Do Eastern Catholics say the RC Creed?

[ConstantineTG]

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!

Or how people never really bother to memorize the creed

 

[MrPip]

Or how people never really bother to memorize the creed

How could they not memorize it?

 

[dcointin]

I asked the priest who chrismated me, who is primarily a western-rite Orthodox priest, what he thought of the filioque. He said it was a non issue and perfectly acceptable if understood correctly. I was floored, an Orthodox priest saying the filioque is acceptable!

There may be hope for the churches yet!

 

[5Loaves]

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.

For some background on this you may wish to read the The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue? An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC, October 25, 2003, available here and here

I just wanted to know what the Eastern Catholics think about this, and if their creed is the same as we (RC’s) use.

The Filioque doesn’t appear in any of the print copies of the Creed/Symbol of the Faith in my parish. Our oldest copies are the Divine Liturgy booklets printed by the Russian Center, Fordham University, copyright 1956, imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman Sept 1955.

As has been posted already, in the Greek there is no Filioque. Here is HH Benedict XVI praying it thus in union with His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I.

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? **

Just to support what others have already said about this there is a short response on the OCA website Q&A about this “Leavened Bread vs. Unleavened”

Actually, leavened bread has always been used in the Eastern Church. In fact, at one point in time, a great controversy raged over the fact that in the Eastern Church leavened bread was used, while in the Christian West unleavened bread was the norm.

In the Christian East there is no concern for using the exact type of bread used at the Last Supper—known in the Orthodox Church as the “Mystical Supper.” Christ “leavens” our lives, so to speak, and the purpose of the Eucharistic celebration is not to “recreate” or “reproduce” a past event but, rather, to participate in an event that is beyond time and space and which, in fact, continues to happen each time the Eucharist is celebrated in fulfillment of Our Lord’s command.

 

[MrPip]

I asked the priest who chrismated me, who is primarily a western-rite Orthodox priest, what he thought of the filioque. He said it was a non issue and perfectly acceptable if understood correctly. I was floored, an Orthodox priest saying the filioque is acceptable!

There may be hope for the churches yet!

There is always hope! If not in men, then certainly in Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How could they not memorize it?

I don’t know, you’d think something you recite at least 52 times a year would stick. But obviously they were reading and following whats in the text. Maybe because it was a different service (I forgot if it was Vespers or something else) that maybe they were just cautious with the responses and made sure to read off everything.

 

[MrPip]

I don’t know, you’d think something you recite at least 52 times a year would stick. But obviously they were reading and following whats in the text. Maybe because it was a different service (I forgot if it was Vespers or something else) that maybe they were just cautious with the responses and made sure to read off everything.

You would also think that if they were cautious and reading, somebody would have noticed. Given what I know of Eastern Catholics, it would have been surprising if, having noticed, nobody said anything about it. Oh well…

 

[ConstantineTG]

You would also think that if they were cautious and reading, somebody would have noticed. Given what I know of Eastern Catholics, it would have been surprising if, having noticed, nobody said anything about it. Oh well…

Yup, we just don’t make a fuss of it. I noticed and smiled when it happened. Most people in the real world don’t care either way anyway.

 

[MrPip]

Yup, we just don’t make a fuss of it. I noticed and smiled when it happened. Most people in the real world don’t care either way anyway.

So…in the real world, it really is a non-issue! :clapping::extrahappy::yup:

 

[ConstantineTG]

So…in the real world, it really is a non-issue! :clapping::extrahappy::yup:

I’m sure there are those who would fuss about it. But its not like we go to coffee after Divine Liturgy and people are fuming mad about it. We do that over which hymn book to use but not the Creed

 

[MrPip]

I’m sure there are those who would fuss about it. But its not like we go to coffee after Divine Liturgy and people are fuming mad about it. We do that over which hymn book to use but not the Creed

Well, I guess if someone’s got to fume about something, better the hymnal than the filioque, eh ?

 

[ProVobis]

How could they not memorize it?

I hear the English Masses are going more Apostles’ Creed now that too many were still on the old translation of the Nicene Creed, which is now illegal. “And from the Son” isn’t an issue with the AC.

I myself never bothered memorizing the English Nicene Creed.

 

[Mickey]

There may be hope for the churches yet!

I would guess that such a statement would be a set back. I wonder what his bishop thinks?

 

[dochawk]

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.

I asked the priest who chrismated me, who is primarily a western-rite Orthodox priest, what he thought of the filioque. He said it was a non issue and perfectly acceptable if understood correctly. I was floored, an Orthodox priest saying the filioque is acceptable!

It really comes to Linguistic differences between Latin and Greek.

Put a bunch of EO and RC theologians in a room and they will agree that the Holy Spirit originates in the Father alone. They will also agree that the Spirit comes through the Son in the physical world. They will agree that contradicting either of these is heretical.

