My understanding is that reatus is simply the condition of someone accused in a court of law. This is what Lewis & Short says anyway.A Latin priest explained it to me thus:
Reatus is not guilt, but the legal consequence of an action that made a man guilty. Imagine Bob, who is a father, wrecked John’s car. The court judges that Bob is guilty of that act and orders him to pay restitution for the car. But then Bob dies, and the son inherits the father’s property. The court judges that Bob’s son has to pay John for the car.
The priest explained that what the son inherited was not Bob’s guilt, but the responsibility to pay restitution. That is the legal concept of reatus. It is not a transmission of guilt, but rather a transmission of debt.
Is there anything wrong with the priest’s explanation? Should the priest have told me that the son inherited not just the debt, but the guilt as well?
Dear brother Richca,
Everything you state below has already been given a response. Yet, you have barely addressed any of my responses, but simply keep bringing up new things, things which are not really new, but merely a rehash of your position. I am not complaining that you are rehashing, since we need to approach this matter in every possible way to completely refute the peculiar idea that the Father is not the one and only Source in the Procession, just as He is the one and only Source in the Trinity. What I am complaining about is that you have barely given a response to any of the points I have brought up. Why is that? Is the inconsistency of your position so difficult to accept? Nevertheless I will respond to your latest post, but please have the courtesy to actually address my statements this time, if you seek to challenge them.
I am not an expert on Augustine, but if you read his “A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints” you will see that in this work he denies free will and teaches that only those God chooses to predestine to salvation are saved. As I have written before, The Catholic Church did not embrace everything that Augustine wrote partially because Augustine contradicted himself and affirmed free will in his other writings. Despite the schism, the Catholic Church also kept the memory of the Greek Fathers who all affirmed free will. There was an heresy in the 17 and 18 century called Jansenism that was eventually condemned by Rome that took Augustine’s anti free will writings literally and which taught a Calvinist like doctrine of predestination. This was not the case with Luther and Calvin, who base much of their soteriology on Augustine’s writings that deny free will and teach predestination.I don’t see this as a denial of free will. Catholicism affirms both predestination and free will so it does not follow that Augustine denied free will because he affirmed predestination. His point is that we in no way merit justification because justification is by grace. This is the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent.
And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
I do not think there is any difficulty in affirming that man’s assent to faith is not due to his own will but to God’s grace. Faith is a supernatural virtue, which raises us above our nature, whereas free-will is only a natural power. This is consonant with what St. Paul says: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). There is a big difference between saying that we can only arrive at faith by grace and saying that we are saved either against our wills or without our wills. If justification by grace is a denial of free will, then is the doctrine of creation a denial of free will since man did not will his own creation?
It is not 100% clear to me what your objection is. Could you please explain your view of predestination?
So the teaching of the Catholic Church is simply that the Father, the principle without principle, does not exclude His Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Father and Son together are the one origin of the Holy Spirit.
I don’t have time right now, to respond to the rest of your post.
Richca;11347779:
Hello tdgesq,Then cite to a Church Council, a Pope or an ECF to support your position. It’s really that simple.
In the nicene-constantinopolitan creed, the symbol of our faith, which we recite every Sunday at Mass at least here in the latin rite, one of the articles of the faith is “I believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
blessings and peace, Richca
A concise statement, and I can do no better.Then cite to a Church Council, a Pope or an ECF to support your position. It’s really that simple.
Hello Mardukm,Dear brother Richca,
Judging from this comment from you, you are still laboring under the impression that the Son can be considered the source (along with the Father) in the Procession. Blessings,
Marduk
Thank your for your kind comments. Unfortunately Lutherans and Calvinists do believe in the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. We spent several years in dialogue with the Lutherans and were unable to reach agreement on the doctrine. They were willing to agree that it should not be in the Creed as long as we accept the double procession as an acceptable theologoumena. We could not accept the filioque as they explained it, but if what is stated above is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church can accept it not as mere theologoumena, but as doctrine. It is strange that the ELCA would argue with us about the doctrine of the double procession justifying it as part of their Western heritage, while casting aside 2,000 years of church history not only to ordain women, but also to allow their clergy to bless same sex unions in direct violation of the moral teachings of the Holy Scriptures.A concise statement, and I can do no better.
As the Magisterium has taught us, through the Official Clarification:
On the basis of Jn 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit “τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον” (“who takes his origin from the Father”). The Father alone is the principle without principle (ἀρχὴ ᾰναρχος) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (πηγή) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church further exhorts all Catholics:
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (ἀρχὴ, αἰτία) of the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit.
Catholics faithful to the Magisterium will heed this exhortation, and avoid any impropriety in both their personal belief and in their apologetics.
I would like to thank Fr. John for his invaluable contributions. Though I disagree with his assignation of “teaching” to the erroneous expressions and opinions of certain Catholics, I actually have great appreciation for it. I hope what Fr. John has stated will be a wake-up call to all Catholics (particularly Latin Catholics) to be very careful in their apologetics regarding filioque. The fact that even 2 whole decades after the Official Clarification, an Orthodox Christian can come to CAF with the impression that the idea of a double procession or that the Son is Source of the Holy Spirit is being TAUGHT by the Catholic Church, this is a sure indication that the exhortation of our Magisterium is not being faithfully followed by many Catholics who are (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting the Faith.
