Do Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics have the same beliefs?

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can’t believe a thousand years later we’re still hashing the filioque out…

The Filioque is the “tastes great, less filling” theological debate of all time!!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Fone Bone,

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.

I’m not certain that the debate is about whether the Son has a role in “the inner life” of the Holy Trinity itself (though there might be some EO who style it that way). All Eastern and Oriental (not to mention Western) patristic sources are practically unanimous that the Spirit obtains the Divine Essence from the Father through the Son. In equivalent terms, this means that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father AND the Son (filioque). Thus, the Son can never be considered non-essential to the “inner life” of the Holy Trinity.

The real question has always been about the Son’s role in the origin of the PERSON of the Spirit. EVERYONE agrees that the PERSON of the HS originates from the Father alone. The issue is the use of the term “subsistence” in describing the relationship of the Son to the HS. The Council of Florence asserts that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son [in] the sense that…the Son should be signified, according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.”

Since the Son has a mediating role in the transmission of the Divine Essence from the Father to the HS, and the Divine Essence is the very thing that “makes” the HS “God,” then Latins cannot deny that the Son participates in the subsistence of the HS. Of course, the HS is a distinct PERSON of the Godhead, and is not exclusively defined according to His Divine Essence alone (if this were so, then one could not distinguish the HS from the Father or the Son, Who are also God by virtue of this same Divine Essence). The Latins fully understand this, and acknowledged by the North American Catholic-Orthodox colloquy on the matter. This was also affirmed by the OFFICIAL Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, wherein it was asserted that when the Latins speak of the Son being the subsistence of the HS “just like the Father,” they are referring to the Divine Essence, not the Person of the HS (the latter being ekporeusai from the Father alone).

You would think that would settle it, but certain modern EO apologists have added an novel dimension to the debate. It is now claimed by certain EO that the procession, as it relates to the Son, can only refer to the temporal sending of the HS from the Father through the Son. This is not the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas nor of the Synod of Blarchanae, who specifically taught that the manifestation or energetic procession (according to the expression of St.Palamas) of the HS from the Son is in the order of the ETERNAL, not the merely temporal.

On this point, I would disagree with your statement that Eastern Catholics interpret Filioque as merely referring to the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world by the Son. I’ve only ever met one EC layman who, following modern EO sources, makes such a claim. The rest I’ve encountered follow the Synod of Blarchanae and St. Gregory Palamas in acknowledging the ETERNAL energetic procession of the HS from the Father through the Son.

The other issue that seems to be delaying rapprochement is the canonical rationale for the addition of filioque in the Latin Creed. Many want the filioque removed as a condition of reunion. The fact of the matter is:
(1) No one in the East ever insisted that the Latins remove filioque from their Creed until St. Photius’ time (certainly St. Maximos did not insist upon it for him to regard himself as being in communion with Rome).
(2) Even then, the rationale for the removal was not a canonical one, but was rather purely theological. Up until the time of Mark of Ephesus, inclusive, the demand that the Latins remove filioque was based on a (mis)understanding that the Latin use of filioque was denuding the Father’s role as Arche in the Trinity). Any arguments in these medieval Eastern sources against the impropriety of the textual addition was based purely on its theological relevance. The medieval Easterns were complaining against filioque not because they thought it was an improper addition of text, but because of what they genuinely believed to be a heterodox addition to the Faith itself (due to a misunderstanding of the Latin theology for the use of filioque).

As I’ve always maintained, any demand by non-Latins for the Latins to remove filioque is at this time premature. We need to work for understanding first. Without this proper common understanding of each others’ theological positions, removing filioque will cause more problems than it will solve. And I think we can all admit there is still a lot of misunderstanding between our respective Churches (and even among members of our respective Churches) that need to be ironed out.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MontChevalier]

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.

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).

The Link on “The spirituality of the Christian East” isn’t working.

 

[laszlo]

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.

I born onto that old attitude, thet the difference between the Eastern and Western communities is the rite only.

In Hungary the union started in 1599 and was reinforced in 1667 in the spirit and law, that the difference only the rite and some custom. The following 300 years kept the spirituality of the so called Greek Catholics alive.

The basic difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Western churches is, that the Easterners were and are Imperial Church under the protection of the Empire, mostly in peace; the Westerners live in adversary environment full wi, mostly in wars.

