Do Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics have the same beliefs?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Latin for “and the Son” talking about how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son…" I happen to be fine with it!

what is “filoque”?

 

[Aquinas62]

Thanks, I never learned Latin, I wish I did, but alas, I am a post Vatican II catholic!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m 36 years old, also Vatican II Catholic. Bummer eh? LOL…I grew up with the strumming kumbaya guitars and people coming inside in flip-flops and singing “Amazing Grace.” Every time to this day when I see all the holding hands during the Our Father, the communion in the hand, the strummy guitars, the extraordinary ministers trying “bless” my kids, all the abuse, sheesh, I want to go nuts! My old Anglican parish was more catholic than the Catholic ones in my area!!?

Latin is a neat-sounding language. It is a California language arts standard to teach basic Latin and Greek base words in the sixth grade. As a teacher, we had our Greek studies last month linguistically, Latin this week…

Thanks, I never learned Latin, I wish I did, but alas, I am a post Vatican II catholic!

 

[5Loaves]

Interestingly, the older books we have in the parish have the Filioque, which has been promptly crossed off. Our newer books do not have the Filioque.

The oldest thing I’ve seen for my parish was a very sweet Divine Liturgy booklet from the Russian Center at Fordham University which our parish still had a number of copies in the library a few years ago. They were printed in 1950 around the time our parish was forming. I think the other Russian Greek Catholic parishes were staffed by Jesuits at that time so people in those parishes may have seen these same little booklets. They would never have been used during the Divine Liturgy in my parish because they are in English and in those years everything was in Old Church Slavonic. The Symbol of Faith does not contain the Filioque in them.

We don’t have copies of the DL for people to follow (we use the OCA translation) but we do have copies of the Creed and of the Prayers before reception of Holy Communion for visitors to use. As far as I can tell my parish never recited the Filioque.

 

[IHSpetros]

Eastern Catholics, at least those who are truly Catholic, i.e. in full and complete union with the Pope, ought to believe everything the Church teaches. For example the 7 Sacraments, all 21 Ecumenical Councils, all Dogmas and Doctrines. The legitimate differences that are allowed to arise are differences in explanation/understanding i.e. theology. Anyone who claims to be Catholic yet denies, not struggles with but denies, the Dogmas, Doctrines, or Ecumenical Councils is really not in full and perfect communion with Rome and is therefore not Catholic.

Yeah, that’s what I thought, but apparently some eastern Catholics don’t assert that. What makes it more confusing for me is that we assert Purgatory as a dogma of the Church, yet, many eastern Catholics say they don’t believe it, or its permissible to believe in it, or even thhough they don’t believe it, they don’t necessarily disagree with it. To me this is very ambiguous. I don’t understand how something can be binding dogmatically for some Catholics but apparently not for other Catholics. At least on the surface of it, I thought that all dogmas were binding on all Catholics. Very confusing.

 

[IHSpetros]

Omitting the filoque is far from trivial. The Roman church added the filioque, whereas Byzantine Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox recite the creed as it was originally written. It also has theological implications as well. Hence why the Eastern Orthodox consider it far from trivial.

I always thought that the recitation or omission of the filioque was a matter of tradition. The Roman rite recites the filioque in keeping with its Western tradition while the Eastern rites omit the filioque in keeping with its Eastern traditions, without either traditions necessary being heretical. My question, though, is what do eastern Catholics actually believe concerning the Filioque, as latin Catholics understand it? Do they consider it to be heretical or an acceptable expression of the faith?

 

[smad0142]

Nobody could have dispensed you from believing in all of the Ecumenical Councils brother Marduk.

 

[IHSpetros]

If there is no such thing as “21 Ecumenical Councils” then I think we shoud all refrain from using that phrase. Let’s for now on call them “General Latin Councils.”

 

[bkovacs]

I always thought that the recitation or omission of the filioque was a matter of tradition. The Roman rite recites the filioque in keeping with its Western tradition while the Eastern rites omit the filioque in keeping with its Eastern traditions, without either traditions necessary being heretical. My question, though, is what do eastern Catholics actually believe concerning the Filioque, as latin Catholics understand it? Do they consider it to be heretical or an acceptable expression of the faith?

Some Orthodox would consider it heretical, some would not. The point is that Eastern Christians recite the Nicene Creed as it was “originally” written down. No additions or subtractions. So the better question, is why doesn’t the Latin Church follow suit?.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

While I really have no problem whatsoever with the filioque, I agree with the point you make. If the Catholic Church is going to be in union with these Orthodox, they should be expected to recite the filioque in the Creed to be consistent. If it was worth putting in there in the first place and having a theological war with the East to begin with, why now are they so easily letting Byzantine Catholics, etc. recite it without the filioque? Either drop it in East and West within Catholicism or force it upon both, but not have a half and half? I find the whole Orthodox in communion with Rome phenomenon tough to ponder. The vast divide I see in the way East and West views salvation, atonement, original sin, traditions, filioque, just about everything…makes me wonder how this union of two worlds that seem so divergent even works? I’m afraid if I had those Orthodox beliefs (which I sure don’t) I would head for the Orthodox Church, not Eastern Catholicism…

Some Orthodox would consider it heretical, some would not. The point is that Eastern Christians recite the Nicene Creed as it was “originally” written down. No additions or subtractions. So the better question, is why doesn’t the Latin Church follow suit?.