That ends my contribution to this thread.
Abundant blessings to all,
Marduk
Eastern Orthodox have no problem with the concept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as explained in the article in Catholic Answers. Although we refuse to accept any changes in the wording of the Creed out of respect for the supreme authority of the Ecumenical Councils, even Greek Fathers and Orthodox liturgical texts refer to the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. However, I do disagree with the statement that the Orthodox did not accept Florence due to pressure from the Muslims. The Orthodox did not accept Florence because it did not really solve the differences between us. The council was held at a time when the Greek Emperor was pressuring the Orthodox to accept union with Rome quickly because he wanted Western help in fighting the Turks. The council did not take the time to really deal with the doctrinal sources of the division and left too many issues unresolved. Therefore, the Orthodox faithful rejected Florence even before the fall of Constantinople.to: Wet Catechumen, I saw your question and after reading most of the posts or threads concerning your question which it seems to me to be all over the place and not really answering your question I looked up the meaning of Filioque on Catholic Answers search and I found that if you go there you will find the answer which I think will clear up your confusion on the matter.
Dear brother Richca,
Perhaps a concrete mental image will help you understand the difference. Imagine a line with successive points, A, B, C, D, etc. “A” is the source/origin of this line. It is not B, it is not C, nor D, but A and A alone. When a Latin used the term procedere
Hello frjohnmorris,Thank your for your kind comments. Unfortunately Lutherans and Calvinists do believe in the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. We spent several years in dialogue with the Lutherans and were unable to reach agreement on the doctrine. They were willing to agree that it should not be in the Creed as long as we accept the double procession as an acceptable theologoumena. We could not accept the filioque as they explained it, but if what is stated above is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church can accept it not as mere theologoumena, but as doctrine. It is strange that the ELCA would argue with us about the doctrine of the double procession justifying it as part of their Western heritage, while casting aside 2,000 years of church history not only to ordain women, but also to allow their clergy to bless same sex unions in direct violation of the moral teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
Archpriest John W. Morris
I do not want to be offensive, but I do wish that the Catholics would decide what they really mean by the filioque. The Catholics that participate in this discussion give two different and conflicting definitions of the Catholic doctrine of the filioque. Some Catholics state that the filioque means that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, others teach that the Holy Spirit receives its “being from both the Father and the Son.” Orthodox can accept the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through or is sent by the Son, but we cannot accept the teaching that the Holy Spirit has its being from both the Father and the Son. The only Biblical text that actually refers to the procession of the Holy Spirit is St. John 15:26 which says, “But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.” I deliberately chose the Douay Rheims version since that is a Roman Catholic translation. First Christ Himself says that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, then He says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. What could be more clear. The origin of the Holy Spirit is the Father according to the actual words of Christ. The original Greek word translated proceedeth is ekporeuetai which means to proceed from one single source. Therefore the doctrine that the Holy Spirit has its being from both the Father and the Son contradicts the actual words of Our Lord as recorded by St. John. Thus, according to the actual words of the Gospel the Holy Spirit cannot proceed from both the Father and the Son. What could have more authority than the actual words of Our Lord as recorded by St. John? We Orthodox are not arguing over this issue out of Eastern pride or nationalism, but due to our commitment to the authority of the Holy Scriptures and the Creed as written and approved by the Ecumenical Councils and insistence that any translation accurately convey the original meaning of the words approved by the Councils which means that the Holy Spirit proceeds as from a single source from the Father.Hello frjohnmorris,
Brother mardukm thinks that by the official declaration document the Catholic Church as changed its doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the filoque to that of Photius. This is not so; the document says nothing of the sort, he is misinterpreting it. From what I read on this thread, I think you understand what the doctrine of the filoque means to the Catholic Church as contrasted to your own belief. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit receives his being from both the Father and the Son. The Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit has his being from the Father alone. I will pray for you both.
blessings and peace, Richca
The Official Clarification issued by the Vatican is, I think, sufficiently clear on what Rome is teaching. The following are quotes from that document (not in order).I do not want to be offensive, but I do wish that the Catholics would decide what they really mean by the filioque. The Catholics that participate in this discussion give two different and conflicting definitions of the Catholic doctrine of the filioque. Some Catholics state that the filioque means that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, others teach that the Holy Spirit receives its “being from both the Father and the Son.”
That is not unclear, is it? What the filioque expresses, is that the single spiration from the Father is nevertheless connected to the Son as 1) the Spirit is the love between Father and Son, and 2) because all Three Persons are consubstantial. Moreover, the Spirit proceeds (προεῖσι) through the Son. That is, at least, how I read the Clarification.On the basis of Jn 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit “τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον” (“who takes his origin from the Father”). The Father alone is the principle without principle (ἀρχὴ ᾰναρχος) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (πηγή) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner.