The Eastern Catholic in Central Europe separated from their Empire in the 9th Century (exactly were converted on that time) and never assimilated that Imperial tradition, they lived in whole of their history in the same controversies as the Westerners. Theor tradition belongs to this side.

In the US the problem started when in 1927 the Apostolic See asked them to ordain only celibate priests. Their communities were not large enough to keep
this promise, they imported married priests, and thus prevented the communities to develop their own traditions. develop their own.

My understanding is thet recently they look toward the Eastern Orthodox connections which is more liberal in the questions of the celibacy and divorce that the Roman Church. Naturaly the slogan is tradition and spirituality, but both problem belongs to the body not to the spirit.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Interesting. I never thought of that.

If we dissect the Latin,

con {“with, together”}

• sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
• stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})

does convey a slightly different understanding of consubstantial.

I noticed the ICEL isn’t using the “one in being with the Father” or even the “one in substance with the Father.” That would make the filioque redundant in my mind. I’m thinking if the Father and Son are indeed one in “substance,” or at least in our modern definition of the word, then if Spiritus Sanctus proceeds from the Father, that Spiritus Sanctus proceeds also from the Son goes without saying.

But the ICEL isn’t saying that. Are they wrong (again)?

Maybe the better question is whether “proceeds” is the best translation for procedit or whatever the Greek says.

 

[Hesychios]

I born onto that old attitude, thet the difference between the Eastern and Western communities is the rite only.

So was I, actually.

And for us that was actually the case.

In Hungary the union started in 1599 and was reinforced in 1667 in the spirit and law, that the difference only the rite and some custom. The following 300 years kept the spirituality of the so called Greek Catholics alive.

I usually want to ask this when I meet a Hungarian …

Were you confirmed at birth? I have read elsewhere that it was common in Hungary for Roman Catholics to be confirmed at the time of baptism.

Thanks!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It shames a good man to admit it but I’ve never even met a Hungarian!

I usually want to ask this when I meet a Hungarian ...

Thanks!

 

[Hesychios]

It shames a good man to admit it but I’ve never even met a Hungarian!

I have met some Hungarians from around Chicago, even went to grade school with some, but none born in the old country. They wouldn’t know the answer to this question, I am sure

The only ones today I can meet and ask this to are “cyber-friends”, few and far-between at that.

So I guess it’s not a real meeting, actually. In fact in all my time on CAF I think I have only been able to pose this question twice, and I don’t remember ever getting a response.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well I grew up and still live in the Central Valley of California. Around here it’s Mexicans, Portuguese, Okies (Oklahoma from the Dust Bowl era), Lahu (Asians from Thailand), Mexicans, some Italians, and did I mention Mexicans and Portuguese?

I’ve only met a couple of Russians, Croats, Serbs my whole life but that’s only because they were exchange students…The Slavic folks, Hungarians, Romanians, and more exotic Eastern immigrants are more in San Francisco and Los Angeles, etc.

I actually considered going up to Fresno at one time and trying out either a Greek Orthodox or a Serbian Orthodox church up there…At one point when I was totally frustrated with Catholicism (in many ways I still am!) I considered going to St. Bishoy’s Coptic Church here in town. My wife met the priest at Starbucks and he was a really nice guy! But when I saw that the whole parish was middle eastern, shoot, I just chickened out completely. Imagine a 6 foot five tall Anglo and a 5’1" filipino lady with three kids joining up at an Egyptian Church…alas…

I have met some Hungarians from around Chicago, even went to grade school with some, but none born in the old country. They wouldn’t know the answer to this question, I am sure

The only ones today I can meet and ask this to are “cyber-friends”, few and far-between at that.

So I guess it’s not a real meeting, actually. In fact in all my time on CAF I think I have only been able to pose this question twice, and I don’t remember ever getting a response.

 

[Hesychios]

The Link on “The spirituality of the Christian East” isn’t working.

dang

I never have this trouble when I’m on a MAC :manvspc:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CAeU3jClL.SL500_AA300.jpg

amazon.com/Spirituality-Christian-East-Systematic-Cistercian/dp/0879079797/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302466613&sr=1-2

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m not certain that the debate is about whether the Son has a role in “the inner life” of the Holy Trinity itself (though there might be some EO who style it that way). All Eastern and Oriental (not to mention Western) patristic sources are practically unanimous that the Spirit obtains the Divine Essence from the Father through the Son. In equivalent terms, this means that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father AND the Son (filioque). Thus, the Son can never be considered non-essential to the “inner life” of the Holy Trinity.

