Ok.It’s Aquinas uber alles in their eyes and everything else is heresy.
Yes, unfortunately we’re still trying to overcome these latinizations. Some may never be reversed at least not any time soon.Considering Catholics in past history have tried to latinize Eastern Catholics.
It is very simple. The doctrine is the same, and some of the creeds are ancient, and they are accepted by East and West.One Church shouldn’t have varying beliefs and creeds. It doesn’t make much sense to me how exactly this can work.
I think you expressed it very well. I think what we might be seeing is a prejudiced attitude.Someone more learned than me and better able to express themselves than I can, will comment I’m sure.
It is true, and this has been a great insult to the cultures and liturgies of the East. Fortunately repairs have been made, and there is more support for the ancient liturgies and practices.Considering Catholics in past history have tried to latinize Eastern Catholics.
Let us continue to pray for our leaders, so that the wounds can be healed.Yes, unfortunately we’re still trying to overcome these latinizations.
They were in full communion for hundreds of years with that situation.two different Churches reciting two different creeds
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
Is it more of the case that Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics believe the same things but they emphasize different things? Thus, the different creeds. All Catholic creeds are okay, but certain emphasize certain things. Even use Romans by ourselves have two creeds that we use. Just because we say one of them at Mass doesn’t mean we don’t believe what’s in the other one.They were in full communion for hundreds of years with that situation.
The answer per the last few popes is the creed is the greek as set forth in council, without the Filioque. This is what is on the front of the basilica, and what the Pope himself uses in meetings/prayers with the EO.How can there be unity and communion when there’s two different Churches reciting two different creeds.
Just for example, to the East, both EC and EO, making the IC dogma is similar to making “2+2=4” a dogma. Sure, go for it: it just isn’t an issue.I still don’t understand how one can be Eastern Catholic and think they believe the same as the Eastern Orthodox and at the same time, agree with the RCC by accepting the Pope and other Dogmas of the RCC, such as the Immaculate Conception.
You are aware, I presume, that there are approximately two dozen Catholic churches in communion, not just one?You can’t have one Church reciting two different creeds and believing in different stuff.
Err, no. Closer to 100, and I’m not sure it was that long. The Popes spent centuries trying to stamp out the Filioque before switching to it not long before the schism.They were in full communion for hundreds of years with that situation.
If so, then why in the 1054 bull of excommunication of Michael Cerularius and of all his followers, was the omission of the filioque from the creed given as one reason for the anathema. Was Rome wrong to give this reason for the excommunication since all creeds attest to the same truth?It is not that they are different creeds, they all attest to the same faith.
If that was not the conclusion, the excommunication would never have been lifted.Was Rome wrong to give this reason for the excommunication since all creeds attest to the same truth?
Was Rome wrong to have given the excommunication in 1054. listing the omission of the filioque as one of the reasons?If that was not the conclusion, the excommunication would never have been lifted.
As the Catechism states, it may be the same if not rigid: “This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.”This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
Yes.Was Rome wrong to give this reason for the excommunication [. . .]
Actually, that’s not the only reason.If that was not the conclusion, the excommunication would never have been lifted.
Does that not make it null and void at the time of delivery?As the pope had died at the time of the abomination of a delivery, it was without force ab initio.
hawk
There are no differences in the Creed. It’s a difference in language.How can there be unity and communion when there’s two different Churches reciting two different creeds.