Cardinal Kasper to meet with Russian Orthodox Patriarch

[bobzills]

Okay, I’ll ask it again. Are you willing, as a Catholic, to renounce the following for the sake of unity:

1. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son;…
   It’s a simple question, really. Are you prepared to renounce these things?

I can only take them one at a time. Before commenting on number 1, I would like to point out that there can be changes made in Catholic teaching which would not involve touching any infallible pronouncement on the part of the RCC. I have already given you examples of changes which could be made, if R Catholics were really and truly interested in reunion with the E. Orthodox Church. Please see the previous posts for fhat.
As far as #1 is concerned, please be advised that Pope John Paul II has said the creed without the filioque and the Creed of the Eastern Catholic Churches does not contain the filioque. So really, why would there be any objection to removing the filioque from the creed of the RCC if already it has been taken out of the creed of the Byzantine Catholic Church?

 

[bobzills]

What is your own perspective? Please just lay it out by answering the following question:

Do you believe that losing one’s unique religious identity is a better way to unity than trying to understand and accept the differences?

Blessings,
Marduk

My perspective is that it is better for a Church to have one Creed, so that if the Byzantine Catholic Church has the creed without the filioque, and the Eastern Orthodox Church has the creed without the filioque, and the original Nicene Creed did not have the filioque, then a better way to unify would be to promote religious identity and for the RCC also to have the Creed without the filioque rather than to try to understand and accept two different creeds, one with the filioque and one without the filioque.

 

[Chellow]

Okay, I’ll ask it again. Are you willing, as a Catholic, to renounce the following for the sake of unity:

1. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son;
2. Papal Infallibility as defined in Vatican I;
3. The Immaculate Conception;
4. The use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist as a legitimate practice for the Latin rite;
5. Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage, and
6. Purgatory.

It’s a simple question, really. Are you prepared to renounce these things?

1. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son;

usccb.org/seia/filoque.shtml
that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.

1. Papal Infallibility as defined in Vatican I;

You must understand the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against the Church, Peter’s seat been the leader of the Church must have special guidance given to him from the Holy Sprit, other wise our Lords words will be empty.

1. The Immaculate Conception;

The Orthodox accept Mary’s Immaculate state they just don’t state when she became Immaculate.

1. The use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist as a legitimate practice for the Latin rite;

I maybe wrong but my understanding is that was not an issue before 1050.

1. Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage, and

I think the Catholics are pure of hart on this.

1. Purgatory.

Orthodox say more or less the same thing, they just don’t give it a name,

 

[Peter_J]

My perspective is that it is better for a Church to have one Creed, so that if the Byzantine Catholic Church has the creed without the filioque, and the Eastern Orthodox Church has the creed without the filioque, and the original Nicene Creed did not have the filioque, then a better way to unify would be to promote religious identity and for the RCC also to have the Creed without the filioque rather than to try to understand and accept two different creeds, one with the filioque and one without the filioque.

Hi Bob,

I’ve mostly been a spectator in this discussion, but I’d just like to interject that this thread might interest you: Fr. Hopko on the filioque.

 

[bobzills]

1. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son;

usccb.org/seia/filoque.shtml
that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.

It appears that here it says that the Catholic Church will use the original Greek text. But only the Byzantine Catholic Church has the creed without the filioque, not the RCC?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

It appears that here it says that the Catholic Church will use the original Greek text. But only the Byzantine Catholic Church has the creed without the filioque, not the RCC?

I would ask again to be careful about using the generic term “Catholic Church.” The USCCB document ONLY applies to the Catholic Church in the United States, not to the universal Catholic Church. If other Latin Catholic Churches in other countries don’t want to change it, that is their RIGHT, and it should not hinder communion.

BTW, you did not answer my previous question:

Do you feel that losing one’s religious identity is a better way to unity than trying to understand and accept legitimate differences?

I am not sure I understand your point of view. Are you saying that your standard is “whatever makes it easier for reunion, then do it?” If “easier” is your standard, then consider that the number of Latin Catholics in the world FAR outnumbers the number of Eastern or Oriental Orthodox believers. If “easier” is your standard, then it would be far easier for the fewer Eastern and Oriental Orthodox in the world to try to understand and accept the Latin Church as brothers in Christ with whom they can commune, rather than for the far more numerous Latin Catholics to lose their identity to become Eastern/Oriental for the sake of unity.

Aside from directly answering my question which I repeated for you above, I would also ask that you answer the following questions:

Question A: Do you feel it is hard-hearted or wrong for a particular Church to want to retain its religious identity?

If your answer to Question A is “yes,” then do you support uniatism?

If your answer to Question A is “no,” why would you insist that the Latin Church lose its religious identity for the sake of unity?

As I have stated several times in the past, when I sense misunderstanding or ignorance as the source of division, I am rather patient. But when I sense hypocrisy as the source of division, I can get rather overzealous.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

Here’s the point I was trying to make:
In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Mother of God is invariably depicted with her Divine Son in her arms. Yes, the Roman Catholic tradition allows this, but does not insist upon it. More often than not, we see statues of the Mother of God alone, without her Divine Son in her arms. Why would it be against any doctrine for the RCC to change and adhere to the Eastern teaching that the Mother of God should be depicted with her Divine Son in her arms, and not alone?
And why would it be against any doctrine to promote visual images of Mary with the exclusive use of icons? Once again the RCC does allow the use of icons, but does not insist upon it.

So you are saying we should FORCE all Churches to have the image of the mother of God with her divine Son in her arms?

So you are saying we should FORCE all Churches to have icons?

You can’t paint it any other way. For someone to insist on the loss of religious identity as a condition of unity is FORCING it.

