which all Byzantine Churches were called on by the pope to remove it, and the fact that I think the Latin Church should not have added it to the Creed that I am deemed “not Catholic” by Dogmatist and I can only guess that this is the reason for your questions to me.

You no longer need to show me the dogmatic statement as I did your work for you and found something from the Second Council of Lyons (note that it is not the Council of Lyons).

When making such statements as you did it is good to provide actual references rather than making those of us who really want to know to search for them ourselves.

As a further note, as the Poll stands I still can not vote as the Creed I recite at every Divine Liturgy is not listed in the correct form.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

"Byz Cath:

I have not said that it is not dogma,

This is what I was commenting on: in your previous posts you said the following:

Byz Cath: “Just to be precise in the terms we use I believe that the filoque is a doctrine not dogma”.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but it sure sounded like you claimed the filioque was a doctrine, and not a dogma.

It is only on the basis that I said that I do not recite it at Liturgy, which all Byzantine Churches were called on by the pope to remove it, and the fact that I think the Latin Church should not have added it to the Creed that I am deemed “not Catholic” by Dogmatist and I can only guess that this is the reason for your questions to me.

It’s been a while since I have looked into this subject. Maybe you know the answer to what I am wondering: Did the Pope approve the addition? If so, on what basis do you deny it?
Byz:

You no longer need to show me the dogmatic statement as I did your work for you and found something from the Second Council of Lyons (note that it is not the Council of Lyons). When making such statements as you did it is good to provide actual references rather than making those of us who really want to know to search for them ourselves.

I almost always provide quotes, but in this case I had to leave and didn’t have time to look it up.
Byz:

As a further note, as the Poll stands I still can not vote as the Creed I recite at every Divine Liturgy is not listed in the correct form.

I’ve read the arguments for and against adding the filioque. I’ve read the arguments of the schismatic heretics in the East (the Orthodox) who reject the addition, and I’ve read the arguments of the faithful members of Christ Church in the West, and found the arguments of the faithful must stronger than those of the heretics. Question: Why do you side with the heretics in the East, rather than the faithful in the West? If I were you, this would concern me greatly.

 

[Dogmatist]

It is only on the basis that I said that I do not recite it at Liturgy, which all Byzantine Churches were called on by the pope to remove it, and the fact that I think the Latin Church should not have added it to the Creed that I am deemed “not Catholic” by Dogmatist and I can only guess that this is the reason for your questions to me.

I actually haven’t said anything about whether the Filioque was licitly added, but the Council of Florence has:

“We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.” - 6th Session, Council of Florence

However, I don’t recall saying that I think the Creed shouldn’t have been restored to its earlier form in the East. Holding that opinion doesn’t make one less Catholic, although it’s difficult to reconcile with the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi.

What I’m saying is that it’s dogma, meaning Catholics are required to believe it whether or not they recite it. You have contested this, just like many Eastern Catholics sadly do.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is what I was commenting on: in your previous posts you said the following:

Byz Cath: “Just to be precise in the terms we use I believe that the filoque is a doctrine not dogma”.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but it sure sounded like you claimed the filioque was a doctrine, and not a dogma.

I did and I still may. But that does not mean that I do not believe that Catholics must believe only believe the dogmas of the Church.

I also believe that a lot of lay people (especially those in the self identified traditionalist group do not really know what the filoque is saying)

It’s been a while since I have looked into this subject. Maybe you know the answer to what I am wondering: Did the Pope approve the addition? If so, on what basis do you deny it?

I deny it (and by this I mean I deny its inclusion into the Creed) by the command from Pope John Paul II that we Byzantine remove it. That is just one but it is the easiest to cover right now.

I almost always provide quotes, but in this case I had to leave and didn’t have time to look it up.

I’ve read the arguments for and against adding the filioque. I’ve read the arguments of the schismatic heretics in the East (the Orthodox) who reject the addition, and I’ve read the arguments of the faithful members of Christ Church in the West, and found the arguments of the faithful must stronger than those of the heretics. Question: Why do you side with the heretics in the East, rather than the faithful in the West? If I were you, this would concern me greatly.

The Orthodox are not heretics. This can be shown by the fact that they are welcome to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Further by statement above confirms this, or was Pope John Paul II one of those heretics? I also know that Pope John Paul II left out the filoque on occasion when he recited it in Latin.

I think I am done here as I really do not need to defend my Catholicity to you guys anyways.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What I’m saying is that it’s dogma, meaning Catholics are required to believe it whether or not they recite it. You have contested this, just like many Eastern Catholics sadly do.

I did no such thing. I just refused to answer you as to what I believe.