…]
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (ἀρχὴ, αἰτία) of the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit.
…]
Being aware of this, the Catholic Church has refused the addition of καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the formula ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek.
The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (προεῖσι) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common.
…]
If it is correctly situated, the Filioque of the Latin tradition must not lead to subordination of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognizes the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ἐκπόρευσις.
The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son). St Basil already said of the Holy Spirit: “Through the Son (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ), who is one, he is joined to the Father, who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, XVIII, 45, Sources chrétiennes 17 bis, p. 408). St Maximus the Confessor said: “By nature (φύσει) the Holy Spirit in his being (κατ᾽ οὐσίαν) takes substantially (οὐσιοδῶς) his origin (ἐκπορευόμενον) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (δι᾽ Υἱοῦ γεννηθέντος)” (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). We find this again in St John Damascene: “(ὁ Πατὴρ) ἀεὶ ἧν, ἕχων ἐξ ἐαυτοῦ τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον, καὶ διὰ τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον”, in English: “I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p.354; cf. PG 94, 848-849 A). This aspect of the Trinitarian mystery was confessed at the seventh Ecumenical council, meeting at Nicaea in 787, by the Patriarch of Constantinople St Tarasius, who developed the Symbol as follows: “τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον καὶ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ του Πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον” (Mansi, Xll, 1122 D).
The Official Clarification seems to me to resolve the doctrinal dispute between East and West. However, the Official Declaration seems to contradict Richca’s definition of the filioque doctrine as that the Holy Spirit has its being from both the Father and the Son. That is what confuses me. Some Roman Catholic statements on what is meant by the filioque doctrine seem perfectly Orthodox to me such as the above, while others such as the assertion that the Holy Spirit takes its being from the Father and the Son upsets the monarchy of the Father and does not seem Orthodox to us. Can you see why I am confused?The Official Clarification issued by the Vatican is, I think, sufficiently clear on what Rome is teaching. The following are quotes from that document (not in order).
That is not unclear, is it? What the filioque expresses, is that the single spiration from the Father is nevertheless connected to the Son as 1) the Spirit is the love between Father and Son, and 2) because all Three Persons are consubstantial. Moreover, the Spirit proceeds (προεῖσι) through the Son. That is, at least, how I read the Clarification.
I do, and I’ve been confused myself. We shouldn’t take the opinion of an anonymous Catholic over official declarations by the Vatican, though.The Official Clarification seems to me to resolve the doctrinal dispute between East and West. However, what it says is quite different from what Richa (sp) wrote which is that the Holy Spirit has its being from both the Father and the Son. That is what confuses me. Some Roman Catholic statements on what is meant by the filioque doctrine seem perfectly Orthodox to me such as the above, while others such as the assertion that the Holy Spirit takes its being from the Father and the Son upsets the monarchy of the Father and does not seem Orthodox to us. Can you see why I am confused?
Father, bless.The Official Clarification seems to me to resolve the doctrinal dispute between East and West. However, the Official Declaration seems to contradict Richca’s definition of the filioque doctrine as that the Holy Spirit has its being from both the Father and the Son. That is what confuses me. Some Roman Catholic statements on what is meant by the filioque doctrine seem perfectly Orthodox to me such as the above, while others such as the assertion that the Holy Spirit takes its being from the Father and the Son upsets the monarchy of the Father and does not seem Orthodox to us. Can you see why I am confused?
However, I still do not believe that the Pope has the authority to unilaterally add words to the Creed as written and ratified by the Ecumenical Councils.
Archpriest John W. Morris
tdgesq;11348245:
If it stated that the Son is the Origin of the procession, then I would agree with you. But it doesn’t. Any council, Pope or ECF for that?Hello tdgesq,
In the nicene-constantinopolitan creed, the symbol of our faith, which we recite every Sunday at Mass at least here in the latin rite, one of the articles of the faith is “I believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
blessings and peace, Richca
You have a very valid point. I do not know of any movement within Orthodoxy for the ordination of women. We do not even have altar girls, but in our Church altar servers are in minor orders. When the Bishop comes, he blesses or ordains the boys over 7 to make them candle bearers or acolytes. I try to keep to the principle that only those ordained should enter the altar.Father, bless.
You will also come across individual Catholics who advocate for the ordination of women to the priesthood…and Rome has clearly stated that this is contrary to the Tradition of the Holy Catholic Church. In this case I believe that some of my fellow Catholics are innocently confused on this matter. As I stated to you in another thread, some time ago, I have been told by other Orthodox Christians that the priest, in Orthodoxy, acts in the place of the Father while the deacon acts in the place of Christ, in contrast to the Catholic teaching that the priest acts “in the person of Christ” offering the holy sacrifice TO the Father. You assured me that the Orthodox position is actually in line with the Catholic understanding. My point is we can’t always trust the word of individual laity - or in some cases even clergy. In the Catholic Church, the Pope and bishops constitute the Magisterium (teaching authority), and I will trust whatever clarifications they issue.