Not true. All the Latin Fathers proclaimed the filioque. The original Nicene Creed was short and not properly structured. The Council of Constantinople created the modern Nicene Creed. The Latin Church added the filioque in the 6th century, which was not much later but compared to the timeline it was very soon after.Not true. The filioque was not used since day one. It was introduced much later, over the objections of the Eastern branch of Christianity. The original Nicene Creed did not have the filioque and the Latin branch of the Church agreed to it then.
First you say the Latin Church has used the filioque from day one. Now you say the Latin Church added the filioque in the 6th century. The 6th century is not day one. The Nicene Creed, was approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381) and the Latin Church agreed to it. It did not contain the filioque at that time.Not true. All the Latin Fathers proclaimed the filioque. The original Nicene Creed was short and not properly structured. The Council of Constantinople created the modern Nicene Creed. The Latin Church added the filioque in the 6th century, which was not much later but compared to the timeline it was very soon after.
What he means is that it was professed faith of the Latin church from the beginning. This cannot be denied. All the Latin fathers who speak on the issue teach the Filioque.First you say the Latin Church has used the filioque from day one. Now you say the Latin Church added the filioque in the 6th century. The 6th century is not day one. The Nicene Creed, was approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381) and the Latin Church agreed to it. It did not contain the filioque at that time.
What I met by day one was that the Latin fathers have always proclaimed the filioque. I know it did not contain the filioque, and the west added it a little over 200 years later. The west had always proclaimed it. Obviously you have no idea what I’m talking about.First you say the Latin Church has used the filioque from day one. Now you say the Latin Church added the filioque in the 6th century. The 6th century is not day one. The Nicene Creed, was approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381) and the Latin Church agreed to it. It did not contain the filioque at that time.
I fail to understand why the liturgical disciplines of a different Rite concerns the Greeks so much. If the Eastern Orthodox come into communion with Rome, they would NOT become Roman Catholics. They would be Byzantine Catholics. All Byzantines follow the Byzantine Rite and the Byzantine traditions and disciplines. They even have their own canon law. They would NOT follow Roman Rite traditions and disciplines.You have Orthodox who do not want to join with a Church, such as the Roman Church, which does not share their traditions and reverent liturgical practices. There are even some Roman Catholics who are uncomfortable with the New Mass, the guitar music, the annulment practices, and communion in the hand. Some have even been excommunicated because they refuse to attend the New Mass, and will only pray the Tridentine Latin Mass. If it is only a tradition, with a small t, why were these Traditional Catholics excommunicated? They have refused to give up their tradition of a latin Mass, but I don;t see where they rejected any doctrine or dogma, and still, they were excommunicated. Traditions are important to some Christians, even though you may not consider them to be doctrines or dogmas.
This was only true in the United States. The Roman Rite bishops in the USA (due to the multi-ethnic communities in America, esp. the cities) felt that Eastern Priests being allowed to marry within the boundaries of their dioceses would cause confusion and issues amoung the laity. After all, this was during the time in the US when you would could have several Catholic parishes in one neighborhood because of the “ethnic parishes” because people were bigoted against the immigrants and the immigrants were bigoted against each other.It is true that in 2014, Pope Francis approved married clergy within Eastern Catholic Churches through CCEO canon 758 § 3. with some exceptions for the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Catholic Churches,
Apparently, you have not heard about the papal decree given on March 1, 1929: Cum data fuerit , which mandated clerical celibacy for the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics. Many Ruthenian Catholics in the United States were dissatisfied by this mandate and formed the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese so that they could keep their tradition of a married clergy.
I am sorry to hear about Roman Catholics going insane.The 3 Roman Rite parishes merged in 2012 and people went insane. They still had ethnic hate for one another in this small coal town.
Is the Lutheran liturgy acceptable to Roman Catholics?I fail to understand why the liturgical disciplines of a different Rite concerns the Greeks so much.
Lex orandi, lex credendi. If there are errors in the services they are either, A) caused by doctrinal error or, B) could lead to doctrinal error down the road. It would be a grave situation indeed if we ignored these things.I fail to understand why the liturgical disciplines of a different Rite concerns the Greeks so much.
The Lutheran liturgy isn’t a Rite. They don’t use one, other than basing it off the Roman one.Is the Lutheran liturgy acceptable to Roman Catholics?
The Protestant Eucharist is invalid.Is the Lutheran liturgy acceptable to Roman Catholics?
Well, that is insulting toward the Lutherans who say that they believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, that the body and blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms” of the consecrated bread and wine. You say that Roman Catholics do not accept that? I am sorry to tell you, but although it is true that some Orthodox do accept Roman Sacraments, some Orthodox will not accept the Roman Catholic Sacraments. Even some of the break away Latin Mass Catholics do not accept the New Mass as valid.The Lutheran liturgy isn’t a Rite.
…Comparing the Roman Rite to a Lutheran liturgy is insulting. The Roman Mass consecrates the Body & Blood of Jesus Christ. The Lutheran liturgy does not.
Roman Catholics doubt the Lutheran and Anglican Eucharist. But similarly, it has been reported that some Orthodox have serious doubts about the Roman Catholic Sacraments. Just go to some of the Orthodox forums and read what Orthodox posters have written.The Protestant Eucharist is invalid.
An article at EWTN says: “…Tertullian was the first of the Latin fathers. HisNot true. All the Latin Fathers proclaimed the filioque.
Still waining to see where Tertullian ever used the filioque phrase?An article at EWTN says: “…Tertullian was the first of the Latin fathers. His
numerous works were all known and very highly esteemed in the
church.”
ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/TERTULLN.TXT
I don’t see anywhere where Tertullian ever used the filioque phrase. I only see that in his work Adversus Praxeam he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (per filium). Please tell us where Tertullian ever used the filioque phrase.