Eastern Catholics, are we really Catholic?

[jimmy]

The Holy Spirit has what he has from the Father and the Son.
He’s the Spirit “of the Father” and “of Christ”,as Paul said.

If you want to quote scripture then you must remember that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Son according to scripture. There is not one instance in all of scripture where it says the Spirit proceeds from the Son.

 

[anthony022071]

Then it goes back to something I said earlier. If you wish to consider us non-Catholic that is your prerogative I suppose. I doubt that there are any Eastern Catholics who care one way or the other. If Rome says, “go away” then we have little choice. We will go away.

CDL

I don’t say that Eastern Catholics are not Catholic,but it is true that they tend to be more loyal to post-Schism Byzantine theology rather than the defined doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Photian and Palamite theology clashes with the doctrines of Rome.

 

[anthony022071]

If you want to quote scripture then you must remember that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Son according to scripture. There is not one instance in all of scripture where it says the Spirit proceeds from the Son.

That’s alright,because the Church Fathers say it. The Church bases its doctrines upon both scripture and apostolic traditions.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

And the Calvinist doctrine of predestination can be found in Latin theology. Just because the filioque can be found in some theologians of the east doesn’t mean it is consistent with eastern tradition. The fact is that it is not consistent with eastern tradition.

Says whom? Who is the definative voice of the East or where is the case made and definatively settled? The polemicists of East and West have been hashing out the matter for centuries which has solidified in the minds of some that either side is owned and properly belonging to one school of thought on the matter, all other voices be darned. I just don’t buy it.

(Alternately tenants Catholic theology shares with Calvinism affirms the tenants shared, they do not reduce the orthodox theology!)

Who are you or they to discount the various and sundry patristic sources that seem to affirm the understandings of some in the West on procession? Who are you to say that the party most convincing to you is definative?

The fact that the filioque is not said any more in Eastern Catholic parishes means that the theology behind it is not accepted.

Can we draw that conclusion? If I tell people “I invited my mother to the party” Does that mean I didn’t invite my dad? I only made it clear mom was invited, I was silent on dad. If I did invite dad too, my original statement is not inaccurate.

The fact that it is not said anymore doesn’t lead us to necessarily accept the contradistinctive arguments against those who do say it. It alternately could mean that there is room for legitimate and continued discussion without saying that we are wholly signing up a specific school of thought that we can comfortably label as the Eastern school.

“In the west” (which is to say among the anglo-phone communities) of Easterners preference has been more and more shown to gravitate toward specific views “from back home” but that predilection or gravitation does not negate or render illegitimate the less popular voices and schools of thought.

A slew of “Western-compatible” thinkers from the East from the Greek monks who poured over the Summa in Greek to Saint Peter Moghyla of the Kiev (a glorified saint of the Orthodox Church) come to mind as voices that would stand in contradistiction to some of the narrower readings and schools of theology some here and elsewhere are bent on portraying as “pure Eastern”. What to do with them? Unless there is some mystical understanding that only ideas that continue to hold currency in our time (an almost gnostic idea of “Development of Doctrine”) how can or why should these Eastern voices be so readily dismissed? Because they aren’t as popular in the circles we are dealing with in the English speaking Byzantine world today?

I see this tendancy among Eastern Catholics with a view of returning to our legitimate patrimony to wholesale adopt the sometimes mono voce ideas of writers and readings that have gained currency today… But can that be done? Does that even represent a return to legitimate and traditional schools of thought and theology? Is everything written by those who self-describe as “Orthodox” today to be accepted as complete and accurate for the purpose of understanding the East? How does one handle or choose between Romanaides and Soloviev?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The fact that the filioque is not said any more in Eastern Catholic parishes means that the theology behind it is not accepted.

With all due respect, you are wrong and sound like heretic. God have mercy on you.

 

[anthony022071]

sorry to jump in here, but you say ‘inclined’? So what doctrines have they, in fact, denied?

The Orthodox Church never accepted the filioque. It was because of the filioque that the Eastern Churches broke communion with Rome.

It was, legitimately, ‘changed’ by Catholic Councils, but I think that we’ve all concluded that it’s more of a ‘argument of language’ than of actual doctrinal difference.

It’s both. The difference in wording makes a difference in doctrine.
The Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholics can accept a temporal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son,whereas in Catholic doctrine,the Spirit eternally manifests from the Father and the Son as from a single source (the Father).

And the Byzantines have gone back to the original form (in my church it is).

It doesn’t, fundamentally, mean that there’s a difference in a doctrinal belief of the essence of the Trinity.

What do you mean by original form?

The Eastern churches have a different way of expressing themselves, and emphasis…but not doctrinal differences that deserve suspicion.

It isn’t just a matter of different cultural expressions. The Orthodox deny,and the Eastern Catholics tend to doubt,Catholic doctrine.

This sort of thing reminds me of Protestants (and how they are, basically, speaking of almost the exact same concepts as the Catholic–only using different language and terms to desribe it–while not really having the profound differences that they deem (or would like to maintain).

IF the Pope gave them permission, and encouragement to restore and preserve their Eastern traditions and customs, who are any of us to be suspicious and allege that they have any ‘inclinations’ toward doctrinal and dogmatic heresy?

Photian and Palamite theology,which rejects Catholic doctrine as heretical,is not what the pope had in mind by “Eastern traditions”. Regional theological traditions shouldn’t trump Rome’s teaching authority and doctrines. The filioque is a matter of defined Catholic doctrine,not merely Latin theology.

