Do Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics have the same beliefs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Windfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear brother Sid,
sidbrown said:
With proper instruction, I don;t see that happening on a large scale.
Click to expand...
We might actually be on the same page here. I would equate your “proper instruction” with the necessary spiritual fruit of understanding that must first be achieved before any demands to remove filioque can be justified.
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.
Click to expand...
It is different because the theological premise of the Latins is different from the theological permise of the Easterns. There is no problem with removing filioque from the theological perspective of the Easterns, but removing filioque from the Latin theological perspective has some heterodox ramifications.

You could validly argue that not all the Latin Churches had filioque in their Creed prior to the 11th century. But I could just as validly argue that since St. Maximos did not demand filioque be removed for him to regard himself as being in communion with the Latins, then there is certainly no solid patristic basis for non-Latins to demand its removal as a condition for reunion either.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
ciero said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course I’m aware of that. I think I even alluded to it. I said in an earlier post “In fact, Pope Benedict (or JP2) recited the Creed without the filioque when meeting with Patriach Bartholomew. So its not a problem.” In the post where you are quoting me, I was talking about how in the Latin Mass the filioque is recited. The Greek was not even an issue I raised at all. Of course I know its not in the Greek. But let me ask you, do you believe that the filioque as the Latin Church understands it, is a heresy?
 
The interesting issue that is brought up here more than once about how the removal/inclusion of this or that phrase could support heresy is an age-old one.

Such instances were always based on regional heresies that had no significance in other regions of the Church.

And ultimately, a heretical sect could use almost any teaching in the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church to promote its own agenda.

(For this reason too, the non-canonical Gospel of Peter was removed from commemorations of the Passion of Christ as a result of its use by Docetists).

Bl. John Henry Newman had a quaint way of putting it. After talking about all the different heretical sects, he said that if any members of these sects were to be asked by a tourist in their city about the location of the “Catholic Church” in the area - they would all point to one and the same parish which would be one none of them would be members of.

I don’t know, I just like that.

Alex
 
Aramis said:
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…
Click to expand...
Then it seems the key is what exactly does “procedit” mean in today’s English? “Proceeds” seems rather lame description for Deity. Would it be better for the East and West to remove the entire clause out? Just asking for opinions.
 
How about Transubstantiation?
Click to expand...
It’s perfect the way it is.

trans {“across, over, beyond, through”}
  • sub {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”}
  • stantis (past participle of stare {“to stand as, to be”})
 
mardukm said:
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.
Click to expand...
That would be my conclusion too, if “proceeds” leads one to think of equivalence and substance leads one to think of equivalence. But is it really? (“sub” means {“under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly”})
 
mardukm said:
That there is a real and true change in the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? Who would object to that?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I mean, I know the East uses a different philosophy to explain the change. I forget what it is.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I mean, I know the East uses a different philosophy to explain the change. I forget what it is.
Click to expand...
The term transubstantiation relies on Aristotle’s notions of FORM and SUBSTANCE. (Plato spoke on Form and Substance too, but I think this comes from the more developed thought of Aristotle on the subject.)

It is not necessary to appeal to Aristotle to explain a mystery of God. In fact it is probably unwise to do so.
 
But didn’t many of the Fathers and great theologians of the Church use pagan concepts and pagan rhetoric as well as vocabulary and understandings of things in the Hellenistic world Alexander left behind to explain Christian concepts and spirituality? Doesn’t pagan thinking help in unpacking Christianity to some degree? Augustine used Neo-Platonic and Manichean thinking to explain Christianity to us and he did so in a powerful way…What is really wrong with scholasticism as long as it is the Magisterium of the Church collectively and holistically looking at it and using it to help us explain things?
Hesychios said:
The term transubstantiation relies on Aristotle’s notions of FORM and SUBSTANCE. (Plato spoke on Form and Substance too, but I think this comes from the more developed thought of Aristotle on the subject.)

It is not necessary to appeal to Aristotle to explain a mystery of God. In fact it is probably unwise to do so.
Click to expand...
 
Scholasticism is fine and it was studied assiduously in the Orthodox world.

The “problem” with Scholasticism that Eastern Christians have is not WITH Scholasticism but when the Scholastic expression of Christian faith is seen to be a kind of overarching one that the East needs to accept in order to be in “good standing” with the West.

That, of course, is nonsense.

Alex
 
sidbrown said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is even more complicated than this!

At first, the Ruthenians of the Union of Brest opposed the imposition of the Filioque. This was actually done with RC Polish military/police force in western Ukraine and Belarus.

To avoid problems, the Ruthenian Catholic people invented the word “Istynno” or “truly” that sounds like the Filioque in Slavonic or “I Syna.” They placed this word in such a way that when the gendarmes listened in they heard what they thought was the Filioque but which was “Proceeds truly from the Father.”

Over time, the Filioque became an integral part of the Creed for the Ruthenian Catholics (all East Slavic Greek-Catholics). When the Russian armies came into EC areas, the first thing the ROC did was announce an “Easternization program” and then, as a first order of business, proceeded to remove the Filioque at all EC parishes (which then led to full-scale integration with the ROC).

This is why the Filioque is seen by many Ruthenian Catholics as “our tradition” and why they would NEVER have it removed, no matter what Rome says about it. (Who listens to Rome nowadays anyway? 😉 )

So, yes, the removal of the Filioque is not met with the same feelings in all RC (Ruthenian Catholic) parishes.

