Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[JPrejean]

Seriously though, IF the RCC really believes that the word and means that same thing as through, then why hasnt this been changed in all the issues of the western form of the Nicean Creed?

Because “through” or “and” isn’t the problem.

 

[steve_b]

JPrejean:

No, there is only one Spirit.

True.

JPrejean:

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father because He takes His hypostatic origin and His substance from the Father. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son because He takes His substance through the Son and because He is the love of the Father for the Son, so that He rests on the Son. We call the Spirit “Spirit of the Father” for different reasons than we call Him “Spirit of the Son.”

Correct me if I understand you.

1. love goes only one way from Father to Son and is not reciprocal?
2. the second person of the Blessed Trinity is only a conduit for the Spirit, the Spirit is not His own.?
3. the HS only rests on the Son, but is not of the Son?

How do you interpret the following?

The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father Mt 10:20

The Spirit is the Spirit of His Son Gal 4:6

For some background, “Pneuma” is the Greek word used in these passages for Spirit. As you point out above, It’s not a different Spirit but the same Spirit.

 

[SyroMalankara]

steve b:

True.

Correct me if I understand you.

1. love goes only one way from Father to Son and is not reciprocal?
2. the second person of the Blessed Trinity is only a conduit for the Spirit, the Spirit is not His own.?
3. the HS only rests on the Son, but is not of the Son?

How do you interpret the following?

The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father Mt 10:20

The Spirit is the Spirit of His Son Gal 4:6

For some background, “Pneuma” is the Greek word used in these passages for Spirit. As you point out above, It’s not a different Spirit but the same Spirit.

The questions you ask are from confusion because English doesn’t differentiate between eternal generation and eternal outpouring. Your first question - for instance - would lead one to think that the Son’s reciprocity of love causes generation. Only the Father is primarily Generative within the Trinity.

 

[steve_b]

a pilgrim:

steve b,

Please explain… is this merely your personal opinion, or can you substantiate your statement with documentation from Rome (especially the “…no longer in union with the Church” part)?

Hi Pilgrim,

Let’s look at what I said.

“Those in union with the Catholic Church in the East migh be excused from saying the filioque, just as long as they don’t deny the filioque. If they deny it, they are no longer in union with the Church.”

Allow me to be more specific

“The addition of the Filioque is not required even in Italy, for at Rome the Creed is still said in Greek without it; but there it is simply an ancient custom and no indication of any difference in doctrine.”

newadvent.org/cathen/13277a.htm

Does that make it clearer? We know Rome professes and teaches the filioque. By leaving it out by no means presumes denial of the filioque.
a pilgrim:

Now, since Rome has already accepted the Eastern Catholic position that "…the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from twosources and not by a double procession, butfrom one origin…"

Are you sure your statement is correct?
a pilgrim:

how is it then that she can say that those of her faithful who share this understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit are, as you say, “…no longer in union with the Church?”

Please explain.

1. When you recite the creed, namely, you recite what you believe, do you recite the filioque or not?
2. One can omit the filioque without denying the filioque, correct? We see that from the above example and link I provided. However, If one denies that the HS also proceeds from the Son, which is an article of Catholic faith, they by definition, aren’t in union with the Church who professes this truth, correct?

 

[steve_b]

Michael_Thoma:

The questions you ask are from confusion because English doesn’t differentiate between eternal generation and eternal outpouring. Your first question - for instance - would lead one to think that the Son’s reciprocity of love causes generation. Only the Father is primarily Generative within the Trinity.

From what I’ve seen so far, no one argues against your last point.

 

[JackQ]

JPrejean:

We agree on that. But in the same way, neither does the Son grant it to the Holy Spirit.

All I know is that the Scripture says that the Son does everything the Father does, and I provided that as scriptural support for the position that the Spirit proceeds from the Son per the request of Father Ambrose to another poster. That the Son does everything that the Father does is a revealed truth, and like any real thing that we don’t make up, there are some things we know about it, and some things we don’t.

JPrejean:

I’d say the same thing about the “You’re arguing with Jesus” line that provoked this entire line of discussion.

