Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[diggerdomer]

\But, that does not mean both sides were in schism – the Orthodox church is still in schism, but we are not. Remeber, we are th One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church!\

But, that does not mean both sides were in schism – the Latin church is still in schism, but we are not. Remeber, we are the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Orthodox Church!

(Just holding up to the mirror to those stuck inside the Looking-Glass World.)

Excellent point. Thank you!

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Maybe. Maybe not. What’s important is that Christians agree on the theological truth.

I agree that real Christians agree on the theological truth that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father “and the Son” (filioque), but most (if not all) of the Orthodox reject that teaching . Truth be told, the disagreements are pretty slight. Both sides acknowledge one principal and one spiration. As discussed at the Council of Florence (when the Orthodox renounced their errors, accepted the filioque, the Pope as the head of the Church and returned to the true Church) this was looked into in great detail. It was concluded that both sides meant substantially the same thing. The end result was not that the Catholic Church rejected the filioque, but rather that the Orthodox accepted it.

Obviously, the original Creed did not include the filioque clause. So why would praying/believing that Creed be a matter of heresy?

Because it is now a dogma. It was believed when the Creed was written. Since it wasn’t a point of dispute, it wasn’t included. It has been several years since I have studied this, but from what I remember, the point of dispute with the heretics when the Creed was written, was over whether the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father. Since this was a point of dispute, the truth was formulated as part of the Creed. The “filioque” was not in question at the time. I could quote (and probably will in a future post) the Eastern Fathers who explicity taught the filioque.

And, those earliest Ecumenical Councils (that ALL Christians agreed to…unlike Lyons and Florence) taught that no change can be made to the Nicene Creed.

Then why does no one reject the changes added at Constantinople? The Nicean Creed is actually the Nicean-Constantinople Creed.

Why wasn’t that teaching followed by those who inserted the filioque? Are they in heresy, then, for not following the teaching of an ecumenical council that had been approved by the Pope?

What you are thinking of is the teaching of an early council (Ephesis?) that no one can change the faith of the creed. Adding the filioque was not changing the faith, but rather clarifying a point of the same faith that was, at the time, being called into quesion. That is why the filioque was added.

Note where it states the fundamentals of Christian faith, including the Holy Spirit “proceeding from the Father.” It does NOT say “proceeding from the Father and the Son.”

The filioque is a dogma. Just because every single dogma is not mentioned in every single document does not mean is ceases to be a dogma. Obviously, every document will not teach every Catholic dogma. Does Dominus Iesus teach the hypostatic union, or that Christ has two intellects and two will? Probably not, but that does not mean these cease to be dogmas

As approved by the head of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger. Uh oh…does that mean he’s a heretic for making that statement about the profession of faith?

It is not a heresy to say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, it is only a heresy to deny that He also proceeds from the Son.

Yes, and it’s up to the Church to determine which statements from past Councils are indeed dogmatic, and how they are to be understood and believed today. You can claim such-and-such excerpt from Lyon or Florence is dogmatic, but it’s not you or I who make that authoritative decision.

The teaching becomes dogmatic at the moment it is ratified by the Pope. So, for example, we don’t need to ask the Pope if the dogmas affirming the Divinity of Jesus are still dogmas. They became dogmas when they were ratified, andthey will never change.

The Pope is not infallible. The Pope can teach infallibly following not only what Vatican I taught, current Canon Law and the teachings of Vatican II also need to followed.

What teachings of Vatican II, over and above what Vatican I taught on the subject, are required for papal infallibility to be engaged? There are only four conditions, and all four were given by Vatican I. If you disgree and think other conditions apply, please explain and provide your source.

The universal ordinary magisterium only teaches infallibly when it expressly intends to and makes such teaching manifestly evident. See Canon Law 749. Not every teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium is taught infallibly (just like every teaching of the Pope, or every teaching of an ecumenical council, are not taught infallibly).

You’re confusing the ordinary magisterium with the universal ordinary magisterium. There’s a difference. A teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium is a teaching that has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all”. Such teachings are to be considered infallible, even if they have not been defined. Other teachings of the ordinary magisterium are not necessarily infallible.

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

No. Melkite Catholics are not Roman Catholics. And vice versa. Maronite Catholics are not Roman Catholics, and vice versa. And I could continue the same through all 20 or so Catholic Rites. They are all Catholics, united in faith, worship, and under the governance of the Pope.

Hey…if you know any Eastern Rite Catholics (I do) ask them what they think. I’d love to hear their response.

