A
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
.
Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the ‘Acta Apostolicae Sedis’ (AAS).
According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the Roman Pontiff promulgated three documents together on June 29, 1998 within the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which made it binding in universal ecclesial law. These document are:
According to the Holy See, these document are contained in Acta Apostolica Sedis (AAS), 90 (1998), 542-551.
With regard to your comment about the CCEO, John Paul II stated in Ad Tuendam Fidem:
Consequently, these Acta have modified universal ecclesiastical laws
As I already stated, the conditions for omitting the *filioque *in the creed or the Professio fidei as allowed by the Council of Florence (and understood by at least the Melkite hierarchy) are described by Pope Benedict XIV’s encyclical Allatae Sunt. If anyone dissents with Catholic dogma as professed by the Roman Pontiff, then their oath of fidelity necessarily lacks integrity.
You are welcome to submit a dubium on this matter to the Holy See, but you may not like the result. Nonetheless, if integrity means anything, any claim to “full communion” ought to be congruent with professing the same Catholic dogma and doctrine, or else such ecumenism is false.
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
Anyone know what the current Melkite Patriach Gregory III stance is on the subject of the filioque clause?
U-C
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Cardinal Ratzinger believes as John Paul II taught, “Specific reference to this doctrine is not lacking in the great Fathers and Doctors of the East (Ephraim, Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus, John Damascene).” [General Audience Address, “The Spirit and the Filioque Debate,” November 7, 1990].
Consequently, he believes as his predessesor John Paul II affirmed, that the sense in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is "‘by way of will,’ ‘in the manner of love’ (per modum amoris). This is a sententia certa…and therefore *sure and binding." ***(General Audience Address, “The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son,” November 20, 1985).
The filioque doctrine doesn’t contradict the Greek creed, but complements it, because it expounds upon the ancient creed in the sense that the early Church fathers described the Holy Spirit as the mutual love between Father and Son, and which is given by Father and Son.
** John Paul II** explains:
Furthermore, Cardinal Ratzinger defends the filioque, as St. Maximus of Constantinople did in the 7th century, as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
According to Easter Orthodox Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland, to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 30 October 2000: Together we arrived at the conclusion that our differences are to be understood in the sense of varying legitimate developments of one and the same apostolic faith in East and West, and not as divisions in the tradition of the faith itself.
… the main obstacle to the restoration of full communion is the pope’s primacy of jurisdiction…
Consequently, neither Cardinal Ratzinger nor Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Damskinos of Switzerland understand this doctrine to be incompatible with the same Catholic faith believed by both East and West in the first millenium.
Our Catholic Creed in Greek has mode of origin in mind, and our Catholic Creed Latin describes the Blessed Trinity with respect to internal relationship (paternal and filial love), and the Gift of Love that proceeds from Father and Son. The Greek and Latin creedal affirmations are complementary in expressing the Catholic faith.
D
Diak
Guest
Alethiaphile, thank you for injecting some much-needed praxis into this discussion. There is the famous account (witnessed) of Madame Ushakova, a convert from the Muscovite Church to the Russian Greek Catholic Church. She directly asked St. Pius X in an audience what else was needed for her practice of faith other than that she had inherited from her own Russian Church. His famous reply was “nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter”. This has worked wonderfully for me as well.
Frankly Article I of the Union of Brest got it right - we don’t agree because we do not wish to - as the English translation of the Union states " which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another."
FDRLB
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
F
Fox
Guest
What do the East Ortho and East Catholics say when it comes to filioque part? Please give me a refresher on why they say something different in the Latin Rite? What is the problem?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I recommend the following article…
The Greek and Latin Traditions
Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit
Pontificial Council for Promoting Chrisitan Unity
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
What a great thread! I’ve gone through all of it, and as a Latin, I can see there is a definite difference in emphasis with respect to the understanding of the filioque doctrine. There were some very illuminating posts, (to me.) I still have to digest it all, but I do believe it would be helpful if the Latin church used Through the Son as opposed to And the Son. Not that I disagree with And the Son, but as Latins can sometimes be somewhat less nuanced in their thinking (when compared to the Easterns) there might be too much of a tendency to put the wrong construction on the words And the Son.
It would be great if the East and the West could agree on this wording, as there seems to be, at bottom, no substantial difference in doctrine.
For my part I will be thinking “Through” the Son, when we say “And” the Son at the Eucharistic Liturgy, as I feel that more correctly identifies my own Latin theology as well.
It would be great if the East and the West could agree on this wording, as there seems to be, at bottom, no substantial difference in doctrine.
For my part I will be thinking “Through” the Son, when we say “And” the Son at the Eucharistic Liturgy, as I feel that more correctly identifies my own Latin theology as well.
D
Diak
Guest
For a perspective from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the following article is excellent:
www.catholicukes.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=7
Let us also remember that Pope Leo III criticized Charlemagne for his use of the insertion of a new word to the universal Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. He forbade its insertion, and had the plates engraved in Rome without the addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. I would also consider that Magisterial.
I also recall Leo’s own inscription following the Creed read something like “These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).”
I suppose it is really much ado about nothing since one of the latest Magisterial documents, Dominus Iesus, not only omits the insertion to the traditional Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed but has no accompanying clarification or defense of the insertion.
As Eastern Catholics we have no problem at all with this “development of doctrine”. As I mentioned before, I believe the first article of the Union of Brest got it right - “which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another”
FDRLB
www.catholicukes.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=7
Let us also remember that Pope Leo III criticized Charlemagne for his use of the insertion of a new word to the universal Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. He forbade its insertion, and had the plates engraved in Rome without the addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. I would also consider that Magisterial.