You might say it, but it wouldn’t be an apt comparison. To say that the Son does everything the Father does is a position that logically leads to absurd and/or heretical results is to argue with Jesus because he is the one who said it. Conversely, to bring up Sabellianism in a discussion about the filioque is to change the subject of the debate. The question being addressed was whether there is scriptural support for the position that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
[SORRY. I HAD TO CUT OUT SOME OF YOUR QUOTE HERE BECAUSE MY POST WAS TOO LONG]
No, accusing someone of incorrect reasoning is not the same as accusing him of heresy. My point wasn’t that you offended me personally or something like that. For all I know you could be me writing to myself in my sleep. I actually understand what you’re saying better after this last post, but when I wrote what I wrote I honestly thought that, since I could not see how Sabellianism was any more relevant to the discussion than motorcycle maintenance, you were going to attempt a carpet bombing with misdirection and ephithets. I’m sorry. I apologize. I’ll give you more credit in the future.

But my reasoning is not wrong; you’re wrong in your reasoning. The problem with arguments about the Trinity is that we’re arguing about things that our reason doesn’t completely grasp. One God in three Persons is just not something we could have reasoned our way to, which is why it had to be revealed in the first place.

Now a lot of people think that the idea of the Trinity is contradictory. We know, of course, that this is due to the common equivocation between being and person. That doesn’t mean we understand the Trinity any more than we can visualize four dimensions (but there are four dimensions–at least). The Trinity is just plain hard to conceive of. So when we get into this realm we shouldn’t be surprised if we run into realities that seem to defy logic and sense. That even happens in quantum physics when we discover that particles act like particles sometimes and other times act like waves. How can something be both a particle and a wave? I dunno. But that’s the way it is.

That’s why I always advise a humble approach to things like the filioque debate, and it’s also why I’m sensitive when I think that the discussion is moving in a direction of an accusation of heresy. Accusations like that are more often than not a cheap way of wriggling out of a debate about matters that we should be discussing with wonder and openness. We don’t need to be afraid of that, because it is always heresies that try to box in spiritual realities to human understanding. After all, Arianism and Sabellianism are a lot easier to understand than Orthodoxy, and that was their appeal.

I suspect that both sides of the filioque debate are right in a way, not because I think truth is relative, but because I believe firmly in the blind men feeling the elephant analogy. I also believe that a division in Christendom over the issue is stupid, especially since the vast majority of the people affected by the division don’t even know what the argument is about.

Anyway, this whole thing started with me trying to find biblical passages supporting the filioque. I did that twice. And I don’t think the passage where Jesus says that he does everything the Father does sounds even remotely like conflating the Son into an aspect of God rather than being a Person. I further think that to say this would mean that the Son would have to beget himself is to confuse being and action, since Jesus never says that he is the Father or that he becomes the Father. Even on a human level I can, in theory, do everything you do, and yet not become you (also see my argument on this point above). If we have a hard time understanding how this can be so, then in my book that makes it sound a lot more authentic than, say, Sabellianism.

 

[stanley123]

Seriously though, IF the RCC really believes that the word and means that same thing as through, then why hasnt this been changed in all the issues of the western form of the Nicean Creed?

Because “through” or “and” isn’t the problem.

I have noticed a tendency on the part of Western Catholics to declare something a non-issue or a non-problem when an Eastern Christian brings up a certain teaching which to him and to his Church does present a problem. First an Eastern Christian brings up a question. Then the Western Catholic declares that this is not a problem or it is not relevant to reunion. But even though the Westerner declares it irrelevant, he does not want to budge from his positon by one iota.
Let me give you a few examples of this:

1. It was brought up that the Eastern Orthodox have a problem with innovations in the Catholic Liturgy. When I mentioned the clown Mass, and that Traditional Catholics have a problem with it also, this was said to be irrelevant to the discussion on reunion.
2. When I mentioned the posibility of a common date for Easter, and asked why the West does not simply accept the Eastern Orthodox method of calculation, it was said that it would not be productive to do so. This was said in spite of the present Pope’s request to have a common date for Easter.
3. When I asked about icons, and why the Church does not abandon its use of statues in favor of icons, the response was that icons were a non-issue. As you know, some Eastern Christian object to the use of statues on the grounds that these are “graven images”. So it is not true that it is a non-issue for them.
4. Now we have the question of the filioque versus the alternative formulation of “through the Son.” First of all, it was declared that the Western Catholic beleives exactly that the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father through the Son. In other words, that filioque and through the Son mean exactly the same thing. Then it was asked if these mean exactly the same thing for the Western Christian, then why does not the Western Catholic Church adopt the phrase through the Son in its creed. I don;'t see why this would not be a reasonable solution, since the term through the Son is acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox, whereas filioque is not. So what is the answer of the Western Catholic? Answer: it is simply declared that “through” or “and” isn’t the problem.
   Why would it be unreasonable to infer from this that perhaps the Catholic Church is not as serious as it says it is, when it says that it wants reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. If these things are non-issues with the Catholic Church, namely, the use of icons, the date of Easter, the use of the phrase through the Son, and if on the other hand, these things are serious issues with the Eastern Orthodox Church, then why would it be unreasonable for the Church which sees these things as non-issues and which sees these things as not problems, to just go along with the Eastern Orthodox view on the matter?

