Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

[steve_b]

I cannot help but think your obstenence is forced. I am not arguing about the filioque, I am arguing that a Catholic page says those who do not recite it (Eastern Catholics) are heretics.

I don’t see that statement on that page even as a paraphrase. newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm please highlight the sentence you’re refering to.

What I see is the last sentence of that article which said [emphasis mine]

***"the Councils of Lyons and Florence **did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque *into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost. "

Eastern Catholics DO accept this or by definition, they wouldn’t be in union with the pope.
NT:

Since a Catholic page says it, it must be true, following your logic.

Since you wish to wallow in misunderstanding, however, I shall not be one to disturb your fun. This conversation is quite over, I think.

Please establish that page said what you say it said.
NT:

You apparently didn’t read far enough.
Note that it says the rejection of the filioque is a principle error of the “Greek church”, while it says the denial of Romes supremacy is also an error, both are described as distinct errors.

Those who do not say the filioque are heretics, according to that page, and according to Steve, one page is all that is necessary to condemn an entire religion.

Had YOU read the last sentence of the article, you would see where the distinctions are. Those in the East who are in union with the pope, are Eastern Catholics. They are NOT required to insert the filioque into the creed. But they DO agree with dual procession of the HS.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t see that statement on that page even as a paraphrase. newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm please highlight the sentence you’re refering to.

What I see is the last sentence of that article which said [emphasis mine]

***"the Councils of Lyons and Florence ***did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost. "

Eastern Catholics DO accept this or by definition, they wouldn’t be in union with the pope.

Please establish that page said what you say it said.

Had YOU read the last sentence of the article, you would see where the distinctions are. Those in the East who are in union with the pope, are Eastern Catholics. They are NOT required to insert the filioque into the creed. But they DO agree with dual procession of the HS.

I quoted the offending text. It is certainly not my problem if (and I use your logic here) Catholic dogma contradicts itself.

 

[dvdjs]

I am arguing that a Catholic page says those who do not recite it (Eastern Catholics) are heretics.

Note that it says the rejection of the filioque is a principle error of the “Greek church”, while it says the denial of Romes supremacy is also an error, both are described as distinct errors.

Those who do not say the filioque are heretics, according to that page…

You do not give as quote that says those who do not recite it are heretics. Is there one?

Rejection of the filioque is not the same thing as not reciting the filioque. The two phenomena may be highly correlated, but they are not perfectly correlated; they are not the same thing. Likewise, error may or may be heretical; but error and heresy are not the same thing.

What is the point of playing with words in this way? If the article says what you claim, then serve up the quote. But please don’t think that by twisting the words here and there you are supporting your point.

Here’s some help. We all know that Catholic Church most assuredly does not consider Eastern Catholcs who do not recite the filioque as heretics. If you find a sentence in some authoritative source that seems to you to have that meaning, you are misunderstanding the meaning of that sentence.

 

[steve_b]

I quoted the offending text. It is certainly not my problem if (and I use your logic here) Catholic dogma contradicts itself.

It IS your problem.

I couldn’t find anything close to the statement you said was a quote. You wrote

:

those who do not recite it (Eastern Catholics) are heretics.

here’s the page you say you quoted that from. newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

please highlight the text for me or admit you read into the text what was not there.

 

[Nine_Two]

It IS your problem.

I couldn’t find anything close to the statement you said was a quote. You wrote

here’s the page you say you quoted that from. newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

please highlight the text for me or admit you read into the text what was not there.

Highlight part of my quote, hit ctrl-c, open that link, hit ctrl-f, hit ctrl-v, presto!

 

[Nine_Two]

By the way, I like how you ask me to highlight text for you, something that is actually impossible over the internet. I’m going to use that next time someone writes something I don’t want to acknowledge.

I admit I should stop responding to you, but you’re just so funny.

 

[steve_b]

Highlight part of my quote, hit ctrl-c, open that link, hit ctrl-f, hit ctrl-v, presto!

:dts:Nope! That doesn’t work. The quote doesn’t exist on that page. And you know it doesn’t exist.

 

[steve_b]

By the way, I like how you ask me to highlight text for you, something that is actually impossible over the internet. I’m going to use that next time someone writes something I don’t want to acknowledge.

I admit I should stop responding to you, but you’re just so funny.

You know how to copy and paste text don’t you?

 

[Vico]

Highlight part of my quote, hit ctrl-c, open that link, hit ctrl-f, hit ctrl-v, presto!

I think this is what he is referring to:

“… at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism …”

However that quote is misleading making it seem that the Creed was sung in Greek with the filioque. Later it states:

“… the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.”

newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

So the page does not say that “those who do not say the filioque are heretics”, rather the issue is accepting the doctrine of the double procession (not double origin). As explained at Florence: ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM This is not referring to origin, as commonly professed only the Father is origin:

"The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto."

 

[Nine_Two]

:dts:Nope! That doesn’t work. The quote doesn’t exist on that page. And you know it doesn’t exist.

Fourth paragraph first sentence. It says exactly what I did.
edit: Fourth paragraph second section, fifth paragraph overall.

You know how to copy and paste text don’t you?