The real question has always been about the Son’s role in the origin of the PERSON of the Spirit. EVERYONE agrees that the PERSON of the HS originates from the Father alone. The issue is the use of the term “subsistence” in describing the relationship of the Son to the HS. The Council of Florence asserts that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son [in] the sense that…the Son should be signified, according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.”

Since the Son has a mediating role in the transmission of the Divine Essence from the Father to the HS, and the Divine Essence is the very thing that “makes” the HS “God,” then Latins cannot deny that the Son participates in the subsistence of the HS. Of course, the HS is a distinct PERSON of the Godhead, and is not exclusively defined according to His Divine Essence alone (if this were so, then one could not distinguish the HS from the Father or the Son, Who are also God by virtue of this same Divine Essence). The Latins fully understand this, and acknowledged by the North American Catholic-Orthodox colloquy on the matter. This was also affirmed by the OFFICIAL Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, wherein it was asserted that when the Latins speak of the Son being the subsistence of the HS “just like the Father,” they are referring to the Divine Essence, not the Person of the HS (the latter being ekporeusai from the Father alone).

You would think that would settle it, but certain modern EO apologists have added an novel dimension to the debate. It is now claimed by certain EO that the procession, as it relates to the Son, can only refer to the temporal sending of the HS from the Father through the Son. This is not the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas nor of the Synod of Blarchanae, who specifically taught that the manifestation or energetic procession (according to the expression of St.Palamas) of the HS from the Son is in the order of the ETERNAL, not the merely temporal.

The other issue that seems to be delaying rapprochement is the canonical rationale for the addition of filioque in the Latin Creed. Many want the filioque removed as a condition of reunion. The fact of the matter is:
(1) No one in the East ever insisted that the Latins remove filioque from their Creed until St. Photius’ time (certainly St. Maximos did not insist upon it for him to regard himself as being in communion with Rome).
(2) Even then, the rationale for the removal was not a canonical one, but was rather purely theological. Up until the time of Mark of Ephesus, inclusive, the demand that the Latins remove filioque was based on a (mis)understanding that the Latin use of filioque was denuding the Father’s role as Arche in the Trinity). Any arguments in these medieval Eastern sources against the impropriety of the textual addition was based purely on its theological relevance. The medieval Easterns were complaining against filioque not because they thought it was an improper addition of text, but because of what they genuinely believed to be a heterodox addition to the Faith itself (due to a misunderstanding of the Latin theology for the use of filioque).

As I’ve always maintained, any demand by non-Latins for the Latins to remove filioque is at this time premature. We need to work for understanding first. Without this proper common understanding of each others’ theological positions, removing filioque will cause more problems than it will solve. And I think we can all admit there is still a lot of misunderstanding between our respective Churches (and even among members of our respective Churches) that need to be ironed out.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you for the clarification, Marduk. Your precision is laudable, responsible, and much appreciated.

In particular:

On this point, I would disagree with your statement that Eastern Catholics interpret Filioque as merely referring to the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world by the Son. I’ve only ever met one EC layman who, following modern EO sources, makes such a claim. The rest I’ve encountered follow the Synod of Blarchanae and St. Gregory Palamas in acknowledging the ETERNAL energetic procession of the HS from the Father through the Son.

I stand corrected, then. I wasn’t aware of that.

I’m impressed by the work you’ve done on this, Marduk. It really seems to me now that it should be possible someday to standardize the Creed across the whole Catholic faith. I’m sure the Latin Church would be willing to compromise on the “filioque” - if we added it, we can certainly revise/change it.

How do you think the other twenty-two Catholic churches would feel about a phrase like “per Filium”, Marduk? I know you probably feel comfortable speaking only for your Coptic/Alexandrian/Oriental heritage, but I hope it doesn’t hurt to ask.

I’m not a theologian, so forgive any idiocy or ignorance here on my part.