Alex
 
Hesychios said:
The term transubstantiation relies on Aristotle’s notions of FORM and SUBSTANCE. (Plato spoke on Form and Substance too, but I think this comes from the more developed thought of Aristotle on the subject.)

It is not necessary to appeal to Aristotle to explain a mystery of God. In fact it is probably unwise to do so.
Click to expand...
So what is the East’s way of explaining the change?
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
…What is really wrong with scholasticism as long as it is the Magisterium of the Church collectively and holistically looking at it and using it to help us explain things?
Click to expand...
I didn’t mention scholasticism.

But as long as we are talking about holistically explaining things, I am sure the ‘church’ can dip into Indian pagan philosophy and Chinese pagan philosophy to help explain things as well. Why exclude the Indian pagan and the Chinese pagan terminology, do the Greeks have a pride of place?

The plain fact is Christians do not need an explanation of the mystery, seeking an explanation is like reaching for a crutch one has never really needed.

Jesus said it, I believe it. That’s an act of faith - not science - not philosophy.

Our faith is a revelation of God. We don’t need to test it against other thought systems. If the word of God Himself doesn’t convince one, of what use is the word of men?

RC like trans-substantiation, some Lutherans like con-substantiation. Both are flawed because they are based on the premise that we creatures can ‘figure out’ God. They might both be equally right, or even equally wrong, because the wisdom of men is foolishness before God.

Over such questions men have been burned, to what good purpose?

It is this kind of foolishness that divides the body of Christ, and pits one man against another.

That is why I posted what I did, someone else suggested we have another philosophy for explaining that the Real Presense, but the fact is we don’t. We don’t need to dogmatize free speculation, studied guesses nor flights of fancy. Theological opinions should not be used to divide us or give us an excuse to condemn one another.

Our faith is a paradox, it is and will remain a mystery. We may not like that, perhaps it doesn’t satisfy one’s taste for elegant thought, but that’s all it really is.
 
Aristotlean thought is related to scholasticism, Michael. You’re splitting hairs. Scholasticism. Using dialectical reasoning and helping resolve contradictions through inference and reason, men like Augustine of Canterbury, Aquinas, William of Ockham, Bonaventure and company appealed to Aristotle greatly in their unpacking of theological matters. You are a smart guy. You know that Aristotle was the heart of scholasticism. This is hair-splitting.

Regarding Indian and Chinese philosphy, that’s nonsense and you know it. The early Christian WERE PAGANS and they used their pagan understandings of metaphysics to inform how they explained Christology, theology, soteriology, atonement, etc. I’m surprised you would think the Fathers didn’t use their pagan educations and sensibilities to explain Christianity? Surely you know that? And if you did know that you wouldn’t make absurd statements about Chinese and Hindu philosophy being in the picture. I know you’re not an Augustine fan because he didn’t speak Greek. With the Orthodox, if one didn’t speak Greek or appealed to Greek thinking, it’s not usually respected, which is unfortunate. Augustine’s background in pagan rhetoric and metaphysics contributed to Western Christianity in a valuable way that means a lot to me.

Nobody is saying that science or philosphy trumps faith. Strawman…

The idea that Catholics think they can “figure out God” is nonsense also. Catholics believe transubstantiation is a divinely-revealed truth and an important dogma of the Church. It doesn’t say HOW God makes His presence tangiable to us, it explains the mechanism of it. I fail to see how that is “figuring out God.” One could just as easily say that iconography being “windows into heaven” and all the things Orthodox claim about icons that are not Scriptural or really existent early on could be trying to “figure out God.”

Calling our beliefs “foolishness” is offensive to me and you need to keep in mind you are a guest on a Catholic forum insulting Catholic thinking. “Foolishness” is crossing the line, brother Michael. And I fail to see where we have a “taste for elegant thought.” :rolleyes:
Hesychios said:
I didn’t mention scholasticism.

But as long as we are talking about holistically explaining things, I am sure the ‘church’ can dip into Indian pagan philosophy and Chinese pagan philosophy to help explain things as well. Why exclude the Indian pagan and the Chinese pagan terminology, do the Greeks have a pride of place?

The plain fact is Christians do not need an explanation of the mystery, seeking an explanation is like reaching for a crutch one has never really needed.

Jesus said it, I believe it. That’s an act of faith - not science - not philosophy.

Our faith is a revelation of God. We don’t need to test it against other thought systems. If the word of God Himself doesn’t convince one, of what use is the word of men?

RC like trans-substantiation, some Lutherans like con-substantiation. Both are flawed because they are based on the premise that we creatures can ‘figure out’ God. They might both be equally right, or even equally wrong, because the wisdom of men is foolishness before God.

Over such questions men have been burned, to what good purpose?

It is this kind of foolishness that divides the body of Christ, and pits one man against another.

That is why I posted what I did, someone else suggested we have another philosophy for explaining that the Real Presense, but the fact is we don’t. We don’t need to dogmatize free speculation, studied guesses nor flights of fancy. Theological opinions should not be used to divide us or give us an excuse to condemn one another.

Our faith is a paradox, it is and will remain a mystery. We may not like that, perhaps it doesn’t satisfy one’s taste for elegant thought, but that’s all it really is.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top