I don’t need to ask them. One acceptable definition of Roman Catholic Church (in fact, the only definition Fr. Hardin gives in his Catholic Dictionary), is the Church of Rome and all Churches united with that Church (including those of the East).

I am not sure, but it in no way contradicts the fact that Eastern Catholics are just that, and not Roman Catholics.

Another answer is that this Doctor of the Church understands the term the same way as the Catholic Dictionary I referenced above. Who should we believe, you, or the Catholic Dictionary and St. Alphonsus?

Huh. Interesting. Why didn’t this source say “Roman Catholic Church” instead of “Catholic Church”? Doesn’t that contradict previous claims of yours?

He didn’t need to. The term Catholic Church means the same thing.

Here’s a few more quotes:

Pope Innocent III, A.D. 1198-1216 (D423): “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Profession of Faith for the Waldensians, Eius Exemplo)

According to your definition, this would exclude the Easter Churches. Here’s another

Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood".

According to you, this would exclude the Eastern Churches that are in union with Rome.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

\But, that does not mean both sides were in schism – the Orthodox church is still in schism, but we are not. Remeber, we are th One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church!\

But, that does not mean both sides were in schism – the Latin church is still in schism, but we are not. Remeber, we are the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Orthodox Church!

(Just holding up to the mirror to those stuck inside the Looking-Glass World.)

But obviously both are not right. Either the Church with the successor of Peter - “the rock upon whom the church was built” - as its earthly head is correct, or the “church” that rejects 13 councils and now allows divorce and remarriage is right. One thing is certain: Both aren’t right.

 

[LoyalViews]

bpbasilphx, I really, really hate to disagree with you, I really do … but in the Book of Matthew chapter sixteen, verse eighteen it does say

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

“Upon this rock, I will build my church” Indicating that St. Peter is the rock of the church

“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” the church is everlasting.

“And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt binf upon earth, it shall also be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” Signifying that the church is the ** One True church!** and that whatever the Pope binds here, shall also bind in heaven.

Again, I really hate to disagree, but…

 

[diggerdomer]

It was believed when the Creed was written.

Where is that taught? Evidence? If it was explicitly believed at the time the Creed was written…then why didn’t they write it that way?

Since it wasn’t a point of dispute, it wasn’t included. It has been several years since I have studied this, but from what I remember, the point of dispute with the heretics when the Creed was written, was over whether the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father. Since this was a point of dispute, the truth was formulated as part of the Creed. The “filioque” was not in question at the time. I could quote (and probably will in a future post) the Eastern Fathers who explicity taught the filioque.

Not quite. The Council of Nicaea was primarily concerned with the Trinitarian issue against the Arian controversy. Little to nothing was explicitly/dogmatically addressed about the Holy Spirit. It was later in the century, at the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) that more attention was given to the Holy Spirit. Still…the Creed did not include the “filioque.” If you have any evidence that the filioque was an issue/concern in the 4th century please share, it would be informative.

Then why does no one reject the changes added at Constantinople? The Nicean Creed is actually the Nicean-Constantinople Creed.

Because is was the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) that formally endorsed the earlier Councils (and the Creed) and reiterated/confirmed the teaching that nothing could be changed. This is really the source for the Creed…we don’t have the original records from the Council of Constantinople.

What you are thinking of is the teaching of an early council (Ephesis?) that no one can change the faith of the creed. Adding the filioque was not changing the faith, but rather clarifying a point of the same faith that was, at the time, being called into quesion. That is why the filioque was added.

The filioque was added centuries later. And not by an ecumenical council. Read the acts of Chalcedon: [piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm#Definition of the faith](http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm#Definition of the faith)

Note the passage

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

It is not a heresy to say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, it is only a heresy to deny that He also proceeds from the Son.

Right. So…praying the original Creed is not heretical. Right?

What teachings of Vatican II, over and above what Vatican I taught on the subject, are required for papal infallibility to be engaged? There are only four conditions, and all four were given by Vatican I. If you disgree and think other conditions apply, please explain and provide your source.

The Code of Canon Law teaches that any teaching that is taught infallibly must be “manifestly evident.” This criterion was in the 1917 Code and is in the 1983 Code. This criterion was not taught by Vatican I.

You can find the 1983 Code online. I don’t believe there is an English version of the 1917 Code online.

You’re confusing the ordinary magisterium with the universal ordinary magisterium. There’s a difference. A teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium is a teaching that has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all”. Such teachings are to be considered infallible, even if they have not been defined. Other teachings of the ordinary magisterium are not necessarily infallible.

