Do Eastern Catholics say the RC Creed?

[Speedypizza]

If I understand it correctly, the Orthodox Churches do not believe that the Holy Spirit comes from both the father and the son, and that the RC’s do. I just wanted to know what the Eastern Catholics think about this, and if their creed is the same as we (RC’s) use.

Also, and this question is open to any Orthodox on here as well as Eastern Catholics, why did you start to use bread with yeast, and is there any reason for this difference? If you have always used this kind of bread, did the West change or did each do their own thing from the beginning?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

We Eastern (Byzantine) Catholics say the Creed without the filioque (i.e. Holy Spirit… proceeds from the Father and the Son). In other words, we recite the Creed as any Orthodox Christian would. This is the ancient custom of the Church. Rome at first resisted the addition of the filioque into its Creed, but eventually gave in.

The use of leavened bread is also very ancient, and was supposedly the original usage of Rome as well. It wasn’t until much later that Rome started using unleavened bread. The Byzantines went rounds and rounds with the Armenians (I think it’s the Armenians) over the use of unleavened bread in the Liturgy. When Rome introduced the same usage, the Byzantines were again exasperated. This is, at least, what I heard from Fr. David Anderson - a former Orthodox, now Ukrainian Catholic protege of the great Fr. Alexander Schmemann.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

If I understand it correctly, the Orthodox Churches do not believe that the Holy Spirit comes from both the father and the son, and that the RC’s do. I just wanted to know what the Eastern Catholics think about this, and if their creed is the same as we (RC’s) use.

Also, and this question is open to any Orthodox on here as well as Eastern Catholics, why did you start to use bread with yeast, and is there any reason for this difference? If you have always used this kind of bread, did the West change or did each do their own thing from the beginning?

The West changed to using unleavened bread, as I mentioned in my previous post. I don’t know the dates. But the question could be asked, “why did the West start using unleavened bread?” The Byzantines have always used leavened bread.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Without comment on the issue of the filioque, I would share and confirm that in the Byzantine-Ruthenian tradition, we recite the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

There was a time some years back when we recited this Creed with the filioque inserted (that is how I first learned it as a youngster). However, as we now are fully encouraged by Rome to restore our traditions, the original unaltered version is back in regular usage.

 

[Speedypizza]

The West changed to using unleavened bread, as I mentioned in my previous post. I don’t know the dates. But the question could be asked, “why did the West start using unleavened bread?” The Byzantines have always used leavened bread.

I know next to nothing of the issue (that is why I am asking) however I thought I heard that the reason that we use unleavened bread has to do with the passover meal being eaten with unleavened bread and therefor we assume what Jesus would have used? I am not sure on this however, as the question is not what Jews do now or even what all Jews did 2000 years ago, but what was the custom of Jews in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

 

[Speedypizza]

For anybody who cares, I have done a little searching online for information about it, and to say I am shocked at how deep this seemingly simple issue (if the bread should have yeast or not) goes is an understatement.

Nobody seems to be able to prove either way what the first Christians did, however the Eastern view makes a lot of sense once you get into the reasons for its use.

prosphora.org/page27.html

 

[Lancer]

FYI…Pax Christi

The Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/01349d.htm
for valid consecration the hosts must be:

Made of wheaten flour,
mixed with pure natural water,
baked in an oven, or between two heated iron moulds, and
they must not be corrupted (miss. Rom., de defectibus, iii, 1).
If the host is not made of wheaten flour, or is mixed with flour of another kind in such quantity that it cannot be called wheat bread, it may not be used (ibid.). If not natural but distilled water is used, the consecration becomes of doubtful validity (ibid., 2). If the host begins to be corrupt, it would be a grievous offence to use it, but it is considered valid matter (ibid., 3.)

for licit consecration:

