N
newbieman2
Guest
Did you know that when the pope prays the creed in Greek, he leaves out the filioque?
- Status
P
patricius79
Guest
i’ve heard that or things similar to that. I have no problem with that, or with Damascene’s formula of the Spirit being “produced through the Word” or “proceeding from the Father through the Son”.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Friends,
Many Eastern Catholic parishes use the original form of the Nicene Creed without the Filioque (and without any conscious reference to the council of Florence).
Pope Eugenius at Florence had the perspicacity to allow the original Nicene Creed to stand for Eastern Catholics. However, it is said that when the Archbishop of Ephesus, Mark Eugenikos, could not be brought over, the pope exclaimed, “We have accomplished nothing.”
Pope Eugenius’ insights (which were many) allowed him to see the difference between Latin and Greek Trinitarian theology. For the Latins, the Filioque was a “necessity” whereas for the Greeks it was an “impossibility.”
What Florence did show was that the Greeks conceded to the Latins that their Trinitarian theology with the Filioque was legitimate for their own theological praxis. At no time did the Greeks say the Latins had to give it up - but the Latin theology should not be imposed on the East and the original Nicene Creed, established as a universal Creed for all the Churches, should be left to stand without the Filioque.
The Eastern Catholic position is precisely this - the RC Filioque is not heretical and is a legitimate development of the Latin Triadological praxis. But it is not the praxis of the Eastern Triadology and the Nicene Creed should be kept to its original.
If the Latin Church at Florence had decided to accept this very same perspective and had agreed to also leave the Filioque out of the Nicene Creed, as it obtained in its original form, then we would have had a unified Church of Christ, East and West.
Alex
Many Eastern Catholic parishes use the original form of the Nicene Creed without the Filioque (and without any conscious reference to the council of Florence).
Pope Eugenius at Florence had the perspicacity to allow the original Nicene Creed to stand for Eastern Catholics. However, it is said that when the Archbishop of Ephesus, Mark Eugenikos, could not be brought over, the pope exclaimed, “We have accomplished nothing.”
Pope Eugenius’ insights (which were many) allowed him to see the difference between Latin and Greek Trinitarian theology. For the Latins, the Filioque was a “necessity” whereas for the Greeks it was an “impossibility.”
What Florence did show was that the Greeks conceded to the Latins that their Trinitarian theology with the Filioque was legitimate for their own theological praxis. At no time did the Greeks say the Latins had to give it up - but the Latin theology should not be imposed on the East and the original Nicene Creed, established as a universal Creed for all the Churches, should be left to stand without the Filioque.
The Eastern Catholic position is precisely this - the RC Filioque is not heretical and is a legitimate development of the Latin Triadological praxis. But it is not the praxis of the Eastern Triadology and the Nicene Creed should be kept to its original.
If the Latin Church at Florence had decided to accept this very same perspective and had agreed to also leave the Filioque out of the Nicene Creed, as it obtained in its original form, then we would have had a unified Church of Christ, East and West.
Alex
D
Diak
Guest
Так правда. Indeed, as o. dr. Petro Bilaniuk also surmised.
N
newbieman2
Guest
D
Diak
Guest
The following link is a paper of Fr. Peter Babie, a priest of the UGCC Eparchy of Melbourne in Australia:
catholicukes.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=7
catholicukes.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=7
N
newbieman2
Guest
It appears that both articles show the Western Church to be in error. Which for some Catholics means there can never be union. They are too proud to admit there may have been mistakes made in the past. Even when they are glaring.
U
UnworthyApostle
Guest
I myself say,… who proceeds from the Father through the Son…, when I am in a Latin Rite parish.
S
stephraim
Guest
I didn’t get that from the first article.
It seems to me, though I am the least of men and my opinion matters little, that after having thoroughly read and studied patristics and commentaries/histories on the subject from both Catholic and Orthodox points of view, the *filioque *theology is actually quite orthodox. I think, though, that the terminology used (“and the Son”) can be quite ambiguous, and any ambiguous terminology in an exposition of faith such the Creed just causes more problems than it solves. The best thing for the West to do would be to drop the clause or re-word it so that it more clearly exposits their position. As it stands, their language is prone to ambiguity, thus we have phrases like “double procession” taken to mean different things. The term, which I admit to be a very bad one, does not mean two processions or spirations, but instead, in the true Western sense, refers to participation of the Son in the single spiration, the Father as the origin. Such ambiguity in a Creed is detrimental.