I don’t think I am confusing the two. Yes, the universal ordinary magisterium has the capacity to teach infallibly. But the same can also teach authoritatively in a non-infallible manner. Just like the Pope.

 

[diggerdomer]

bpbasilphx, I really, really hate to disagree with you, I really do … but in the Book of Matthew chapter sixteen, verse eighteen it does say

“Upon this rock, I will build my church” Indicating that St. Peter is the rock of the church

“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” the church is everlasting.

“And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt binf upon earth, it shall also be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” Signifying that the church is the ** One True church!** and that whatever the Pope binds here, shall also bind in heaven.

Again, I really hate to disagree, but…

That is one of many valid interpretations of that passage. Does not prove your point.

 

[LoyalViews]

It does help though, does it not.

 

[LoyalViews]

But obviously both are not right. Either the Church with the successor of Peter - “the rock upon whom the church was built” - as its earthly head is correct, or the “church” that rejects 13 councils and now allows divorce and remarriage is right. One thing is certain: Both aren’t right.

Both are not right? I you saying the the Church is wrong? When we all know the Church is right, or am I misinterpreting you?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Where is that taught? Evidence? If it was explicitly believed at the time the Creed was written…then why didn’t they write it that way?

I only have a moment to reply. Regarding evidence the filioque was believed at the time of the Creed. As you mentioned, the doctrines of the Holy Ghost were added at the Council of Constantinople, which I think took place in the year 381. Here’s some other quotes from the same time period:

Hilary of Poitiers, AD357: “Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29).

The Athanasian Creed, AD400: “[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son [filioque], not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed).

Epiphanius of Salamis, AD374: “The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75).

Ambrose of Milan, 381: "Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’. … “The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (The Holy Spirit ).

The following quote from St. Augustine is virtually identical to what the Council of Florence taught.

Augustine, 408: “If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

I could provide more quotes, but these suffice to show that the filioque was believed by the Fathers of the East and West at the time of the Council of Constantinople.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the reason the filioque was not included is because it was not being called in question at the time. What was denied was that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father. That is why the Creed explicitly affirmed what it did. When a later heresy questioned the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, the filioque was added.

You need to read writings from Catholics regarding the filioque, not those put out by the Orthodox - a sect that denies the Primacy of the Pope and 13 general councils.

LoyalViews: Regarding your question. My point was that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and the Orthodox - who reject the office of “the rock upon whom the Church was built” - as well as 13 general councils, are not a the Church. They used to be part of the true Church, but not anymore.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Because is was the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) that formally endorsed the earlier Councils (and the Creed) and reiterated/confirmed the teaching that nothing could be changed. … The filioque was added centuries later. And not by an ecumenical council. Read the acts of Chalcedon: [piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm#Definition of the faith](http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm#Definition of the faith)

Council of Chalcedon: "Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed … if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.​

All the council of Chalcedon said was that no one could produce or compose another Creed. The Council of Ephesus said no one could change the faith of a Creed. Adding the filoque was doing neither. Adding the filioque to the Creed was not writing a new Creed, nor was it changing the faith of a current Creed. All it was doing was clarifying the faith that was always believed - and it did so in order to combat a new heresy. Therefore, adding the filioque was both reasonable and licit (legal), as the council of Florence stated:

**The Council of Florence: ** "In the first place, then, we give them the holy creed issued by the hundred and fifty bishops in the ecumenical council of Constantinople, with the added phrase and the Son, which for the sake of declaring the truth and from urgent necessity was licitly and reasonably added to that creed. …

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: **that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, **and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father. …

**This, then, is the faith which the holy Roman mother church has always held, preached and taught and which she now holds, preaches, professes and teaches. **This is the faith, as regards those three articles, which we decree that the said archbishop Abdala, on behalf and in the name of the said patriarch of the Syrians and of all that nation and of himself, shall accept and shall keep for ever. First, that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. "

Right. So…praying the original Creed is not heretical. Right?

What the original Creed says is not heretical. It is true that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father (which the original Creed said) and also from the Son. It might be a sin of ommision if someone who should say it (the Pope, for example) ommits in the presence of the Orthodox, but it would not be the sin of heresy.

The following quote confirms what I said in my last post - namely, that the reason the original Creed said the Holy Ghost proceeds “from the Father” is because that is what was being denied at the time by the heretic Macedonius and his followers.

