M
Mickey
Guest
That would be too easy, Alex.
During my time as an Eastern Catholic, I can attest to this.
- Status
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Mickey,
Yes, Roman Catholics can be annoying
When I was a child, we had a Latin Catholic friend over for dinner. When we said grace, he crossed himself in the Latin way.
I asked my grandmother why he crossed himself like that . . . She smilingly replied, “Because he just doesn’t know any better!”
Ah yes, the Latins, you gotta love them!
Cheers and may God bless!
Alex
Yes, Roman Catholics can be annoying
When I was a child, we had a Latin Catholic friend over for dinner. When we said grace, he crossed himself in the Latin way.
I asked my grandmother why he crossed himself like that . . . She smilingly replied, “Because he just doesn’t know any better!”
Ah yes, the Latins, you gotta love them!
Cheers and may God bless!
Alex
M
Mickey
Guest
LOL! When my journey East began, I approached my Latin Catholic priest because I had just been introduced to the Eastern Catholic Church. I asked him why the Eastern Catholics crossed themeselves differently and he responded:Dear Mickey,
Yes, Roman Catholics can be annoying
When I was a child, we had a Latin Catholic friend over for dinner. When we said grace, he crossed himself in the Latin way.
I asked my grandmother why he crossed himself like that . . . She smilingly replied, “Because he just doesn’t know any better!”
Ah yes, the Latins, you gotta love them!
Cheers and may God bless!
Alex
"What can I tell you, they got it wrong!"
Peace and prayers,
Mickey
G
Ghosty
Guest
Alex: If it were a matter of letting the West keep its tradition while removing the word this wouldn’t even be a discussion. Mickey, and many other Orthodox, want the removal of Latin theology, not merely a change in the Latin text of the Creed.
Given that local variations of the Creed have always existed, what’s the point in changing only the local Latin variant when the universal form is already maintained by the Latin Church? The Latins don’t force us to use their Creed, that is enough for me, but its removal would not be enough for folks like Mickey.
If the theology of the filioque is accepted as orthodox, then its removal would be a reasonable proposal. As it stands, however, it would only paper over the real issue.
Peace and God bless!
Given that local variations of the Creed have always existed, what’s the point in changing only the local Latin variant when the universal form is already maintained by the Latin Church? The Latins don’t force us to use their Creed, that is enough for me, but its removal would not be enough for folks like Mickey.
If the theology of the filioque is accepted as orthodox, then its removal would be a reasonable proposal. As it stands, however, it would only paper over the real issue.
Peace and God bless!
D
dzheremi
Guest
When I first started attending the Latin church, I crossed myself right to left. It felt more natural, as a left-handed person, to do things this way (I don’t know why; it’s like the strange sensation of trying to write with the non-dominant hand; even if you can manage, it just feels wrong). That was bred out of me with no small amount of reminding that “that’s how the Orthodox do it” (I don’t think the elderly lady who helped run RCIA at my home parish knew anything about the ECCs), and I suppose now that I’m looking at the Coptic Orthodox church I should thank the Latins for breaking me of this filthy, shameful habit.
C
crazzeto
Guest
I was wondering about this, though i didn’t post it as I’m not personally an expert on localizations of the creed. However if we’re allow orthodox localizations to exist in non-latin Churchs (I assume this is the case), then why would we bother arguing about the latin orthodox localization?
Perhaps the real discussion is found in the crux of your posting. I submit that if the theology is orthodox, then there is no need to remove the latin localization, Roman churchs should continue using the Fililoque. If the thology were heretical (whic it is not, would Alex disagree?) then I ask, why should just the latin church remove it’s localization? Would not then every church in communion with the one true universal church be forced to do the same?
And what then do we do with all the tradition surrounding the theologies? All the writings of the fathers, on all sides? I submit removing the filioque solves nothing, and only serves to create more problems.
M
Mickey
Guest
If, (as you say), the Latin theology is the same as the Orthodox, (which uses the unaltered creed), then there would be absolutely no problemo in removing the Filioque.
S
steve_b
Guest
Since the Spirit is also referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6).If, (as you say), the Latin theology is the same as the Orthodox, (which uses the unaltered creed), then there would be absolutely no problemo in removing the Filioque.
*Gal 4:6 *And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
This is why both ways, proceeds from the Father ( and the Son or through the Son,) is okay to use
M
Mickey
Guest
Tell it Ghosty and mardukm.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear and Revered Ghosty!
That is also my point exactly - the theological discussions (read: arguments) surrounding the Filioque, whether or not they are based on misconceptions by the East, will be at least able to be “categorized” as a particular Latin issue.
I submit that there will be less antagonism toward the Filioque on the Orthodox side when it is “contained” as a Particular theology specific to the Latin Church.
If the Orthodox are against the Latin theology surrounding the Filioque, it is precisely because, historically, the Latin West has attempted to affirm it as a universal dogma. The theology of it could very well be so defined in a future reunion Council.