The bread must be, at present unleavened in the western church, but leavened bread in the eastern church, except among the maronites, the armenians, and in the churches of jerusalem and alexandria, where it is unleavened. It is probable that christ used unleavened bread at the institution of the blessed eucharist, because the jews were not allowed to have leavened bread in their houses on the days of the azymes. some authors are of the opinion that down to the tenth century both the eastern and western churches used leavened bread; others maintain that unleavened bread was used from the beginning in the western church; still others hold that unleavened or leavened bread was used indifferently. St. Thomas (iv, dist. Xi, qu. 3) holds that, in the beginning, both in the east and west unleavened bread was used; that when the sect of the ebionites arose, who wished that the mosaic law should be obligatory on all converts, leavened bread was used, and when this heresy ceased the latins used again unleavened bread, but the greeks retained the use of leavened bread. Leavened bread may be used in the latin church if after consecration the celebrant adverts to the fact that the host before him has some substantial defect, and no other than leavened bread can be procured at the time (lehmkuhl, n. 121, 3).** a latin priest travelling in the east, in places in which there are no churches of his rite, may celebrate with leavened bread. A greek priest travelling in the west may, under similar circumstances, celebrate with unleavened bread. **for the purpose of giving viaticum, if no unleavened bread be at hand, some say that leavened may be used; but st. Liguori, (bk. Vi. N. 203, dub. 2) says that the more probable opinion of theologians is that it cannot be done.

 

[Marcarios]

The arguement made by scholars and historians that the early Church used unleaven bread because of Christ using it for the Jewish Passover is irrelevant in so far that if even if this were true or accurate, the Church which over a short amount of time became filled with Gentile converts. This being the case, they would have had no reason to use unleaven bread because they were not semetic or Jewish. This of course being an aspect rooted in the Old Testament, it makes no sense then based on this, that they would use unleaven bread. Of course there is also the fact that the Latin Church used Leaven Bread in their Liturgies, before they changed the rite in the middle ages. Of course if the common liturgical tradition of the Church is this, it makes no sense why it would’nt be done this way. Also, why if your Christian and hold to the True Faith would you want your liturgical tradition to mirror practices of the Jews who do not ?

 

[Cavaradossi]

We Eastern (Byzantine) Catholics say the Creed without the filioque (i.e. Holy Spirit… proceeds from the Father and the Son). In other words, we recite the Creed as any Orthodox Christian would. This is the ancient custom of the Church. Rome at first resisted the addition of the filioque into its Creed, but eventually gave in.

The use of leavened bread is also very ancient, and was supposedly the original usage of Rome as well. It wasn’t until much later that Rome started using unleavened bread. The Byzantines went rounds and rounds with the Armenians (I think it’s the Armenians) over the use of unleavened bread in the Liturgy. When Rome introduced the same usage, the Byzantines were again exasperated. This is, at least, what I heard from Fr. David Anderson - a former Orthodox, now Ukrainian Catholic protege of the great Fr. Alexander Schmemann.

I think you are correct. The Armenians are the ones who used unleavened bread since ancient times. They have quite a few odd customs which always attracted the attention of Eastern polemicists.

 

[Alfonsus]

The arguement made by scholars and historians that the early Church used unleaven bread because of Christ using it for the Jewish Passover is irrelevant in so far that if even if this were true or accurate, the Church which over a short amount of time became filled with Gentile converts. This being the case, they would have had no reason to use unleaven bread because they were not semetic or Jewish. This of course being an aspect rooted in the Old Testament, it makes no sense then based on this, that they would use unleaven bread. Of course there is also the fact that the Latin Church used Leaven Bread in their Liturgies, before they changed the rite in the middle ages. Of course if the common liturgical tradition of the Church is this, it makes no sense why it would’nt be done this way. Also, why if your Christian and hold to the True Faith would you want your liturgical tradition to mirror practices of the Jews who do not ?

Well, why not? Most of the practices underlines the continuity with the Jewish custom. Some retained, others are adapted to gentiles custom. But it is at the same absurd to get rid of Jewish root of the Church simply because gentiles are the majority Christian.
I’m glad that the Church treasure some Jewish tradition within her.
Can Chinese descent gentiles (me for one), choose to use steamed rice bread because we are have no Hebrew connection at all?

 

[Ambrosian]

Interesting that the Filioque was mentioned once at the beginning of a thread pertaining to the holy Creed, and then dropped for a discussion of bread.

To the Creed itself: nothing in “et ex Patre procedit” suggests that the Most Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, does not proceed from the Son; indeed, if “I and the Father are One”, it makes sense that the Holy Spirit may be said to proceed from the Father, or from the Father and the Son, the “breath” (spiritus) of both. Either way, if the Son is from the Father alone and the Spirit from the Father alone, both glorious hypostases proceed in the same manner from the Father Almighty. If this is so, there is no necessary distinction between Son and Spirit (since the only distinction in the blessed Trinity is how each holy Person proceeds from or is related to the Other) and thus Son and Spirit cannot be distinguished! Calamity!