D
Diak
Guest
I believe Fr. Peter’s conclusion is that the insertion itself is not appropriate for Ukrainian Greek Catholics grounded in the tradition of Constantinople, and furthermore that the error only comes with belief in a dual procession, which was specifically rejected by the Kyivan Church in Article I of the Union of Brest:
Personally, I also strongly hold to the preceding part of Article I, namely that unity is impeded because neither side wants to understand the other. The conditions of neo-Arianism that prompted the ill-fated insertion opposed by Pope Leo III are long gone, and like Metropolitan +Kallistos, I agree that the Filioque represents more historical misunderstanding than an overt attempt to pervert traditional Cappadocian Trinitarian theology. For what its worth, JPII of blessed memory indicated his desire that it eventually be removed in the interest of unity before he died.
S
stephraim
Guest
Ah, I see. Thank you.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I believe its an outright shame these churchs are not combined. Way bigger issues of evil existing today to be seperated like this.
I don’t like it at all, and believe its one of the biggest reasons evil escalates as it does. Divide and conquer, thats satans motto.
I would love to hear one of these monthly meetings to see which exact point is the deal breaker. I honestly believe its only one issue. If it was a inability to agree on all points? They wouldn’t be talking on a monthly basis.
I’d like to at least think we are somewhat close to resolving this.
I don’t like it at all, and believe its one of the biggest reasons evil escalates as it does. Divide and conquer, thats satans motto.
I would love to hear one of these monthly meetings to see which exact point is the deal breaker. I honestly believe its only one issue. If it was a inability to agree on all points? They wouldn’t be talking on a monthly basis.
I’d like to at least think we are somewhat close to resolving this.
V
Vico
Guest
The Catholic Nicene Creed varies is a few places in English versions (all differences are not shown):
Roman Missal (US Nov 27, 2011):
maker of heaven and earth
born of the Father before all ages
consubstantial with the Father
giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son
Roman Missal (US current):
maker of heaven and earth
eternally begotten of the Father
one in Being with the Father
giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son
Ukrainian Divine Liturgy (1988):
maker of heaven and earth
eternally begotton of the Father
one in Being with the Father
giver of life, who proceeds from the Father
Melkite Divine Liturgy (*Experimentum *until 31 October 2010):
Creator of Heaven and earth
begotten of the Father before all ages
of one essence with the Father
Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father
Byzantine Divine Liturgy (USA 2006):
Creator of heaven and earth
born of the Father before all ages
one in essence with the Father
Creator of Life, who proceeds from the Father
Roman Missal (US Nov 27, 2011):
maker of heaven and earth
born of the Father before all ages
consubstantial with the Father
giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son
Roman Missal (US current):
maker of heaven and earth
eternally begotten of the Father
one in Being with the Father
giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son
Ukrainian Divine Liturgy (1988):
maker of heaven and earth
eternally begotton of the Father
one in Being with the Father
giver of life, who proceeds from the Father
Melkite Divine Liturgy (*Experimentum *until 31 October 2010):
Creator of Heaven and earth
begotten of the Father before all ages
of one essence with the Father
Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father
Byzantine Divine Liturgy (USA 2006):
Creator of heaven and earth
born of the Father before all ages
one in essence with the Father
Creator of Life, who proceeds from the Father
S
sidbrown
Guest
Why does the RCC refuse to accept the date of Easter as set by the EO Church?
S
stephraim
Guest
You could conversely ask why the EO refuse to accept the date of Easter as set by the RCC?
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Friends,
The calculation of the date of Pascha was changed with the advent of the Gregorian calendar (although it did not have to be - there are Eastern Churches which are on the Gregorian calendar but which hold to the original calculation for the Easter date).
The first ecumenical council, I believe, set down the rules for the universal Church in terms of how to calculate Easter in terms of the vernal equinox and that the feast of our Lord’s Resurrection must always come after the Jewish Passover.
It is because these rules were established by an ecumenical council that the Christian East holds onto the original calculation of Easter. However, there are Eastern Orthodox who live in largely Catholic/Protestant countries who, by way of exception, will follow the later calculation of Easter e.g. in Finland.
My own traditionalist inclination is that we should try to follow what was established in ancient times and set down for all, unless there is very good reason to change.
This is also the argument of Catholic Traditionalists with respect to the Tridentine Liturgy where that Liturgy predates Trent and goes back quite a few centuries.
Alex
The calculation of the date of Pascha was changed with the advent of the Gregorian calendar (although it did not have to be - there are Eastern Churches which are on the Gregorian calendar but which hold to the original calculation for the Easter date).
