Do Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics have the same beliefs?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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!!?

To be fair, you should distinguish between liturgical abuses and things you just don’t like, gurneyhalleck. I personally don’t hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer, and I prefer to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, but that said, communion in the hand is not an abuse in the Latin Church; it’s lawful. And the rubrics for Mass do not prescribe a posture for the laity/congregation during the Lord’s Prayer, so if people want to hold hands, there’s no rule prohibiting it.

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?

I’d like to know this too. Thus far I’ve basically been told that the East (including eastern Catholics) generally has no problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. I suppose they’re willing to be in union with a church that uses the filioque - the Latin Church - because they trust us Latins that what we mean by “filioque” really indicates more of a “per filium” idea.

Am I correct? I await the response of eastern Catholics to confirm or correct this impression of mine.

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

Question-begging, smad. He doesn’t need a “dispensation” if the number of ecumenical councils is not an authoritative, infallible teaching. He claims it’s not. If you disagree, you’d better find a binding, dogmatic pronouncement that definitively sets the number at 21.

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?

Why not? As a Latin Catholic, my view is that the Creed is fully orthodox with or without it. So what difference does it really make from our side of the fence? The Catholic Church encompasses both unity and diversity.

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…

I don’t see the differences on salvation, atonement, original sin, small-t traditions, or even the filioque as dogmatically incompatible. But the notion that they are dogmatically incompatible is essentially the eastern Orthodox view, I admit. It seems, though, that eastern Catholics agree with the Latin Church that their different understandings are valid expressions of the same faith we all profess. Otherwise we wouldn’t be in union.

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.

That makes sense and answers my previous question. Thanks!

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.

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.

Thank you too; this makes sense to me.

 

[IHSpetros]

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.

Agreed.

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.

While its true that there a “temporal procession” of the Spirit, that’s not necessarily so. In fact, the Fathers I speak of don’t talk about the procession within the context of temporality, but rather, from the context of the Trinitarian life, hence the Eternal dimension. For example, John Damascene says:

“And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8).

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).

Err…kind of confused here. When you say that the East “rejects” the filioque are you talking about all the easterners in general (i.e. eastern catholics and eastern orthodox)? Also, when you say “reject” are you talking about rejecting it in the sense that its not part of your eastern tradition or rejecting it as heresy? Because as I stated previously, if its rejection because of heresy, then I find it quite odd that two Churches could be in union with each other while permitting the other Church to teach heresy. But if your talking about the EO, then sure I can understand that.

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.

Excellent point. No contentions.

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.

I’m not following you here. Are you saying that it’s wrong for the Western Church to even have the Filioque in the first place? For the most part, I can agree with you. Very early on when the Filioque was being circulated in the West, many Bishops and Western Christians wanted to impose the Filioque on the entire Church. But as you know, the Pope himself refrained from using it. Hence, showing that at time that it was innapropriate impose it on the entire Church. However, as time went on and questions begun to arise on the exact nature of the filioque, the Western Church decided to have Councils on it, such as Florence and other post-schism Councils. Whether the East accepts these Councils or not, the point in fact is that, for the West these Councils served to determine the issue. Hence, the Church of Rome, in keeping with its Western tradition saw fit to retain the filioque since it already had councils on it.

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.

Agreed. The only problem I see is that some people from both sides are very “anti-ecumenical.”

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.

In theory, yes, if we drop it, it won’t affect our understanding of the filioque. But in keeping with our Western Tradition, in which we had some Councils to determine this issue, we continue to use it, while not imposing it on the Eastern tradition. In fact, Pope Benedict (or JP2) recited the Creed without the filioque when meeting with Patriach Bartholomew. So its not a problem. And correct me if I’m wrong but from what I understand, is that the East in communion with Rome cannot say its heretical (i.e. its a legitimate dogma), however, its not part of eastern theology so they are not bound to use it.

 

[IHSpetros]

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.

Is this a matter of Church discipline? Or Church Dogma? Or is Rome teaching Heresy?

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.

I agree that there is a lot of confusion regarding the nature of the Pope’s office. When people hear that the Pope is the Supreme shepherd of the Church, or has universal jurisdiction, or speaks ex cathedra, etc., many people think that this means the Pope can do whatever he wants including making up new Dogma. However that is not the case. The Pope cannot proclaim new dogma, he is bound by the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church. What the Pope does is proclaim a dogma of the Church, which is contained in the deposit of faith (hence not new), or when disputes arise he clarifies them, and he is simply protected from error when he does this.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I do.

I don’t see the differences on salvation, atonement, original sin, small-t traditions, or even the filioque as dogmatically incompatible. .