 

[MontChevalier]

dang

I never have this trouble when I’m on a MAC :manvspc:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CAeU3jClL.SL500_AA300.jpg

amazon.com/Spirituality-Christian-East-Systematic-Cistercian/dp/0879079797/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302466613&sr=1-2

Thank you.

Just added it to my list of books to get on Amazon. =]

 

[ciero]

Well I grew up and still live in the Central Valley of California. Around here it’s Mexicans, Portuguese, Okies (Oklahoma from the Dust Bowl era), Lahu (Asians from Thailand), Mexicans, some Italians, and did I mention Mexicans and Portuguese?

I’ve only met a couple of Russians, Croats, Serbs my whole life but that’s only because they were exchange students…The Slavic folks, Hungarians, Romanians, and more exotic Eastern immigrants are more in San Francisco and Los Angeles, etc.

I actually considered going up to Fresno at one time and trying out either a Greek Orthodox or a Serbian Orthodox church up there…At one point when I was totally frustrated with Catholicism (in many ways I still am!) I considered going to St. Bishoy’s Coptic Church here in town. My wife met the priest at Starbucks and he was a really nice guy! But when I saw that the whole parish was middle eastern, shoot, I just chickened out completely. Imagine a 6 foot five tall Anglo and a 5’1" filipino lady with three kids joining up at an Egyptian Church…alas…

I have met a number of blonde hair blue eyed converts to the Coptic church here in So. Cal.

 

[Sir_Thomas_More]

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.

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).

Thank you for the response, I will try to get into what Im talking about in the second part of the quote, although you answered it for the most part in the first part in a private message or post.

 

[Sir_Thomas_More]

Sorry this is what I meant to post and it wont let me edit it because of fun forum rules.

Thank you for the response, I will try to get into what Im talking about in the second part of the quote in a private message or post, although you answered it for the most part in the first part and were slightly clairvoyant in the second.

 

[Aramis]

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?

Even when saying the Roman mass in Greek, the filioque is not used, as in greek, it requires a rewording much more drastic than “and the son” to avoid being heretical.

This is because the greek uses ekporosis, not proenai. (spelling?) Ekporousis from the father and son IS heresy. Proenai is not. But the creedo latinae uses procedit where the greek uses Ekporousis, and procedit is much closer in meaning to Proenai…

 

[sidbrown]

Without this proper common understanding of each others’ theological positions, removing filioque will cause more problems than it will solve.

What terrible problems would be caused if the filioque is removed from the creed?
It was removed fairly recently from the creed of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church and I didn’t hear of any problems whatsoever when it was removed from the creed at their religious service.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Sid,

What terrible problems would be caused if the filioque is removed from the creed?
It was removed fairly recently from the creed of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church and I didn’t hear of any problems whatsoever when it was removed from the creed at their religious service.

I was talking about removing it from the LATIN Creed, not the non-Latin Creeds.

Fully apprised of the theology of the Latin Creed on the matter of filioque (i.e., to denote the sharing of the Divine Essence among the three Persons of the Trinity), I can imagine some schismatic sect claiming one of the following:
(1) You used to teach that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Now, you deny that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son, which is heresy.
(2) If you admit the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father, but deny that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son, then you admit that the Divine Essence is not common to all three Persons, which indicates you do not believe in one God, but three Gods.

I can imagine some modern, Western Arian-like heretical sect using the removal of filioque to support its own heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

Dear brother Sid,

I was talking about removing it from the LATIN Creed, not the non-Latin Creeds.

Fully apprised of the theology of the Latin Creed on the matter of filioque (i.e., to denote the sharing of the Divine Essence among the three Persons of the Trinity), I can imagine some schismatic sect claiming one of the following:
(1) You used to teach that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Now, you deny that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son, which is heresy.
(2) If you admit the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father, but deny that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son, then you admit that the Divine Essence is not common to all three Persons, which indicates you do not believe in one God, but three Gods.

I can imagine some modern, Western Arian-like heretical sect using the removal of filioque to support its own heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

With proper instruction, I don;t see that happening on a large scale.
The Ruthenians had the filioque for a long while, and then after Vatican II, it was taken out and there were no problems at all. I don;t see it being any different for the latin or western Church except possilbly on a small scale similar to the number of sedevacantists today.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Change gears. How about Transubstantiation?