Do Melkites believe in the Filioque?

[Peter_J]

You have to agree with the filioque but you say the creed without it. How does that make sense if the creed is a statement of what you believe. If you believe in the filioque, why not include it in the creed?

We go by the original (381) text of the creed – which LCs (well, the ones who know about these things) also say that they believe.

Having said that, I for one believe that our (Melkite and other GCs) English text should be altered slightly, adding the word “eternally” (“who proceeds eternally from the Father”) which should make LCs happy since it is less conflictive with the LC text “who proceeds from the Father and the Son”.

 

[Wandile]

Depends what you mean by “have to”. Like OrdinaryMelkite said, “we are to agree with” the Filioque, but when you say “have to” ** presumably meaning that we would get excommunicated if we don’t, or something along those lines.**

Because that is pretty much truth. The filioque is a dogma of the catholic faith. The decree of Florence made that very clear. Its an exact teaching of the life and nature and relationship of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Depends what you mean by “have to”. Like OrdinaryMelkite said, “we are to agree with” the Filioque, but when you say “have to” presumably meaning that we would get excommunicated if we don’t, or something along those lines.

Because that is pretty much truth.

Well, I’m not sure what “pretty much truth” means, so I’ll stick to talking about “actual” truth concerning excommunications: yes they do happen – Fr Matthew Fox in recent memory – but it would not be truth to say that every Catholic who does not believe in the Filioque (or PI, UOJ, IC etc) gets excommunicated. Fr Fox was a pretty extreme case, don’t you agree?

 

[Wandile]

Well, I’m not sure what “pretty much truth” means, so I’ll stick to talking about “actual” truth concerning excommunications: yes they do happen – Fr Matthew Fox in recent memory – but it would not be truth to say that every Catholic who does not believe in the Filioque (or PI, UOJ, IC etc) gets excommunicated. Fr Fox was a pretty extreme case, don’t you agree?

Agreed

Any catholic who knowingly confesses a position contrary to the filioque ,with full understanding of the filioque and its dogmatic status, is placed under anathema per Florence.

Ignorance is really the only excuse.

 

[Peter_J]

Agreed

Cool. I’m not sure how much or which parts of my post you’re agreeing with, but I’m always happy to help.

 

[Tomdstone]

Any catholic who knowingly confesses a position contrary to the filioque ,with full understanding of the filioque and its dogmatic status, is placed under anathema per Florence.

Ignorance is really the only excuse.

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the filioque, and yet they are allowed, according to Roman Catholic rules (not Orthodox rules), to receive Holly Communion in a Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Wandile]

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the filioque, and yet they are allowed, according to Roman Catholic rules (not Orthodox rules), to receive Holly Communion in a Roman Catholic Church.

That’s because most of then aren’t schismatics or formal heretics but are the faith they are because they were born into their faith. Secondly because they are apostolic christians and thus are entitled to the 7 sacraments. However to show that their Church’s status is outside the church, the CC does not concelebrate liturgy with the Orthodox Churches for one celebration requires one faith … …

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s because most of then aren’t schismatics or formal heretics but are the faith they are because they were born into their faith. Secondly because they are apostolic christians and thus are entitled to the 7 sacraments. However to show that their Church’s status is outside the church, the CC does not concelebrate liturgy with the Orthodox Churches for one celebration requires one faith … …

Are they under anathema for denying the filioque?

 

[Wandile]

Are they under anathema for denying the filioque?

If the person in question knowingly confesses a position contrary to the filioque ,with full understanding of the filioque…then yes as that person would be a Formal Heretic for denying a doctrinal truth.

 

[twf]

Cool. I’m not sure how much or which parts of my post you’re agreeing with, but I’m always happy to help.

Eastern Catholics are not required to recite the Filioque - thus there is no reason for it to even be a factor in their spirituality. That being said, to explicitly reject it or to explicitly condemn it as a heresy would make it difficult to remain in communion with a Church which holds the decrees of Florence as binding. Would you agree with that?

All Catholics profess the monarchy of the Father as the ultimate origin of both the Son and the Spirit.

 

[Vico]

Eastern Catholics are not required to recite the Filioque - thus there is no reason for it to even be a factor in their spirituality. That being said, to explicitly reject it or to explicitly condemn it as a heresy would make it difficult to remain in communion with a Church which holds the decrees of Florence as binding. Would you agree with that?

All Catholics profess the monarchy of the Father as the ultimate origin of both the Son and the Spirit.

Denzinger, Dogmas from Council of Florence

[From the Bull “Cantata Domino,” February 4, Florentine style, 1441, modern, 1442]

703 The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent, unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essence, three in persons; Father unborn, Son born of the Father, Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son; that the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit. The Father alone begot the Son of His own substance; the Son alone was begotten of the Father alone; the Holy Spirit alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son. These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, and all these things are one where no opposition of relationship interferes . *

[Circuminsession]

704 "Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning. and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.’’*Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle.

denzinger.patristica.net/#n700

 

[mkoopman]

Eastern Catholics are not required to recite the Filioque - thus there is no reason for it to even be a factor in their spirituality. That being said, to explicitly reject it or to explicitly condemn it as a heresy would make it difficult to remain in communion with a Church which holds the decrees of Florence as binding. Would you agree with that?

All Catholics profess the monarchy of the Father as the ultimate origin of both the Son and the Spirit.