 

[JPrejean]

steve_b:

Correct me if I understand you.

1. love goes only one way from Father to Son and is not reciprocal?
2. the second person of the Blessed Trinity is only a conduit for the Spirit, the Spirit is not His own.?
3. the HS only rests on the Son, but is not of the Son?

How do you interpret the following?

The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father Mt 10:20

The Spirit is the Spirit of His Son Gal 4:6

For some background, “Pneuma” is the Greek word used in these passages for Spirit. As you point out above, It’s not a different Spirit but the same Spirit.

1. No, it’s not one way. The mutual love of the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit is what completes the Trinity. This is known as perichoresis, the internal life of love within the Trinity.
2. It’s absurd to speak of a Person having the divine essence as “only a conduit.” You’re talking about divinity; to have it is to have all of it. The divine essence is absolutely simple and indivisible. The whole point is that it is shared in communion fully among the persons. It’s not as if the Son has “less” divinity because He is “only a conduit” as you put it. The Spirit is the Son’s own because the Son gives the entirety of the divine substance to the Spirit, just as the Son receives the entirety of the divine essence from the Father.
3. The Holy Spirit both rests on the Son and is of the Son.

As far as my interpretation of the passages, as I said before, they are true in two different ways. The former refers to hypostatic origin (although also substance), and the latter refers only to substance.

 

[JPrejean]

JackQ:

All I know is that the Scripture says that the Son does everything the Father does, and I provided that as scriptural support for the position that the Spirit proceeds from the Son per the request of Father Ambrose to another poster. That the Son does everything that the Father does is a revealed truth, and like any real thing that we don’t make up, there are some things we know about it, and some things we don’t.

The thing about revealed truth is that one has to interpret the revelation properly to ascertain the divinely-intended meaning. It must be interpreted in its proper sense within the faith of the Church. Part of that proper sense is that “everything” does not refer to literally “everything.” If it is interpreted in that way, then the passage would be in blatant contradiction with other Scriptural passages (e.g., “The Father is greater than I” - John 14:28). One way to see this contradiction is that if you interpreted the passage as literally as you are suggesting, then it would lead to Sabellianism. When properly interpreted, the passage does not support what you are asserting that it supports. Therefore, it is incorrect for you to assert that someone is arguing with Jesus when you are misinterpreting what He is saying.

JackQ:

Now a lot of people think that the idea of the Trinity is contradictory. We know, of course, that this is due to the common equivocation between being and person. That doesn’t mean we understand the Trinity any more than we can visualize four dimensions (but there are four dimensions–at least). The Trinity is just plain hard to conceive of. So when we get into this realm we shouldn’t be surprised if we run into realities that seem to defy logic and sense. That even happens in quantum physics when we discover that particles act like particles sometimes and other times act like waves. How can something be both a particle and a wave? I dunno. But that’s the way it is.

I strongly disagree with this attitude, because I think it proves too much. In fact, it’s probably because I have a master’s degree in physics that this particular analogy really highlights the problem with what you’re suggesting. By your reasoning, once we discover that quantum objects can act like both particles and wave, we should just give up the ghost. But it turns out that even though we don’t have a firm and definite conceptual grasp of exactly what is going on, we can still generate useful mathematical formulations that describe quantum behavior, make useful predictions, etc., etc. It’s the same way with the Trinity; the fact that there are areas that are admittedly incomprehensible (the divine essence, the exact nature of generation and procession) doesn’t mean that we can’t make useful and definite statements about the Trinity based on revealed truth. And incidentally, just because we can’t derive the Trinity by reason alone doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t make sense after it is revealed. St. Thomas certainly thought that the Trinity was comprehensible in certain respects even though it had to be revealed.