 

[IHSpetros]

Some Orthodox would consider it heretical, some would not. The point is that Eastern Christians recite the Nicene Creed as it was “originally” written down. No additions or subtractions. So the better question, is why doesn’t the Latin Church follow suit?.

In regard to why the Latin Church doesn’t omit the filioque, I would say that it has no probems in omiting it. But as I said before, the Latin Church follows the insertion based on its western tradition. Regarding my question of whether its considered heretical or not, I was specifically asking about the Eastern Catholics, not the orthodox. If by “orthodox” you mean you mean the eastern orthodox, then of course, I know they consider it heretical. However, if by “orthodox” you mean the Eastern Catholics in union with Rome (which was what I was asking about), then that’s truly shocking. I didn’t know that two Churches could be in union with each other and yet say that one is teaching heresy. What’s the point of the union if heresies are permitted to exist?

 

[IHSpetros]

While I really have no problem whatsoever with the filioque, I agree with the point you make. If the Catholic Church is going to be in union with these Orthodox, they should be expected to recite the filioque in the Creed to be consistent. If it was worth putting in there in the first place and having a theological war with the East to begin with, why now are they so easily letting Byzantine Catholics, etc. recite it without the filioque? Either drop it in East and West within Catholicism or force it upon both, but not have a half and half? I find the whole Orthodox in communion with Rome phenomenon tough to ponder. The vast divide I see in the way East and West views salvation, atonement, original sin, traditions, filioque, just about everything…makes me wonder how this union of two worlds that seem so divergent even works? I’m afraid if I had those Orthodox beliefs (which I sure don’t) I would head for the Orthodox Church, not Eastern Catholicism…

Yes, I see exactly what your saying. If the Union of Churches means that one Church considers another Churches teachings heretical, then it almost seems better just to continue with the Schism, unfortunately.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, I see exactly what your saying. If the Union of Churches means that one Church considers another Churches teachings heretical, then it almost seems better just to continue with the Schism, unfortunately.

I floated an idea a few months ago that in case of a union, which would be the result of an Ecumenical Council, we may have to write a new Creed for the new united Church. This will get rid of any triumphalism on the Creed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In regard to why the Latin Church doesn’t omit the filioque, I would say that it has no probems in omiting it. But as I said before, the Latin Church follows the insertion based on its western tradition. Regarding my question of whether its considered heretical or not, I was specifically asking about the Eastern Catholics, not the orthodox. If by “orthodox” you mean you mean the eastern orthodox, then of course, I know they consider it heretical. However, if by “orthodox” you mean the Eastern Catholics in union with Rome (which was what I was asking about), then that’s truly shocking. I didn’t know that two Churches could be in union with each other and yet say that one is teaching heresy. What’s the point of the union if heresies are permitted to exist?

The insertion was based on the interpretation of the word “proceeds”. It means differently to Greeks than to Latins. I always bring this up when people argue about how perfect Latin is. That if Latin was so perfect, why doesn’t it have a single word that corresponds to how the Greek understanding of the procession would translate on the Latin version of the Creed.

 

[IHSpetros]

The insertion was based on the interpretation of the word “proceeds”. It means differently to Greeks than to Latins. I always bring this up when people argue about how perfect Latin is. That if Latin was so perfect, why doesn’t it have a single word that corresponds to how the Greek understanding of the procession would translate on the Latin version of the Creed.

I don’t think many people assert that the Latin is perfect. The Latin Church continues with the filioque based on its western tradition. What is your opinion of the Fathers, both east and west, who teach some kind of procession from the Father and the Son?

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

LOL. I love how this devolved into a discussion of filioque.

Here is from another thread on the forum I made about this but within the context of non-chalcedonian Christianity. Brother Marduk says what this priest says is correct.

The Melkite Priest from Saint Elias Church in San Jose had this to say about the Filioque.

Quote:
The Church in the West, starting in Spain in the 8th century, added “and the Son” to the Creed to combat heresy. The Western Church did this because the word for “proceeds” has a different meaning in Latin from in Greek. In Latin it emphasizes communion, but in Greek it emphasizes origin. Both the Byzantine East and the Latin West agree that the only origin of the Spirit is the Father, and that the Spirit is in communion with the Father and the Son. So we do not need to add anything to the Creed, and we now omit what was added under the influence of the Latins.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think many people assert that the Latin is perfect.

I ssoooooo wanna answer this but I know I will get in trouble with what I have to say

The Latin Church continues with the filioque based on its western tradition. What is your opinion of the Fathers, both east and west, who teach some kind of procession from the Father and the Son?