I also recall Leo’s own inscription following the Creed read something like “These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).”
I suppose it is really much ado about nothing since one of the latest Magisterial documents, Dominus Iesus, not only omits the insertion to the traditional Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed but has no accompanying clarification or defense of the insertion.
There you have it. “The fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith” says it all. And this from the hand of who is now the Holy Father himself. (As an aside, no “inclusive language”, either).
As Eastern Catholics we have no problem at all with this “development of doctrine”. As I mentioned before, I believe the first article of the Union of Brest got it right - “which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another”
FDRLB
R
requiemaeturnum
Guest
To answer the original question in the thread’s title, I believe if one is Catholic, one must profess filioque. As the Nicene Creed states “…qui ex Patre filioque procedit…”
D
Diak
Guest
The Nicene Creed did not state this, as promulgated by the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople I. It was added much later, and not by a universal Council of the Church. A good study of Church history (especially the controversy of Leo III and Charlegmane) will indeed show that even in the Latin Church the insertion was controversial and remained so for centuries.
FDRLB
R
requiemaeturnum
Guest
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
A
Aramis
Guest
Two data errors:
- the actual creed of nicea is in greek, not latin
- The creed used in the east is the Nicene-Constantinoplean, not the Nicene, even tho’ it is oft referred to simply as the Nicene Creed. The Credo Romano is an amended version of that creed, also mislabeled frequently as the Nicene Creed.
here are a few…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
crcna.org/pages/nicene_creed.cfm
kencollins.com/why-07.htm
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
theologicallycorrect.com/studycenter/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=54
And some Catholic Ones…
home.inreach.com/~bstanley/creeds.htm
ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/CECREED.TXT
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35116
The Original 325AD Nicene Creed lacks even the ekporousis from the Father!
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I am sure that the “official” teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is “through the son” so as to preserve the monarchy of the Father. However, the alternative teaching found throughout the Roman Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as if they were from one person is found everywhere and even seems to be what Augustine of Hippo taught. It appears to me that this “western” prayer came about from this alternative teaching: “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end”. You will note that, for those who adhere to this alternative and exceedingly common teaching concerning the filioque, that unity in the Godhead is no longer based on the monarchy of the Father, but rather is based on the Holy Spirit. This only makes logical sense, unity cannot be based on two as if they were one, unity can only proceed from one - this is the real “heresy” of the filioque - the transference of unity based on the Father to unity based on the Holy Spirit. This is not an “official” heresy of the Roman Catholic Church as it doesn’t “officially” teach this alternative view of the filioque. The error of the Roman Catholic Church, that ends up inadvertently promoting a heresy, is the adding of the word filioque officially to the Latin Creed. If the filioque was never added this chaos would never have occurred. That great Council that was held at the time of Photius that called itself the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” didn’t get to become the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” because Pope John VIII did not confirm the Council, but there is one part of that council that he did confirm and that he did agree with, therefore that one part is of ecumenical force. That one part that I speak of him be anathema that was issued against anyone who would change any part of the wording of the Nicene Creed. So you see, if only successive popes built upon the authoritative decrees of previous popes, instead of trying to destroy and discredit the authority of previous popes and their official decrees, there never would have been an issue; only peace and harmony in the Universal Church.
M
mardukm
Guest
From my understanding of the Latin teaching, the Latin Church has NEVER taught that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son AS IF THEY WERE ONE PERSON.”
The more exact expression/teaching is “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one PRINCIPLE.”
and
"the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM the PERSON of the Father, and THROUGH the PERSON of the Son.
I’ve never heard of your idea that the unity of the Trinity is based on the Spirit (of course, I’m not Latin, but Coptic, though I have had cause to study the Latin Church heartily in my translation to the Catholic Church). I HAVE heard that the unity of the Body of Christ is based on the Spirit. The Latins do explicitly teach that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son JUST AS MUCH as the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father. But if you extrapolate from this the idea that the Spirit is the source of Trinitarian unity (instead of the Essence that is from the Father alone, and shared equally within the Trinity), then you might as well assign your extrapolated idea to the Church Fathers themselves.
I suspect that the Catholic Church does not “officially” teach what you claim only because the idea really does not exist in the theology of the Catholic Church. It is nothing more than an extrapolation of solid Catholic teaching. I’m sure I can extrapolate wierd teachings from Eastern theology as well, but what good would that do?
Blessings,
Marduk
T
TP2
Guest
Your right on target… Jesus sends the Holy Spirit from The Father hence The Holy Spirit comes From The Ftaher and The Son.
Logic, folks…sheer logic…
D
Dreamcoat
Guest
Wow! I’ve been a Roman Catholic all my life. A year ago I started attending a Byzantine Catholic Church. I never knew that anyone understood what used to be called “The mystery of the Holy Trinity.” Unless someone can explain it to me, I’m afraid I may not qualify being a Catholic of either rite.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
Please do me a favor and explain exactly what is the difference between “as from one PRINCIPLE” and “as from one PERSON”?
So, please explain, is the unity of the Holy Trinity based on the Father and the Son as from one principle? If so, please explain how that works.
I will confess to you that I don’t know in this regard what the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches. I made my assertions based on what people have posted in this forum.
Could you also do me a favor and please explain the theology behind that prayer that I quoted: " … Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end."
Thank you and God bless!
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
In summary, Yes, Eastern Catholics accept the filioque.
moving on with life now.
moving on with life now.
- Status