Please answer my questions above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

It appears that here it says that the Catholic Church will use the original Greek text.

It’s not saying that the Catholic Church will use the original Greek text. Rather, it is recommending that the Catholic Church use the original Greek text.

 

[Chellow]

It appears that here it says that the Catholic Church will use the original Greek text. But only the Byzantine Catholic Church has the creed without the filioque, not the RCC?

May need a officially council change it.

 

[JackQ]

I can only take them one at a time. Before commenting on number 1, I would like to point out that there can be changes made in Catholic teaching which would not involve touching any infallible pronouncement on the part of the RCC. I have already given you examples of changes which could be made, if R Catholics were really and truly interested in reunion with the E. Orthodox Church. Please see the previous posts for fhat.
As far as #1 is concerned, please be advised that Pope John Paul II has said the creed without the filioque and the Creed of the Eastern Catholic Churches does not contain the filioque. So really, why would there be any objection to removing the filioque from the creed of the RCC if already it has been taken out of the creed of the Byzantine Catholic Church?

No, simply removing it from the Creed will not be sufficient. We must renounce the doctrine, i.e. say that we have been in error all this time. Are you prepared to do that?

 

[Chellow]

It appears that here it says that the Catholic Church will use the original Greek text. But only the Byzantine Catholic Church has the creed without the filioque, not the RCC?

No, simply removing it from the Creed will not be sufficient. We must renounce the doctrine, i.e. say that we have been in error all this time. Are you prepared to do that?

What are you talking about, the Orthodox bishops don’t see anything wrong with the filioque currently they just don’t like that it was changed with out a council approving a change, per the Council of Nicena.

 

[wynd]

What are you talking about, the Orthodox bishops don’t see anything wrong with the filioque currently they just don’t like that it was changed with out a council approving a change, per the Council of Nicena.

Source please?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Chellow,

What are you talking about, the Orthodox bishops don’t see anything wrong with the filioque currently they just don’t like that it was changed with out a council approving a change, per the Council of Nicena.

I believe you should revise your statement to “SOME Orthodox bishops don’t see anything wrong with the filioque…”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

Dear brother Bob,

So you are saying we should FORCE all Churches to have the image of the mother of God with her divine Son in her arms?

So you are saying we should FORCE all Churches to have icons?

You can’t paint it any other way. For someone to insist on the loss of religious identity as a condition of unity is FORCING it.

Please answer my questions above.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes.
According to my understanding, there would be nothing contrary to infallible RC doctrine if the following steps were taken in the interests of RC EO unity:

1. to invariably depict the Mother of God with her Divine Son in her arms.(There might be a very few exceptions made to this, but they would be very minimal).
2. to remove the filioque from the Creed.
3. to remove all statues in RC Churches and replace them with icons.
4. to use leavened bread in all Masses.
5. to use the date of Easter as calculated by the great majority of the EO Churches.
   I don;t know, but it seems to me that if Roman Catholics were really and truly serious about wanting reunion with the EO, there would be a more serious effort made in that direction.

 

[bobzills]

I have just read a report that the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople has responded favorably to a suggestion by the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church for a system of “dual unity” in which Byzantine Catholic churches would be in full communion with both Constantinople and Rome. If this were to happen, then it would negate much of what I have posted on this thread, and I would guess that it would be a first step toward the complete reunification, that many of us were hoping and praying for. But I am not sure if the news is completely accurate on this, since for one thing, I thought that this was what the Melkites had proposed some time ago, and their proposal was turned down.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

I don;t know, but it seems to me that if Roman Catholics were really and truly serious about wanting reunion with the EO, there would be a more serious effort made in that direction.

By this, can I infer that you believe the EO are NOT serious about wanting reunion because THEY are not willing to let go of their own cherished NON-doctrinal traditions?

If they are not serious, why should you expect the Catholic Church to even want to be in union with such a body?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Altar_Server_01]

Sorry, but I don;t understand the R. Catholic objection to many of these points. For one example, why object to a common date for Easter? It seems like it would be better for all Christians to celebrate Easter on the same date as calculated by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Why is there no will to budge on this important issue?

why object to unleaven bread Jesus used at the last supper he was Jewish it was Passover and many of the things you listed female ministers Clown Masses ect. are not recognized and they are forbidden by the church as to easter I agree some what but the desision on a date should be made jointly I’m sure you’ve heard the Saying We will make no concessions to Rome.you will have to give some things up too as per the imaculate conception our view of sin makes it perfectly acceptable because we have diffrent views on sin

 

[JackQ]

What are you talking about, the Orthodox bishops don’t see anything wrong with the filioque currently they just don’t like that it was changed with out a council approving a change, per the Council of Nicena.

No, I’m afraid that is a very liberal position in the Orthodox community. Even though there is nothing in the original seven Ecumenical Councils that says that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, most Orthodox believers will assert that he does not, and that to say that he does is heresy.

I suggest you go to an Orthodox forum and try to discuss unity. It will be an eye opener, I promise you.

 

[bobzills]

Dear brother Bob,

By this, can I infer that you believe the EO are NOT serious about wanting reunion because THEY are not willing to let go of their own cherished NON-doctrinal traditions?

If they are not serious, why should you expect the Catholic Church to even want to be in union with such a body?

Blessings,
Marduk

If the news reports are correct, the EO are serious about reunion. See post 119,

 

[Altar_Server_01]

the epiclesis we have an epiclesis and I quote "Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy,

so that they may become for us
the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ."

that was option 1 heres 2
And so, Father, we bring you these gifts.

We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit,
that they may become the body and blood
of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.

and 3
Father, may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings.

Let them become the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord
as we celebrate the great mystery
which he left us as an everlasting covenant.

so theres one issue or at least from that persons view out of the way