 

[PodunkMommy]

What is praxis?

The core doctrines are the same, but the emphasis, praxis, and explanations are thoroughly different in pure Latin and pure Byzantine Catholicism.

 

[PodunkMommy]

When the new translation of the Mass comes out this November and the Nicene Creed is changed, isn’t there supposed to be a change in the filoque again? Won’t that bring the East and the West closer again?

Blessings.

 

[ConstantineTG]

When the new translation of the Mass comes out this November and the Nicene Creed is changed, isn’t there supposed to be a change in the filoque again? Won’t that bring the East and the West closer again?

Blessings.

I wasn’t aware there is going to be a change in the Filioque.

Do you mean the “through the Son” instead of “and the Son”?

But they are not changing the Creed. The Latin is still the same. They’re just changing the English to reflect the Latin better. So I doubt the Filioque will change at all.

 

[Aramis]

What is praxis?

Praxis is what is done (or more often, what is called for to be done).

Roman praxis includes Anticipatory masses on saturday night, the use of the Dominican Rosary by the faithful as communal prayer, unleavened bread in the celebration of the divine worship service, only permitting married men to be ordained priests in exceptional circumstances, etc…

 

[laszlo]

Praxis is what is done (or more often, what is called for to be done).

Roman praxis includes Anticipatory masses on saturday night, the use of the Dominican Rosary by the faithful as communal prayer, unleavened bread in the celebration of the divine worship service, only permitting married men to be ordained priests in exceptional circumstances, etc…

Yes. And hopefully there will be some changes in both side related to the traditions, praxis, and the openness of the theological opinions. We must understand that all this is just loke the clothes, changeable according to the environment where we live.

 

[Hesychios]

Yes. And hopefully there will be some changes in both side related to the traditions, praxis, and the openness of the theological opinions. We must understand that all this is just lke the clothes, changeable according to the environment where we live. You make it all seem rather superficial.

This is just like the old attitude of the church, when there was no discussion of ‘churches’, but of ‘rites’. The eastern rites were ‘allowed’ to keep the trappings of their old familiar ways as a concession.

However, this has been damaging to the spirituality of the people (something not clear from all this discussion of dogmatics on one side and praxis on the other). Sprituality is not so easy to describe or define, but it is at the heart and core of the traditions.

Once the interior spiritual character of the various traditions was wrecked, the external differences were indeed superficial (almost like a performance), and the differences between them were consequently of little value to the church and very little appreciated even by the young people raised in those traditions.

Today Rome calls upon the eastern Catholic churches to reclaim and restore their traditiions.

But why?

Probably because the older idea of praestantia ritus latini which prevailed in an environment which thought of praxis as a shallow and superficial difference among Catholics (begrudgingly tolerated rather than celebrated), has made unity with the Orthodox that much more difficult to achieve.

If the Orthodox had all been rounded up by now, we probably would not be having much in the way of discussions of theology vs praxis.

 

[Biedrik]

When the new translation of the Mass comes out this November and the Nicene Creed is changed, isn’t there supposed to be a change in the filoque again? Won’t that bring the East and the West closer again?

Blessings.

Not at all. Compare the current translation of that part of the creed…

“We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.”

…with the one that will be implemented next advent…

“I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.”

…and you’ll see that nothing has changed regarding the filioque.

 

[Sir_Thomas_More]

You make it all seem rather superficial.

This is just like the old attitude of the church, when there was no discussion of ‘churches’, but of ‘rites’. The eastern rites were ‘allowed’ to keep the trappings of their old familiar ways as a concession.

However, this has been damaging to the spirituality of the people (something not clear from all this discussion of dogmatics on one side and praxis on the other). Sprituality is not so easy to describe or define, but it is at the heart and core of the traditions.

Once the interior spiritual character of the various traditions was wrecked, the external differences were indeed superficial (almost like a performance), and the differences between them were consequently of little value to the church and very little appreciated even by the young people raised in those traditions.

Today Rome calls upon the eastern Catholic churches to reclaim and restore their traditiions.

But why?

Probably because the older idea of praestantia ritus latini which prevailed in an environment which thought of praxis as a shallow and superficial difference among Catholics (begrudgingly tolerated rather than celebrated), has made unity with the Orthodox that much more difficult to achieve.

If the Orthodox had all been rounded up by now, we probably would not be having much in the way of discussions of theology vs praxis.

Can you give an example of what you mean? Are you saying that there are Latinizations internally even though they may have been eliminated externally in theory? And that it shows up despite the fact in the spirituality of the people and even in the aurora of the Liturgy despite nothing being technically incorrect in it?

 

[ciero]

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?