JackQ:

That’s why I always advise a humble approach to things like the filioque debate, and it’s also why I’m sensitive when I think that the discussion is moving in a direction of an accusation of heresy. Accusations like that are more often than not a cheap way of wriggling out of a debate about matters that we should be discussing with wonder and openness. We don’t need to be afraid of that, because it is always heresies that try to box in spiritual realities to human understanding. After all, Arianism and Sabellianism are a lot easier to understand than Orthodoxy, and that was their appeal.

The flip side is that an appeal to mystery and/or incomprehensibility can be an equally cheap way of wriggling out of a debate. I completely agree with you that Arianism and Sabellianism took the easy way out, and that the orthodox view took a lot more thinking, but if the orthodox view were completely incomprehensible, then no one would have adopted it Also, what you didn’t mention is that both Arians and Sabellians did with Scripture exactly what you are doing: take certain passages at face value, and say “this is the way it is” without undertaking the effort that it would take to harmonize their interpretation with Tradition and arrive at the correct interpretation. I think that you are simply taking the easy way out with your Scriptural citations and excusing yourself from doing the work necessary to arrive at the correct interpretation by claiming that it’s all “mysterious.”

 

[JPrejean]

stanley123:

Answer: it is simply declared that “through” or “and” isn’t the problem.

I’m guessing that you haven’t been following the thread, so you probably have no way of knowing this, but you have misinterpreted what I was saying. Changing the formulation to “through” rather than “and” wouldn’t make the Latin creed any more acceptable to the Orthodox. The objection is that the Father is the sole principle of the Trinity, and it would be just as wrong to say that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son as it would be to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The whole point is that hypostatic generation (the subject of the Nicene Creed) is solely by the Father without any other mediating principle. Consequently, when I say “through” and “and” isn’t the problem, I don’t mean that there isn’t a problem, but that the problem has nothing to do with “through” or “and.”

With regard to your other questions, I can understand the West bending on issues of common faith, but when it comes to people’s personal objections that are unfounded in that common faith, it is absurd to bow to another’s theologoumenon for no reason. The fact that people incorrectly believe that statues violate the prohibition on graven images should not justify demanding another church to change its liturgical practices. Similarly, while there may be reasons for seeking a common date for Easter (particularly if reunion is impending), that correction ought not be demanded beforehand as a condition for reunion, since the date is not a matter of the apostolic faith. Liturgical evolution has been a very real fact of Christian development, and while I think it is worth discussing what ought to be changed, it’s questionable as to whether any or all of these demands rise to the level of dogmatic necessity.

 

[a_pilgrim]

1. When you recite the creed, namely, you recite what you believe, do you recite the filioque or not?

Hi steve b!

No, I do not.

A note of caution: Please take care when referencing New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia entries as a basis for proving points. As has been pointed out countless times by countless individuals in this Forum, the accuracy of* New Advent’s* information has been found to be sadly outdated and/or just plain wrong on enough occasions so as to make all their entries suspect - not a reliable source for the truth by any stretch. The encyclopedia article you linked to in your post…

newadvent.org/cathen/13277a.htm

…is grossly archaic and, frankly, riddled with errors (I started circling the errors as I read through the article and ran out of ink !). Case in point - the very title of the article, Ruthenian Rite, is a misnomer - there is simply no such thing as the Ruthenian Rite. What there is instead is the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, one of the 23 Churches sui juris that together constitute our Catholic Church. This is the Church of which I am a canonical member. Despite the fact that currently upwards of 90% of my worship practice takes place in the Western (Latin) Church, I am still and always will be an Eastern Catholic, bound by the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches.