**Catholic Encyclopedia: **"The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. …

**"It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. **

 

[diggerdomer]

I only have a moment to reply. Regarding evidence the filioque was believed at the time of the Creed. As you mentioned, the doctrines of the Holy Ghost were added at the Council of Constantinople, which I think took place in the year 381. Here’s some other quotes from the same time period:

Hilary of Poitiers, AD357: “Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29).

The Athanasian Creed, AD400: “[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son [filioque], not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed).

Epiphanius of Salamis, AD374: “The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75).

Ambrose of Milan, 381: "Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’. … “The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (The Holy Spirit ).

The following quote from St. Augustine is virtually identical to what the Council of Florence taught.

Augustine, 408: “If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

I could provide more quotes, but these suffice to show that the filioque was believed by the Fathers of the East and West at the time of the Council of Constantinople.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the reason the filioque was not included is because it was not being called in question at the time. What was denied was that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father. That is why the Creed explicitly affirmed what it did. When a later heresy questioned the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, the filioque was added.

You need to read writings from Catholics regarding the filioque, not those put out by the Orthodox - a sect that denies the Primacy of the Pope and 13 general councils.

LoyalViews: Regarding your question. My point was that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and the Orthodox - who reject the office of “the rock upon whom the Church was built” - as well as 13 general councils, are not a the Church. They used to be part of the true Church, but not anymore.

The Council of Nicaea, the origin of what became known as the Nicene Creed, was held before all those quotations you cite.

The divinity of the Holy Spirit was not an issue at Nicaea, it was one at Constantinople (381 AD). Even though the Nicene creed was modified there, it still did not include the filioque clause.

It was only later that theological precision and reflection would distinguish what exactly could or should be believed about the Spirit’s relation to the Father and Son (i.e. what terms were adequate to explain the Trinitarian relationship).

None of those quotes you gave refute my points. Nor were any from an ecumenical council, and so would not have been considered binding doctrinal statements.

 

[diggerdomer]

All the council of Chalcedon said was that no one could produce or compose another Creed. The Council of Ephesus said no one could change the faith of a Creed. Adding the filoque was doing neither.

That’s your opinion now (adding the filioque was not changing the Creed or faith), it was not the opinion of many Christians at the time. That’s the point. Even on a basic literal sense, you can’t seriously be saying that the Creed was not changed by adding the filioque, are you? Just look at the text.

What the original Creed says is not heretical. It is true that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father (which the original Creed said) and also from the Son.

Exactly. The original Creed did not say also from the Son, as you note.

It might be a sin of ommision if someone who should say it (the Pope, for example) ommits in the presence of the Orthodox, but it would not be the sin of heresy.

The following quote confirms what I said in my last post - namely, that the reason the original Creed said the Holy Ghost proceeds “from the Father” is because that is what was being denied at the time by the heretic Macedonius and his followers.

It’s not a sin of omission, nor heretical (and the Pope is certainly guilty of neither).

Yes, of course, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. So?

I assume you’re citing the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1913…what article by the way?).

You might be interested to know the current edition says, in the article on Filioque:

While the See of Rome insists that all the Eastern Churches that are in communion with it accept the doctrine of the filioque, it nevertheless does not impose its inclusion in the Creed.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

The Council of Nicaea, the origin of what became known as the Nicene Creed, was held before all those quotations you cite.

But the doctrines associated with the Holy Ghost were added at the Council of Constantinople, as you yourself correctly stated in an earler post. All the quotes I provided were from the time when the doctrines regarding the Holy Ghost were added to the Creed.

The divinity of the Holy Spirit was not an issue at Nicaea, it was one at Constantinople (381 AD). Even though the Nicene creed was modified there, it still did not include the filioque clause.

As I showed in my last post, the reason the clause “from the Father” was added at Constantinople is because it was being denied at the time.

None of those quotes you gave refute my points. Nor were any from an ecumenical council, and so would not have been considered binding doctrinal statements.

But they do show that at the time of the Council of Constantinople the fathers of both the East and West affirmed the filioque. And, BTW, the Athanasian Creed - which affirms the filioque - is very authoritative.

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

That’s your opinion now (adding the filioque was not changing the Creed or faith)…

It’s my opinion and the opinion of the Church. The Council of Florence stated that adding the filioque to the Creed was both reasonable and licit (see earlier post). The Catholic Encyclopedia I quoted earlier says the following:

**Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org, FILIOQUE: **"The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church [referring to the Orthodox] doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. …

**It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father…

“Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)? ** It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law;** but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. **Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body”.