You are aware that when the Pope recites the creed in Greek…it NEVER has the filioque?

And the official Creed does NOT have the filioque? Rome has stated the the creed that does contain the filioque is a liturgical concession.

 

[PodunkMommy]

…and you’ll see that nothing has changed regarding the filioque.

Wow, I didn’t realize this. I had been reading about some of the changes that would be occuring during the actually Mass and was really excited like the response changing when the faithful say “and the Lord be with you” to “and with your spirit”. I guess I was hoping for a great many changes.

I had read something about the Creed and consubstantial with the Father so I just presumed that the filoque would be changing. I honestly didn’t look into it any further. I ordered a book about the changes and started to read it but haven’t got too far.

I homeschool three kids and am a bit limited on my reading time.

 

[PodunkMommy]

You are aware that when the Pope recites the creed in Greek…it NEVER has the filioque?

And the official Creed does NOT have the filioque? Rome has stated the the creed that does contain the filioque is a liturgical concession.

I am interested in this. Is this when the Pope recites the when he is saying a Mass in Greek. It would seem to make sense that he wouldn’t say the filoque since in the Eastern Rites it is not in their Creed.

I do not know as much as you guys so I am ignorant when it comes to this topic. I guess I don’t even see what difference the flioque makes now if the East doesn’t use it and the West does.

Aren’t the core beliefs the same?

 

[ciero]

I am interested in this. Is this when the Pope recites the when he is saying a Mass in Greek. It would seem to make sense that he wouldn’t say the filoque since in the Eastern Rites it is not in their Creed.

I do not know as much as you guys so I am ignorant when it comes to this topic. I guess I don’t even see what difference the flioque makes now if the East doesn’t use it and the West does.

Aren’t the core beliefs the same?

One must remember…the OFFICIAL Nicaean Creed does NOT have the filioque, as the OFFICIAL Creed is the Original one in GREEK without filioque. Rome has stated that the Creed with the addition of the filioque is a liturgical usage and is NOT the official Creed of the RCC.

At certain Pontifical Masses it is the norm for the creed to be recited in Greek, THIS IS THE OFFICIAL CREED.

 

[Hesychios]

Can you give an example of what you mean? Are you saying that there are Latinizations internally even though they may have been eliminated externally in theory?

That is possible. I think that for many people the spirituality can be altered before the liturgy suffers too. It depends a lot on the catechesis. Put a Baltimore Catechism in the hands of little Johnny and it will affect how he thinks about God. I am not saying that this is bad, but it is one particular perspective (as many Latin Traditionalists will attest, and want to bring back).

A lot of eastern Christians did use the Baltimore catechism in north America not so long ago. Today the Byzantine rite churches have a small catechism set of their own devising, and the UGCC has been preparing a new one for their own people. I may seem odd that they see the need to do this, since the revised CCC is really not that old.

I think a good example of the problem as it unfolded many generations ago was when the hours (Orthros - Matins) were replaced by a communal recitation of the rosary. I don’t know how the process happened, and it could have been different from place to place [so it isn’t wise to generalize], but one possibility would be that Orthros disappeared in Byzantine Catholic parishes due to the training of priests in a Latin environment. This could have happened long before the rosary was put in place, or maybe not. But in Latin parishes in the west the hours either didn’t develop as a parish function or perhaps the practice was lost when the need for more Masses crowded the hours out. Eventually they were not altogether common in Byzantine Catholic parishes either.

Once the liturgy of the hours are eliminated from regular practice the community misses the catechetical benefit. In the Byzantine tradition the entire cycle is important, and participation should be encouraged.

Another example may be the thinking about the Divine in primarily Kataphatic terms. Another example might be in not understanding or appreciating Theosis as the process of salvation.

One also might only know and relate to the western notions of Original Sin.

A lot of this is not supported by the prayers of the liturgy, but learned in CCD class. The liturgy (including the LOTH for Byzantines) is an excellent teaching mechanism for theology (I personally think much more so than the Latin Mass), and liturgical theology is an important field of study in eastern Christianity.

I would like to suggest that if one wants to learn more about Byzantine Spirituality, one should read a very good book by the late (Memory Eternal!) Cardinal Tomas Spidlik SJ.

["]The Spirituality of the Christian East]("http://forums.catholic-questions.org/

Jesuits over the last few centuries have worked a great deal with the eastern churches. I think they did a lot of damage in their day, but they also did some good and learned a lot. Their scholarship is impeccable, and Cardinal Spidlik, a man who genuinely loved the Christian east, wrote some excellent books on the subject.

Another author I could recommend is the late (Memory Eternal) Father George Maloney SJ. Anything he wrote would be a worthwhile experience.