And the Nicene Creed, I think the case can be made, is a creed for the universal Church, defined by the early Councils and the highest Apostolic authority in the Church. I believe there are sufficient Popes who have defended the original Creed for the Orthodox to affirm that, in dropping the Filioque, Rome is returning to its earlier ROMAN tradition. The Orthodox affirm that same Roman tradition concerning the Nicene Creed (I believe I understand your point on this and hopefully I’m doing a passable job of addressing it
).Ultimately, East or West, we are “Romaioi” or Romans all. Both “Orthodox” and “Catholic” belong to that Roman Christian tradition, the tradition of the Holy Chief Apostles and the Fathers, Latin and Greek, of our Lord’s Church which includes both Elder Rome and New Rome. The Third Rome is another matter . . .
And ultimately, however much I respect Mickey, I don’t think those Orthodox theologians and ecclesiastical leaders who are at least open to taking an honest look at how our divisions might be put down would be too bothered by any cat calls he or anyone else might make over this
.Hopefully, he won’t make too many!
Please accept my sincere obeisance!
Alex
S
steve_b
Guest
Didn’t you say you had problems with “and” but not “through”?Tell it Ghosty and mardukm.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Mickey,If, (as you say), the Latin theology is the same as the Orthodox, (which uses the unaltered creed), then there would be absolutely no problemo in removing the Filioque.
What you have said here is something that I would like to APPLAUD LOUDLY!!
YOU DA MAN!
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
But not in the Nicene Creed that was established as a Creed for the whole Church, East, West, North and South.
Alex
D
Dave_in_Dallas
Guest
Yes and ??? The procession of the Spirit is ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Crazzeto,
Actually, I don’t believe the Filioque is heretical!
It is part of the Latin Triadological tradition.You raise what is to my mind the central point about the Nicene Creed. It belongs to no one Particular Church, but was intended by the Fathers and the Church as a whole to be a universal Creed for all.
This is why to remove the Filioque is not to somehow denigrate the Latin theological tradition in favour of the Eastern one. Not at all!
Roman Popes, such as Pope John VIII and Pope St Leo IV, not to mention their ancestors, all defended the original, universal Nicene Creed.
The Creed without the Filioque is not the “Orthodox version.” It is simply the original version intended for both East and West. The Orthodox theology of the procession of the Holy Spirit has never been dogmatized. The “Through the Son” is not a dogma in the East (and is therefore not a substitute for the Filioque) which rests content that we affirm the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as His Origin and that the Spirit’s “proceeding” is different than the Divine Son’s being “Only Begotten.” How, we cannot know. We just know that it is and that this is a Mysterium Tremendum. Both Churches affirm this and have always affirmed this.
Anything beyond this is about Particular Church Trinitarian theologies which are specific to different theological and ecclesial “cultures.”
But the Nicene Creed was never intended to be tampered with in terms of its text. The original Nicene Creed is the original statement of Orthodox Roman Catholic Trinitarian belief that is shared by the Catholics of Orthodox New Rome and other Eastern Orthodox Catholics.
When I see the original Nicene Creed, I see a whole line of Roman Catholic Popes who affirmed and defended it in the first Millennium of Christianity.
Orthodoxy itself has always venerated the many Pope Saints of that Millennium and even, truth be told, more than Elder Rome does (e.g. St Liberius the Pope who is not in the Roman calendar).
Alex
S
steve_b
Guest
Did the following passage from Paul, not exist at the time of the revised creed in 381?
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
Therefore, the one spirit is the spirit of the Father and Son
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
That, in no way, demonstrates that the Holy Spirit finds His Origin in Anyone but the Eternal Father.
So also affirmed the Popes of Rome, including Pope St Leo IV who had tablets with the Nicene Creed written in gold and silver (in the original form, without the Filioque) and placed on the Tomb of St Peter.
And clearly, the Fathers and the Church of the fourth century did not see any relationship between St Paul’s words and the internal relations of the Holy Trinity in this way either.
Our Lord Himself said of the Holy Spirit, “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” John 15:26
These are the same words the Fathers of the 4th century placed in the Creed concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.
There was and is not now any need to improve upon our Lord’s Trinitarian theology!
Alex
C
crazzeto
Guest
Alexander,
But many churches have slight modifications to the creed both east and west, designed to emphisise a particular orthodox teaching that needed to be emphisised at some point for some reason. These modifications, fully orthodox in nature, have been kept as a matter of tradition.
So we are all to invalidate our traditions?
But many churches have slight modifications to the creed both east and west, designed to emphisise a particular orthodox teaching that needed to be emphisised at some point for some reason. These modifications, fully orthodox in nature, have been kept as a matter of tradition.
So we are all to invalidate our traditions?
M
Mickey
Guest
That is because we see them as Orthodox Popes.
M
Mickey
Guest
The fact that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son does not mean that He takes His hypostatic origin from the Son.
“t should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father.* And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son***.”
St. John Damascene
- Status