Greek and Latin are different creatures. the creed is written in greekmand only translated into Latin. The word used for “proceed” in the Greek creed means proceeding in origin. Tack the Filioque on to this phrase with that verb in Greek and the RC theologian will gree thT it is heretical. You would have to add a different verb, not just “and the Son.”

The Latin verb, though, is used for procession in origin, and also for proceeding temporally (here in the physical world). As I said above, translated back into Greek with the single verb, the Latin creed, not offensive on its own, becomes heretical.

The two sides are I violent agreement.

There is another issue, though–the Council of Constantinople, in addition to refining the Nicean creed, declared that it was not to be changed except in future council, which did not happen before the western addition. This is another source of contention.

hawk

 

[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 council of nicea is in Greek and written it says from the father literally. The intention was from the father through the son from the actual meaning. Catholic translation of the Greek allows both father and father and son as accurate translations of the Greek.

The difference is the holy spirit is generated by the father and proceeds through the son.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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!

Arianism would have been destroyed by the main section of the Creed where Christ’s Divinity is clearly defined. Sabellianism is what is suggested by the Filioque . . .

The Son and the Spirit do NOT proceed in the same manner from the Father - the Creed is very clear on that where the Son is eternally Begotten and the Spirit Proceeds from the Father (taking the words from our Saviour Himself).

The fact that we cannot know HOW Begetting and Proceeding are distinct does not mean they are not. Both East and West assert this and have always asserted this before the real calamity of the Filioque.

The Filioque is an entirely Western construct that has no place in a universal Creed intended to express the one Faith of the undivided Catholic Church. Roman Catholics should go back to the original Tradition of their own Church and of their own Popes (especially Pope St Leo IV).

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The council of nicea is in Greek and written it says from the father literally. The intention was from the father through the son from the actual meaning. Catholic translation of the Greek allows both father and father and son as accurate translations of the Greek.

The difference is the holy spirit is generated by the father and proceeds through the son.

At no time did the Latin West, prior to 1012, allow for the Filioque to be an accurate translation of the Greek Nicene Creed. Pope St Leo IV had Greek AND Latin translations of the Creed made, both without the Filioque and had both placed on the Tomb of St Peter at Rome. Roman Catholics should maintain the original tradition of their own Church and their Popes who defended the original Creed without the Filioque. This doesn’t mean that the Filioque cannot be part of the Latin Triadological tradition - only that it has no place in a Creed intended to be a universal expression of the Trinitarian faith of the universal Church.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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.

I was always told by my Latin Catholic professors that unleavened bread had more to do with communicable diseases in the Middle Ages . . . .(?).

In any event, for the East, leavened bread symbolizes Christ’s glorious Resurrection as it is bread that has “risen.” And the wine used must always be red to signify Christ’s Blood.

I do go to Communion at Latin Rite Masses, but the experience is never a good one for me over all.

I prefer the EC Communion in Both Kinds that signify the Risen Christ, His Most Precious and Most Pure Body and Blood.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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!

Very much like my initial experience . . . When I recited the Creed without the Filioque, the parish priest called me into the sacristy and literally punched me in the chest while exclaiming, “Don’t you believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, you . . ?”

We had a less physical theological discussion afterwards . . . it gave me an insight into what some of the proceedings of the ecumenical councils must have been like . . .

But the Filioque took on a very strong “Anti-Russian” symbolism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Whenever Russian Tsarist or Communist forces came into a predominatly Greek-Catholic area, they inaugurated an “Easternization” program which always began with the forced removal of the Filioque . . . The Filioque became a banner of ethnic patriotism as well as devotion to the EC Church.

Alex

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Very much like my initial experience . . . When I recited the Creed without the Filioque, the parish priest called me into the sacristy and literally punched me in the chest while exclaiming, “Don’t you believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, you . . ?”

Wow - I’m glad my altercation was not physical! That said, I’m glad to hear it was followed by a good exchange with your pastor.

But the Filioque took on a very strong “Anti-Russian” symbolism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Whenever Russian Tsarist or Communist forces came into a predominatly Greek-Catholic area, they inaugurated an “Easternization” program which always began with the forced removal of the Filioque . . . The Filioque became a banner of ethnic patriotism as well as devotion to the EC Church.

Yes, this was one of the most fascinating aspects, I found, and why I likely received the suggestion to transfer to the Russian Orthodox church up the street.

“Easternization” - interesting term. It included, of course, suppression of the Greek Catholics, seizure of church properties and martyrdom of several bishops, many clergy and faithful. It still boggles my mind that the properties of the Ruthenian “Mother Church” in Uzhgorod were returned to the Eparchy of Mukachevo in 1990, and not without some lingering conflict. We must all pray that we can see past this and seek greater unity of purpose and faith, respectful of each others traditions and histories.

I understand the situation to the present day of tensions between Ukrainians and Russians, and pray that His Beatitude Sviatoslav (whom I admire greatly) can successfully navigate these troubled waters on behalf of all the faithful, Catholic and Orthodox, of the Ukraine.