As I said in my above post, I believe that many in the traditionalist crowd get it wrong just as they do “No Salvation Outside the Church”.

It is enough that I recite the Creed as it is written in our service books, in the way that it was encouraged to be, by a pope.

 

[Bluegoat]

I actually haven’t said anything about whether the Filioque was licitly added, but the Council of Florence has:

“We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.” - 6th Session, Council of Florence

However, I don’t recall saying that I think the Creed shouldn’t have been restored to its earlier form in the East. Holding that opinion doesn’t make one less Catholic, although it’s difficult to reconcile with the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi.

What I’m saying is that it’s dogma, meaning Catholics are required to believe it whether or not they recite it. You have contested this, just like many Eastern Catholics sadly do.

I think the way it is reconciled with speaking what we believe actually relates closely with it being declared a legitimate addition.

The argument as I understand it says that it was allowable to add it because it was already implied necessarily in what existed. That is, adding it didn’t really add anything at all.

But if you accept that, taking it away doesn’t really remove anything either.

At most, I think you could say it’s a bit like a person addressing a group and saying “you all” to make it clear that the whole group is being addressed. Perhaps it makes things a little clearer, but it isn’t really necessary from a grammatical POV (and some might say that its not correct grammatically, but that would be pushing the analogy too far.)

I’m not sure whether I think this is really credible that it doesn’t amount to a real addition to the creed, but if that is the case, then I think the idea that taking it away doesn’t matter either also has to be accepted.

 

[Joseph651]

Sooooo, I am a little confused, am I mistaken, do not both the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed mean the same thing to Catholic as they do to other Christians? Is not one version (Apostle’s) shorter then the Nicene Creed but both meaning the same as far as Christians are concerned? Maybe, we all need to understand the meaning of both Creeds and enjoy the faith we profess.

In the Love of Jesus Christ

 

[graceandglory]

3.75 of the four…do I get partial credit?

Yep.
That was one of the first things I looked up when we got the internet.
None of my protestant churches ever professed a creed.
When i read the creeds, I realized how Catholic I was inside.

 

[Lutheranteach]

All three creeds are in every Lutheran hymnal and at least one of the three is said at every service. We’re not so different.

 

[Shin]

Okay folks, you see that ‘1’ up there, now you know who to pray for!

… Besides the other ones.

 

[AlanF]

No that is not how Catholicism works. No lay person has any authority to determine or pronounce on the Catholicity of anyone.

He didn’t say they did. He said Catholics have to accept all Catholic doctrines in order to be Catholics, which is true. People condemn themselves by their denial of doctrines and it is the duty of faithful catholics to point it out.

And thank God for that!Some people actually believe that the are more Catholic than the Pope!

Hypothetically, if a Pope denied a Catholic doctrine would it be impossible to be “more Catholic than the Pope,” as you put it?

 

[Shin]

He didn’t say they did. He said Catholics have to accept all Catholic doctrines in order to be Catholics, which is true. People condemn themselves by their denial of doctrines and it is the duty of faithful catholics to point it out.

Hypothetically, if a Pope denied a Catholic doctrine would it be impossible to be “more Catholic than the Pope,” as you put it?

I don’t think it takes a doctrinal denial for a layperson to be more Catholic than the Pope. A Pope can be quite as sinful as a layman, care nothing for tradition, and steer the Church towards shipwreck because of any reason he decides upon, he has all these capacities. In such a case, your average devout Catholic would in fact be ‘more Catholic than the Pope’.

The last shall be first, the first last.

But of course, in general people just say that to anyone who critiques anything any Pope does, assuming a position of moral superiority because they in this instance do not wish to criticize the Pope on whatever the issue is (but may often feel free elsewhere to do so).

I think the accusation and phrase needs to die the death frankly.

I can determine the Catholicity as a layman of anyone easy. “Are you baptized?” Answer: “No.” “You’re not Catholic.”

Simple.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hypothetically, if a Pope denied a Catholic doctrine would it be impossible to be “more Catholic than the Pope,” as you put it?

For me this statement means that a person has raised themselves above the “pope”, above the authority of the Church.

It is the Church that determines the Catholicity of people, not a lay person with an agenda.

While a person a technically be more Catholic than a pope, especially than one as described by Jinn, that person will never hold any authority over the Church or the pope.

I can determine the Catholicity as a layman of anyone easy. “Are you baptized?” Answer: “No.” “You’re not Catholic.”

Simple.

Yes, simply you are determining the Christianity of a person when you ask if they are baptized, you are not really determining Catholicity.

Everyone is a member of the Church though baptism, but not everyone is a practicing member of the Catholic Church and it is not within the authority of the lay person to determine this.