I did copy and paste it, and then I posted it here, and then you played dumb and pretended you couldn’t see it there.

Once again, fourth paragraph, first sentence.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think this is what he is referring to:

“… at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism …”

However that quote is misleading making it seem that the Creed was sung in Greek with the filioque. Later it states:

“… the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.”

newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

So the page does not say that “those who do not say the filioque are heretics”, rather the issue is accepting the doctrine of the double procession (not double origin). As explained at Florence: ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM This is not referring to origin, as commonly professed only the Father is origin:

"The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto."

No, the part I’m referring to is exactly what I already quoted. Let’s quote it again.

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.

Noteworthy is that no one argued that is not what those words mean, and infact Steveie gave implicit acknowledgement that they must mean that if they are there.

Those exact words, copy-and-pasted from the article entitled “filioque” appear as the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. If something else is showing up on anyone elses computer, I’d love to hear it.

 

[dvdjs]

No, the part I’m referring to is exactly what I already quoted. Let’s quote it again.

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.

But what you claimed that the article said was this:

I am arguing that a Catholic page says those who do not recite [the filioque] … are heretics.

The quote from the article doesn’t say this. Your insistence that is does is getting strange.

 

[Vico]

No, the part I’m referring to is exactly what I already quoted. Let’s quote it again.

“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.” [Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909]

Noteworthy is that no one argued that is not what those words mean, and infact Steveie gave implicit acknowledgement that they must mean that if they are there.

Those exact words, copy-and-pasted from the article entitled “filioque” appear as the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. If something else is showing up on anyone elses computer, I’d love to hear it.

Yes, I see that. The word “errors” is used, not heresy. Catholic Encyclopedia also states:

“Error, reduplicatively regarded, is in one way or another the product of ignorance. But besides the lack of information which it implies, it adds the positive element of a mental judgment, by which something false is held to be true, or something true avouched to be false.”

When people have a particular error, they are not always formal heretics.

Refer to Catholic Catechism:

2089* Incredulity* is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

**1792 **Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

**1793 **If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

**1860 **Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

 

[steve_b]

Fourth paragraph first sentence. It says exactly what I did.
edit: Fourth paragraph second section, fifth paragraph overall.

I did copy and paste it, and then I posted it here, and then you played dumb and pretended you couldn’t see it there.

Once again, fourth paragraph, first sentence.

are you talking about the following paragraph?

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 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.

Eastern Catholics are in union with the pope. They don’t reject double procession. And as the last sentence in this article states [emphasis mine]

**"the Councils of Lyons and Florence **did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost. "

 

[guanophore]

No Church “teaches” the belief in toll houses. Some individual Orthodox Christians may believe in them. How many Catholics believe that wearing a Brown Scapular will save them from hell? Your Chrurch approves of “promises” attatched to the wearing of it. One of those promises is the promise that the wearer will not suffer eternal hellfire [SIGN]with no other qualifications[/SIGN]. Do you believe that? Can you say how many Catholics do? How many Catholics believe that in a contest between pears and apples, apples are obviously the superior fruit? How many Catholics wait at least a half hour to go in the pool after eating? Quit being mischievous!

This is not an accurate representation. The observance of the scapular is based upon the salvation promises. No other qualifications are needed because the practice contains them all. Have you ever looked at the commitments made by the one who practices this spiritual devotion?

 

[Nine_Two]

But what you claimed that the article said was this:

The quote from the article doesn’t say this. Your insistence that is does is getting strange.

Paraphrase.

 

[Nine_Two]

are you talking about the following paragraph?

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 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.

Eastern Catholics are in union with the pope. They don’t reject double procession. And as the last sentence in this article states [emphasis mine]

**"the Councils of Lyons and Florence **did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost. "

Eastern Catholics don’t use the Filioque, not my fault the Catholic Church teaches this.

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, I see that. The word “errors” is used, not heresy. Catholic Encyclopedia also states:

“Error, reduplicatively regarded, is in one way or another the product of ignorance. But besides the lack of information which it implies, it adds the positive element of a mental judgment, by which something false is held to be true, or something true avouched to be false.”

When people have a particular error, they are not always formal heretics.

Refer to Catholic Catechism:

2089* Incredulity* is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

**1792 **Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

**1793 **If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

**1860 **Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

If you’d read my portion of this argument you’d see I state that I’m using the logic which Steve used in his Polemics. If as he states the writings on an Orthodox site must be accepted as literal and true, then the writing on a Catholic site must also be literal and true. Unless you accept his first statement, I have no argument with you.

 

[dvdjs]

Paraphrase.

Good now we agree that the article doesn’t say what you have claimed.
Your paraphrase alters the meaning, and lead to obvious error.

the writing on a Catholic site must also be literal and true

But the paraphrase is wrong and false.

 

[Nine_Two]

Good now we agree that the article doesn’t say what you have claimed.
Your paraphrase alters the meaning, and lead to obvious error.

But the paraphrase is wrong and false.

A paraphrase doesn’t alter the meaning, though it enhances a certain interpretation, in this case a literalistic interpretation.

The paraphrase is not wrong.