… it was not the opinion of many Christians at the time. That’s the point. Even on a basic literal sense, you can’t seriously be saying that the Creed was not changed by adding the filioque, are you? Just look at the text.

I’m saying the faith was not changed, since adding the filioque did not change the faith, bur more fully clarified it. And if it is your position that during the 4th century the East disputed the filioque, please provide the quotes. For my part I already provided quotes from Father of the East written during the fourth century that affirmed the filioque. So, even if you are able to search through Orthodox websites and locate a few quotes to show that *some *disputed the filioque, all that will show is that there was disagreement between those of the East at the time.

Exactly. The original Creed did not say also from the Son, as you note.

Who has ever denied that?

It’s not a sin of omission, nor heretical (and the Pope is certainly guilty of neither).

It’s nice to know that you have the ability to judge subjective guilt. I thought only God could do that?

I assume you’re citing the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1913…what article by the way?).

The article on the filioque.

What it comes down to is this: Either you accept what the Church teaches - namely, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque), and that its addition to the Creed was both “reasonable and licit”, or you don’t. Which is it?

 

[MarineGuy]

Correction: God surely will not cast them into hell for that reason.

I meant God will not cast them into hell for their ignorance–this doesn’t mean that God will not cast them into hell for some other reason, such as any sin they have committed. Some people think that anyone who is ignorant–let alone invincibly ignorant which can’t even be the case for 99.999% of the world’s population–will not go to hell just because they were ignorant.

 

[diggerdomer]

But the doctrines associated with the Holy Ghost were added at the Council of Constantinople, as you yourself correctly stated in an earler post. All the quotes I provided were from the time when the doctrines regarding the Holy Ghost were added to the Creed.

As I showed in my last post, the reason the clause “from the Father” was added at Constantinople is because it was being denied at the time.

The doctrines added at Constantinople did NOT include the filioque clause. Right? “From the father” was added to assert/define the divinity of the Holy Spirit, not to precisly describe or define the relation of the Spirit to the Father. So, Constantinople did NOT define that the Spirit proceeds from he Father and the Son. Right?

But they do show that at the time of the Council of Constantinople the fathers of both the East and West affirmed the filioque. And, BTW, the Athanasian Creed - which affirms the filioque - is very authoritative.

no, it’s not clear that the Fathers at the time of Constantinople affirmed the filioque as it LATER became understood by some. This seems obvious by the Creed, which did not include the filioque.

Yes, the Athanasian Creed is very authoritative, but also very later than the period we are discussing and not a Creed affrimed by an ecumenical council.

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s my opinion and the opinion of the Church. The Council of Florence stated that adding the filioque to the Creed was both reasonable and licit (see earlier post). The Catholic Encyclopedia I quoted earlier says the following:

**Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org, FILIOQUE: **"The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church [referring to the Orthodox] doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. …

**It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father…

“Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)? **** It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. **Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body”.

I’m saying the faith was not changed, since adding the filioque did not change the faith, bur more fully clarified it. And if it is your position that during the 4th century the East disputed the filioque, please provide the quotes. For my part I already provided quotes from Father of the East written during the fourth century that affirmed the filioque. So, even if you are able to search through Orthodox websites and locate a few quotes to show that *some *disputed the filioque, all that will show is that there was disagreement between those of the East at the time.

Who has ever denied that?

It’s nice to know that you have the ability to judge subjective guilt. I thought only God could do that?

The article on the filioque.

What it comes down to is this: Either you accept what the Church teaches - namely, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque), and that its addition to the Creed was both “reasonable and licit”, or you don’t. Which is it?

Is that the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia you’re citing?

Did you read the excerpt I posted from the current Catholic Encyclopedia? Have you consulted that edition, to see what has changed since 1913?

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s nice to know that you have the ability to judge subjective guilt. I thought only God could do that?

I was not judging subjective guilt. Please, be more careful in your accusations.

It seems to me that you are the one judging here. Aren’t you saying that those who pray and profess the original Creed (which did not include the filioque) are heretical? The Catholic Church doesn’t. You seem to have a problem with it, though. Am I wrong?

 

[diggerdomer]

Another answer is that this Doctor of the Church understands the term the same way as the Catholic Dictionary I referenced above. Who should we believe, you, or the Catholic Dictionary and St. Alphonsus?

Catholics should believe what the Catholic Church teaches, which I do. You seem to have a problem, though, regarding what the Catholic Church teaches about the Creed and the filioque clause.