… And that it shows up despite the fact in the spirituality of the people and even in the aurora of the Liturgy despite nothing being technically incorrect in it?

I am not sure I understand this part of the question.

Let me just say this.

Spirituality is more than just liturgical practice, it is more like fundamentally how one thinks and prays.

For example priest can have faculties in a second church, because he is needed. But that does not mean that he thinks like both traditions, he will likely have an interior spirituality of one tradition or another. (Often times they learn about eastern Christian spirituality and ask for permission to work in the environment, often to find that many if not most parishioners think like Latins anyway).

 

[SedesDomi]

One must remember…the OFFICIAL Nicaean Creed does NOT have the filioque, as the OFFICIAL Creed is the Original one in GREEK without filioque. Rome has stated that the Creed with the addition of the filioque is a liturgical usage and is NOT the official Creed of the RCC.

At certain Pontifical Masses it is the norm for the creed to be recited in Greek, THIS IS THE OFFICIAL CREED.

Whether the filioque is in the official RCC creed or not, the teaching on which the filioque is based is indeed official RCC teaching.

The CCC states that the H.S. proceeds eternally from the Father and proceeds eternally from the Son. From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, that is incorrect doctrine: the H.S. is sent by the Son, but the H.S. proceeds only from the Father. So, the filioque could be erased, even from liturgical usage, from every single Catholic parish, but the teaching in the CCC would remain, and it’s the teaching as seen in the CCC, that Eastern Orthodoxy summarily rejects.

 

[Aramis]

Yes. And hopefully there will be some changes in both side related to the traditions, praxis, and the openness of the theological opinions. We must understand that all this is just loke the clothes, changeable according to the environment where we live.

You will find a hard time being more wrong in your approach.

The spirituality and liturgy go hand in hand. As one prays so one comes to believe… Lex orandi lex credendi.

We are not “Latins in funny clothes” nor “Romans with a different ritual,” but fully alive in both different theology and praxis. Byzantine theology, overlain on the Roman Mass, doesn’t work. Roman Theology can not survive the Byzantine Liturgy… so when Roman theology was forced, the liturgies were reshaped, latinized, so that the Latin theology wouldn’t be out of synch with the Byzantine liturgy.

Byzantine and Roman theologies are neither compatible nor opposed… but theology isn’t dogma. And the dogmas for both are the same.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Wow, I didn’t realize this. I had been reading about some of the changes that would be occuring during the actually Mass and was really excited like the response changing when the faithful say “and the Lord be with you” to “and with your spirit”. I guess I was hoping for a great many changes.

I had read something about the Creed and consubstantial with the Father so I just presumed that the filoque would be changing. I honestly didn’t look into it any further. I ordered a book about the changes and started to read it but haven’t got too far.

I homeschool three kids and am a bit limited on my reading time.

Yeah, it’s just the *translations *that are being revised. Since the official Latin version of the western church (including the filioque) is the very standard for these revisions, the filioque isn’t changing either.

Whether the filioque is in the official RCC creed or not, the teaching on which the filioque is based is indeed official RCC teaching.

The CCC states that the H.S. proceeds eternally from the Father and proceeds eternally from the Son. From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, that is incorrect doctrine: the H.S. is sent by the Son, but the H.S. proceeds only from the Father. So, the filioque could be erased, even from liturgical usage, from every single Catholic parish, but the teaching in the CCC would remain, and it’s the teaching as seen in the CCC, that Eastern Orthodoxy summarily rejects.

I think you’re oversimplifying matters.

An earlier poster explained more specifically that both the East and the West agree that the Holy Spirit has only one source in the Trinity - God the Father (the Catechism consistently refers to the Spirit as “the Father’s Spirit” and as the “Breath” that “the Father sends”) - and both the East and the West agree that the Holy Spirit is sent into the world by both the Father and the Son (CCC 690; so in that sense, everyone agrees that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son).

The theological disagreement is apparently that the Latin West considers the Son’s role in sending the Spirit to be an indicator also of the inner life of the Holy Trinity itself. I looked and could not find this teaching in the Catechism. Maybe I just missed it. If not, though, I think it’s telling that they decided not to include it.

The East - both Catholic and Orthodox - rejects this notion. But the filioque need not be an obstacle for union, because the eastern Catholic churches are perfectly free to interpret the Latin use of the filioque in a way that harmonizes with their position - i.e. that the Spirit proceeds into the world from the Father through the Son. On that we are in agreement.

Whatever further implications the filioque might have - and I do agree with the Latin position on this, by the way (I am one, after all) - are not a necessary part of Catholic Trinitarian dogma.