Neither the addition of ‘filioque’ nor the keeping of merely ‘Patre’ contradict the true faith. The Holy God is the Holy God forever. Interestingly, “filioque”, when added, is a sure-fire way to destroy Arianism: for how can Christ said to be a mere creature or transfigured man if the Holy Spirit, God, proceeds from Him for eternity? Anyway, saying “proceeds from the Father” can imply the Son as well. This is, or should be, a non-issue!

 

[Mickey]

When I was Byzantine Catholic I attended a parish which recited the filioque in the Creed.

That was more than a decade ago. I think they have since omitted it.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

When I was Byzantine Catholic I attended a parish which recited the filioque in the Creed.

That was more than a decade ago. I think they have since omitted it.

As for the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church, that is certainly the case - the Creed is now recited “sans filioque”.

 

[MrPip]

Interesting that the Filioque was mentioned once at the beginning of a thread pertaining to the holy Creed, and then dropped for a discussion of bread.

Neither the addition of ‘filioque’ nor the keeping of merely ‘Patre’ contradict the true faith. The Holy God is the Holy God forever. Interestingly, “filioque”, when added, is a sure-fire way to destroy Arianism: for how can Christ said to be a mere creature or transfigured man if the Holy Spirit, God, proceeds from Him for eternity? Anyway, saying “proceeds from the Father” can imply the Son as well. This is, or should be, a non-issue!

Amen, amen, AMEN!! (And that goes for the bread, too, imnsho ).

In Christ,
Jeff

 

[Mickey]

As for the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church, that is certainly the case - the Creed is now recited “sans filioque”.

I imagine there could be a stray hold-out here or there.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I imagine there could be a stray hold-out here or there.

I did get “lectured” pretty heavily (very sharply and angrily) by an older parishioner while cantoring at the Cathedral parish, shortly after this change was made. I was personally accused of “promoting Orthodoxy”, called a schismatic, and was told I should “pick up and go to the [Russian] Orthodox church down the street”. I was a younger man at the time, and while I did have an appreciation for the broader debate over the filioque, I did not fully appreciate the historical context and sentiments amongst our people as I do now, after much research. The pew book in use at the time had the filioque in parenthesis, so one would suspect there was more to the story, even if relatively uninformed on the subject. The angry parishioner would offer no explanation as to why that was the case (just made him more angry, even though I asked quite politely, genuinely wanting to hear his explanation for this).

Looking back, I now take that rather sharp criticism as a real compliment!

 

[couponfit]

If I understand it correctly, the Orthodox Churches do not believe that the Holy Spirit comes from both the father and the son, and that the RC’s do. I just wanted to know what the Eastern Catholics think about this, and if their creed is the same as we (RC’s) use.

Also, and this question is open to any Orthodox on here as well as Eastern Catholics, why did you start to use bread with yeast, and is there any reason for this difference? If you have always used this kind of bread, did the West change or did each do their own thing from the beginning?

The filoque is a matter of translation from greek. The spirit comes from the father and through the son. Saying the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son; and saying that the holy spirit proceeds from the father does not set up either faith to repudiate or create a separate belief from that of what the council of nicea agreed to. This was just a matter of translation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I imagine there could be a stray hold-out here or there.

Funny story at my parish. Our usual books either have it completely out, or the older books have been erased either by white-out or a black marker. But we have special books which are used seldom in a year, like ones special for a particular Great Feast, Easter etc. Anyway, one of the old books didn’t get corrected and had the Filioque there and people just mindlessly read through the creed with the Filioque even though for Sundays and daily Divine Liturgy, we do not recite it.

 

[Mickey]

Anyway, one of the old books didn’t get corrected and had the Filioque there and people just mindlessly read through the creed with the Filioque even though for Sundays and daily Divine Liturgy, we do not recite it.

Spooky!

 

[MrPip]

Funny story at my parish. Our usual books either have it completely out, or the older books have been erased either by white-out or a black marker. But we have special books which are used seldom in a year, like ones special for a particular Great Feast, Easter etc. Anyway, one of the old books didn’t get corrected and had the Filioque there and people just mindlessly read through the creed with the Filioque even though for Sundays and daily Divine Liturgy, we do not recite it.

In the absence of comments or evidence to the contrary, that could show how much of a non-issue the filioque really is. And so it should be!