I won’t contend that the West was wrong for doing something to make the Creed consistent with what they understand is to be an accurate interpretation of the terminologies used. If you listen to both sides carefully, you’ll see they are both write and the solution of course is to let each side recite the Creed in a way that it reflects the correct theology for each side. But at the same time, one Church should have one Creed. So as I suggested, a major re-write or creation of a new Creed by a united Church’s Ecumenical Council is a solution.

 

[IHSpetros]

I ssoooooo wanna answer this but I know I will get in trouble with what I have to say

I won’t contend that the West was wrong for doing something to make the Creed consistent with what they understand is to be an accurate interpretation of the terminologies used. If you listen to both sides carefully, you’ll see they are both write and the solution of course is to let each side recite the Creed in a way that it reflects the correct theology for each side. But at the same time, one Church should have one Creed. So as I suggested, a major re-write or creation of a new Creed by a united Church’s Ecumenical Council is a solution.

I asked about your opinion of the Eastern and Western Fathers who adhered to some kind of procession from the Father and the Son. Your response…?

 

[mardukm]

I find it interesting that

1. St. Maximos the Confessor did not see it fit to insist to the Latins that they stop using filioque in order for him to be in communion with Latins:shrug:
2. The Latins of his day did not see it fit to insist to the Greeks that they adopt filioque in order to be in communion with the Greeks.

Blessings

While I really have no problem whatsoever with the filioque, I agree with the point you make. If the Catholic Church is going to be in union with these Orthodox, they should be expected to recite the filioque in the Creed to be consistent. If it was worth putting in there in the first place and having a theological war with the East to begin with, why now are they so easily letting Byzantine Catholics, etc. recite it without the filioque? Either drop it in East and West within Catholicism or force it upon both, but not have a half and half? I find the whole Orthodox in communion with Rome phenomenon tough to ponder. The vast divide I see in the way East and West views salvation, atonement, original sin, traditions, filioque, just about everything…makes me wonder how this union of two worlds that seem so divergent even works? I’m afraid if I had those Orthodox beliefs (which I sure don’t) I would head for the Orthodox Church, not Eastern Catholicism…

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The point about the Eastern and Western Fathers and what they have had to say about the Filioque is also a point of contention between the RC West and the Orthodox East.

The Filioque understood as the sending of the Spirit into the world by BOTH the Father and the Son is accepted by both sides as dogma, period.

The West has understood the “temporal procession” of the Spirit into the world after the Ascension of Christ as evidence/proof that there is a similar procession of the Spirit in terms of the inner Life of the Trinity. The East has always disagreed with this however.

But we should realize that while the East rejects the Filioque and its inclusion into the Creed, there is no reason why anyone would object to the West having its own Trinitarian theology with the Filioque (but without the idea that it is to be accepted universally when the East has a different Triadology which has been acknowledged as legitimate by St Thomas Aquinas and others).

IF by the Filioque it is meant that there are two Sources of the Spirit in the Trinity - then both the RC and Orthodox Churches condemn this as HERESY. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Spirit proceeds ACTIVELY from the Father but PASSIVELY from the Son. To say otherwise is heresy from the RC POV, let alone the Orthodox POV.

The other aspect to this issue is whether any Church has the right to unilaterally add to a universal Creed whose wording was established by the Universal Catholic Church at two Ecumenical Councils and signed off by all patriarchs and bishops of the Church, including the popes of Rome.

Another Ecumenical Union Council between the Churches (which is the only medium by which re-union will happen) could resolve this and the entire matter.

Without affecting the theology of the Filioque in the Latin Church, there is no reason why the Roman Catholic Church could not drop the Filioque and return to the Nicene Creed in its original form and which was also defended by popes such as Pope St Leo IV who inscribed the Creed (without the Filioque) on tablets in both Latin and Greek and had them placed on the Tomb of St Peter the Chief Apostle.

St Leo IV was canonized after the schism of East and West but there is no reason why the Orthodox Church could not acknowledge him as a Saint and he should also be much venerated by Eastern Catholics.

The Church of Rome had also changed the second day of weekly fasting from Wednesday to Saturday and was upbraided for this by a Council since fasting was never allowed on Saturdays originally, except on the one Saturday of Holy Week before Easter Day. There is a common Catholic tradition to which all Churches adhere based on the teachings of the Councils and no one Church is allowed to seriously deviate from them.

The Pope of Rome is also not above this common teaching. While Roman Catholics have historically condemned the Orthodox for schism and refusal to accept certain teachings that arose only in the Latin West - today we have traditionalist Roman Catholics who have grave misgivings about teachings of contemporary Roman Pontiffs.

While I don’t condone or agree with these actions, the principle that these traditional Roman Catholics are following, that there is a common, age-old teaching of the Catholic church which even Popes cannot go against, is correct.

Alex