The degree of homotopy exigent in the hagai normalizes an idempotency in the procession of the hypostatic union that is not restricted upon a singular origin. The nature of the Triune Godhead is not reducible to a simple origin within any individual person. The cover of this person would thereby be diluted through the embedment with such an explicit tractive adhesion. This does not deny the Father’s role in the Kingship but more fully integrates the children of Mary as the church who is integral within the Kingdom of heaven. She is eternally virgin, you may recall.

 

[Petaro]

I’ve never heard the filioque decried on the grounds of being theological speculation.

Our theology is very clear on the matter. It can be interpreted (at least in Latin) in an orthodox manner, it can also be interpreted in a heretical manner. Those who say it is “imprudent” are generally giving the Latins the benefit of the doubt, while those who say it is heretical are not.

The greatest tragedy , in my opinion, is that two great traditions of Christ’s church should be divided by such forensic yet futile semantic interpretation of that great mystery - the Trinity of the One True God. Politics aside, I pray for the true unity between two traditions united in the sacraments and in soul.

 

[JayNektarios]

The greatest tragedy , in my opinion, is that two great traditions of Christ’s church should be divided by such forensic yet futile semantic interpretation of that great mystery - the Trinity of the One True God. Politics aside, I pray for the true unity between two traditions united in the sacraments and in soul.

I wholeheartedly agree. There is much “straining of the gnat and swallowing of the camel” when it comes to these endless debates about which tradition’s way is best, the most correct, the truest, etc., particularly where our imperfect words attempt to define the perfect and undefinable. It’s really the same fight the apostles were engaged in, even right after the last supper. “Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.” (Luke 22:24)

It’s a sad thing when our arguments are about establishing our own rightness, or one tradition’s rightness over another’s, instead of being about magnifying the grace of God for the sake of the world. The Gospel is not captive in any creeds or regulations devised by any council (though this is in no way meant to disparage the councils). The Gospel is Jesus Christ, who freed us from the chains of the disorder of sin and delivered us from captivity to death. We are free!! We should really stop behaving as slaves to the meaningless minutiae that does not and cannot save.

 

[Seraphim73]

I wholeheartedly agree. There is much “straining of the gnat and swallowing of the camel” when it comes to these endless debates about which tradition’s way is best, the most correct, the truest, etc., particularly where our imperfect words attempt to define the perfect and undefinable. It’s really the same fight the apostles were engaged in, even right after the last supper. “Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.” (Luke 22:24)

It’s a sad thing when our arguments are about establishing our own rightness, or one tradition’s rightness over another’s, instead of being about magnifying the grace of God for the sake of the world. The Gospel is not captive in any creeds or regulations devised by any council (though this is in no way meant to disparage the councils). The Gospel is Jesus Christ, who freed us from the chains of the disorder of sin and delivered us from captivity to death. We are free!! We should really stop behaving as slaves to the meaningless minutiae that does not and cannot save.

But that’s not how the Fathers thought or behaved. St Maximus the Confessor along with Pope St Martin and their relatively small number of followers were severely persecuted for upholding the Faith. St Maximus had his tongue ripped out and his right hand cut off. St Martin was flogged and thrown in prison where he died. They did this because they could not accept the profession of faith of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the emperor along with the majority of the Church at the time. You magnify God by professing the truth. I’m not saying this to compare any of us to these great saints and it’s important that we never condemn anybody, but we should always stand on the faith we have received and our own consciences.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s a sad thing when our arguments are about establishing our own rightness, or one tradition’s rightness over another’s,

As a long-time Internet-poster, I can definitely attest that people do, sometimes, get carried away with ^^ that.

I don’t have the actual cartoon to post, but you’ve probably seen it. Caption: “I can’t come to bed dear, someone is wrong on the Internet!”

 

[JayNektarios]

I don’t have the actual cartoon to post, but you’ve probably seen it. Caption: “I can’t come to bed dear, someone is wrong on the Internet!”

Haha, yes I know exactly the cartoon you’re referring to.

To expand upon the “straining of gnats” reference, it was part of Jesus’ rebuke of the myopic and hyper-scrupulous legalism of the scribes and Pharisees: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. [But] these you should have done, without neglecting the others. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!” (Matthew 23:23-24; NAB)

In wisdom and with prayer it is crucial that we identify the modern-day “mint, dill and cummin” of faith (the “gnats”) and the “weightier things” of faith (the “camel”). From my own personal perspective here on the ground (versus up in the higher reaches of the ecclesial atmosphere, where the air is often quite thinner), the Filioque issue is a gnat-straining exercise that tends to distract from the weightier things of faith.

 

[mkoopman]

Haha, yes I know exactly the cartoon you’re referring to.

To expand upon the “straining of gnats” reference, it was part of Jesus’ rebuke of the myopic and hyper-scrupulous legalism of the scribes and Pharisees: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. [But] these you should have done, without neglecting the others. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!” (Matthew 23:23-24; NAB)

In wisdom and with prayer it is crucial that we identify the modern-day “mint, dill and cummin” of faith (the “gnats”) and the “weightier things” of faith (the “camel”). From my own personal perspective here on the ground (versus up in the higher reaches of the ecclesial atmosphere, where the air is often quite thinner), the Filioque issue is a gnat-straining exercise that tends to distract from the weightier things of faith.

It appears a thrust within the two lumps of True Faith and from God who is Triune and Truth itself must be requited by abusive social norms that we can throw like a shroud upon the dead corpse of Jesus held in his mother’s arms.

www.pasteurbrewing.com
Here is a good spot for surreptitous and perestroika oriented scientism and thoughtless free thinking for a sprout to this jolly bean stalk branch brewing from this thread.