The first ecumenical council, I believe, set down the rules for the universal Church in terms of how to calculate Easter in terms of the vernal equinox and that the feast of our Lord’s Resurrection must always come after the Jewish Passover.
It is because these rules were established by an ecumenical council that the Christian East holds onto the original calculation of Easter. However, there are Eastern Orthodox who live in largely Catholic/Protestant countries who, by way of exception, will follow the later calculation of Easter e.g. in Finland.
My own traditionalist inclination is that we should try to follow what was established in ancient times and set down for all, unless there is very good reason to change.
This is also the argument of Catholic Traditionalists with respect to the Tridentine Liturgy where that Liturgy predates Trent and goes back quite a few centuries.
Alex
S
sidbrown
Guest
The EO are not all that enthusiastic about reunion with the RCC. Many say they prefer to stay just the way they are now. The RCC says it wants reunion with the EO.
Shouldn’t the side that wants the reunion make one or two concessions, such as for example, the date for Easter?
V
Vico
Guest
If there is not a desire for union, then there is not a desire to be one Church. The tradition is Julian Calendar, all celebrate Easter on the same day. The reason for Gregorian Calendar use (since 1582 A.D.) is to keep the vernal equinox about March 21 as it was in the Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D…
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
There shouldn’t be any reason for the entire Church, East and West, to keep to the original text of the Nicene Creed.
In fact, the words “Who proceeds from the Father” are taken directly from Scripture, from the Mouth of Christ Himself.
I don’t think anyone should presume to want to “improve” on our Lord’s Trinitarian theology!
Another problem with the Filioque is that it is an entirely Scholastic construct that proceeds from Scholasticism (the Greeks at Florence did express their dismay that what they were being required to assent to were Scholastic conclusions).
IF both Churches agree that the distinction between the “Only Begotten Son” and the “Spirit that proceeds from the Father” are maintained by Their manner of spiration from the Father - why do we need the Filioque? Why can’t we then agree to what we already agree to that the Holy Spirit comes to us from the Father through the Son (in time)?
As for the doctrine of the Filioque, it can be said, as I believe Ghosty is saying, that it is “culture specific.” That is, in Latin, it is one thing, in Greek, something altogether different.
IF that is true (and Ghosty can always be trusted!
), then the Filioque really is a legitimate Latin teaching but which should not be imposed on the universal Church. As such, it hads nothing to what the Church universal has always believed about the Trinity and that the Spirit comes to us from the Father through the Son (in time).
Alex
In fact, the words “Who proceeds from the Father” are taken directly from Scripture, from the Mouth of Christ Himself.
I don’t think anyone should presume to want to “improve” on our Lord’s Trinitarian theology!
Another problem with the Filioque is that it is an entirely Scholastic construct that proceeds from Scholasticism (the Greeks at Florence did express their dismay that what they were being required to assent to were Scholastic conclusions).
IF both Churches agree that the distinction between the “Only Begotten Son” and the “Spirit that proceeds from the Father” are maintained by Their manner of spiration from the Father - why do we need the Filioque? Why can’t we then agree to what we already agree to that the Holy Spirit comes to us from the Father through the Son (in time)?
As for the doctrine of the Filioque, it can be said, as I believe Ghosty is saying, that it is “culture specific.” That is, in Latin, it is one thing, in Greek, something altogether different.
IF that is true (and Ghosty can always be trusted!
), then the Filioque really is a legitimate Latin teaching but which should not be imposed on the universal Church. As such, it hads nothing to what the Church universal has always believed about the Trinity and that the Spirit comes to us from the Father through the Son (in time).Alex
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
I hate to “butt” in here late in the game, but I must make a comment—you are lucky, AussieMelkite, that you are friends with many Orthodox!!!
I’m a newbie in the Melkite faith myself and I’ve already noticed how a lot Orthodox (not all, of course) just don’t like us ECs. Ironically since in the church I attend the Liturgy expressly has language asking to “pray for our Orthodox brethren.”
Just stroll through the posts here in the EC forum and you’ll see the rancor coming from them regarding points of doctrine.
RCs and Ecs ALSO are nasty at times, to be fair. So it’s not ALL Orthodox.
There are issues even Melkites and other EC churches disagree on, though. Not just Orthodox. I know of soem Melkites who consider themselves Orthodox first and whose only claim to being “EC” is that they agree they are in Communion with Rome. I know of two Orthodox who believe in the IC. And Purgatory. Soem Melkites do the Rosary, some don’t. Soem do the Jesus prayer; some don’t.
It’s all very “shades of gray.”
But to reiterate, cool beans that you are able to good friends with Orthodox!!!
- Status