[/QUOTE]

 

[byzgirl]

More loyal…tendencies…these terms mean nothing, really.

Where’s proof that they are, in fact, heretical?

Also, I just had a visit from my brother, who is a Byzantine Rite priest.

He told me a bit about the controversy, which included some interesting facts.

First of all, it was the ‘Franks’ (apparently converts to the faith), who during their battle with the Arian heresy, that ‘inserted’ the problematic ‘and the Son’. The Byzantines never ‘changed’ it. The Pope, at that time, even upheld the original creedal format, with the Byzantines. He even had a couple shields made that had the original fililoque profession ‘engraved in bronze’, in support of it. There was never any council which ‘changed it’. It simply got inserted (via the Franks) and sort of just ‘stuck’.

So, I wouldn’t point fingers at the Byzantine Rite for messing with anything, or in being ‘objectionable’ about doctrines and dogmas. They simply stayed the course and are actually in complete union with the early Church and the Catholic understanding (which has only become confused in the Latin Rite).

 

[Mickey]

The Church’s universal mission is born from the command of Jesus Christ and is fulfilled in the course of the centuries in the proclamation of the mystery of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the mystery of the incarnation of the Son, as saving event for all humanity. The fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith are expressed thus: “I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come”.1
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The Church’s universal mission is born from the command of Jesus Christ and is fulfilled in the course of the centuries in the proclamation of the mystery of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the mystery of the incarnation of the Son, as saving event for all humanity. The fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith are expressed thus: “I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come”.1
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

and? Nobody here is denying The Spirt of Truth proceeds from the Father.

John 16:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

 

[Mickey]

and? Nobody here is denying The Spirt of Truth proceeds from the Father.

Amen.

John 16:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Notice that it reads, “proceedeth from the Father”.

P.S–I think the Scripture should read** John 15:26.**

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Amen.
Notice that it reads, “proceedeth from the Father”.

P.S–I think the Scripture should read** John 15:26.**

but it does not say Father alone!

This is reminecisint of the “Faith” and then implied “Faith alone” statment!

The Spirit did not come like it did at Pentecost before Son was Incarnate, therefore, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Pe@ce and Gr@ce

 

[Mickey]

but it does not say Father alone!

It says proceedeth from the Father. Period.

It is still written that way on the silver tablets at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

and? Nobody here is denying The Spirt of Truth proceeds from the Father.

John 16:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Is the Chaldean rite not Eastern? Perhaps your history does not come through the Greek language. In any event why keep arguing this point? Either accept the other Easter Churches or don’t.

CDL

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It says proceedeth from the Father. Period.

It is still written that way on the silver tablets at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

So sayeth you?

And?

You confidently just toss out this quote in a fashion one is left to guess is meant to be your “lynch pin” or “grand slam of a closing argument” really “hitting it out of the ballpark” but I only see a false dichotomy there.

Never mind that this seems a clear effort to come into the Eastern Catholic forum and stear a discussion about Eastern Catholicism (as now an outsider) into the polemics of an East v. West polemical show down on your reading of the filioque far more appropriate (and you know it) over in apologetics or non-Catholic forum…

Well never minding all that I am wondering what you think you are proving with this quote no one here deigns to deny? You are reminding me of a Fundamentalist gent who posts at our group blog. He triumphantly will leave one verse of Scripture he so confidently think speaks for itself (so very - in his mind - obviously proving to us “Romanists” how wrong we so obviously are!) and then says nothing else.

In both cases, I am not seeing this as nearly convincing as you or he may be.

So, Mickey, yes…

• That writing is from a Catholic source
• It may be in silver on plates in the vatican
• Scripture says “proceeds from the Father”

But I really don’t see ANY of these things as being conclusive proof to demonstrate your point(s) that (1) these definatively rule out pluriform understandings or demonstrate (2) Catholic understandings to be so eggregiously in error.

You have to do more homework than that - but if you want to veer off into that direction, you should take it to the appropriate forum rather than use your time and effort to steer us into that oft-repeated quagmire of a debate that we are all getting so well versed in.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Simple Sinner,

As a Byzantine Catholic I ask that you simply drop the subject. What is to be gained from this endless wrangling?

CDL

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Nothing to do with the subject, but a great article on the by Bishop Samra. It applies to all Churchs as well.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Nothing to do with the subject, but a great article on the by Bishop Samra. It applies to all Churchs as well.

I have great respect for Bishop Samra but I have little interest in letting you drag me into some supposed battle with him. This continued wrangling is unseemly. Either you are willing to accept the Pope’s declarations and the Orientale Lumen or you are not. Let it go.

CDL

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

I have great respect for Bishop Samra but I have little interest in letting you drag me into some supposed battle with him. This continued wrangling is unseemly. Either you are willing to accept the Pope’s declarations and the Orientale Lumen or you are not. Let it go.

CDL

I have no clue what is going on in your mind to be honest. I’m not trying to drag you into anything.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I have no clue what is going on in your mind to be honest. I’m not trying to drag you into anything.

Then drop the subject.

CDL

 

[Peter_J]

John 16:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Chaldean Rite,

I don’t believe anyone denies that Christ sends the Spirit. The dispute is over whether or not the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son as well as the Father.

God bless,
-Peter.