We in the East do not take the filioque when we recite the Creed - nor, for that matter, does our Holy Father when he celebrates the Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy. Many, if not most, of the other latinizations attributed to my Church in the article you referenced have already been eliminated. This has occurred in no small part due to a mandate issued by His Holiness himself via the 1995 encyclical, Orientale Lumen…

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html

…wherein all Catholics, East and West, have been instructed to make themselves aware of the theological riches that the Churches of the East bring to the fabric of our Holy Mother Church, and to take whatever steps necessary to abandon the vestiges of latinization within our Churches in favor of our ancient traditions and practices, those that more suitably fit within the framework of our Eastern Catholic theology. Let me stress that this is not a case of the Eastern Churches looking to assert their “birthright,” as it were - this is a case of the Holy See, our Holy Father himself, mandating that we do so. And since the filioque has never been part of Eastern Trinitarian belief (except during the period of its “forced” inclusion, which has, gratefully, come and gone), the fact that we do not take it today is not only sanctioned by Rome, but is also in direct obedience to the expressed wishes of the Pastoral Shepherd of all Catholics, our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II.

 

[whosebob]

a pilgrim:

A note of caution: Please take care when referencing New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia entries as a basis for proving points. As has been pointed out countless times by countless individuals in this Forum, the accuracy of* New Advent’s* information has been found to be sadly outdated and/or just plain wrong on enough occasions so as to make all their entries suspect - not a reliable source for the truth by any stretch.

JMJ + OBT​

Dear a pilgrim,

I agree with you that the on-line 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia does badly need a disclaimer as a heading to some of its articles – which disclaimer would point out that those particular articles exhibit some historical bias (and spell out what it is), or that the author was misinformed or used innacurate sources. Particularly, articles related to some aspects of the Orthodox Church(es) and the Eastern Catholic Churches, and East-West relations did not and do not accurately treat the subject matter, or in the worst cases seem unreasonably malicious and/or heavy-handed in their treatment.

HOWEVER, it is a huge stretch to make or repeat the claim that “all their entries [are] suspect - not a reliable source for the truth by any stretch.”

Your statement is inaccurate and a gross misrepresentation of the wonderful resource that New Advent provides.

Over the past five-plus years, I have read about a thousand articles in the on-line CE (there are 11,000+ altogether), and most of them are entirely accurate, well-written and represent sound research (using more modern articles and official resources like the CCC as a gauge). Yes, even the excellent ones are “dated” in some respects – style of writing; literally and naturally not “up-to-date” as regards the bulk of events and developments in the 20th Century – but in most respects a brilliant Catholic vision of the world, history and reality shines through unspotted.

It is also good to keep in mind who put the old CE together – the editors were all Americans or lived and worked in the Catholic Church in America. The point being, that the editorial process is not really comparable to, say, that which was employed in putting together the (new) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Moreover, the CE can’t be or shouldn’t be used as a “benchmark” for the perspective or thinking of the universal Church at that time. My guess is that deficiencies in the cultural depth and breadth of the editorial board, and their lack of direct, personal experience and exposure to things like the Divine Liturgy and Eastern culture are primarily responsible for the real shortcomings in a mostly marvelous work.

For more background, you might like to read . . .

The Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917)

Following are some links to articles that I think reflect the general high quality and accuracy of the CE, perhaps you will disagree:

Introduction to the Eucharist

Christology

The Incarnation

Liturgy of the Mass

Sacrifice of the Mass

Christmas

Thanks.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[a_pilgrim]

whosebob:

HOWEVER, it is a huge stretch to make or repeat the claim that “all their entries [are] suspect - not a reliable source for the truth by any stretch.”

Your statement is inaccurate and a gross misrepresentation of the wonderful resource that New Advent provides…

…Moreover, the CE can’t be or shouldn’t be used as a “benchmark” for the perspective or thinking of the universal Church at that time.

Dear whosebob,

I agree with you that the CE represents the fruits of a true Herculean effort on the part of those who compiled it back during the beginning of the last century. Trust that I mean no disrespect whatsoever toward the memory of those who undertook this massive endeavor.

That aside, I maintain that the usefulness of any reference resource is directly proportional to the accuracy of the information contained therein. There are many who participate on this Forum who point to entries from this encyclopedia as THE difinitive Catholic stance on their particular issue du’ jour. Most, I’d be willing to bet, aren’t even aware that the material they’re referencing is dated at best, and flat-out wrong at worst (the use of the term ***New *Advent with regard to this work kinda gives the wrong impression with regard to how current the info is, don’t you think?). Since the typical reader has no way of knowing which of the entries are current and factual and which are not ( and I believe from your post that we agree many are not), I maintain that it is safer to defer to other sources for accurate and current Church teachings.

So, where then does the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia fit within the grand scheme of today’s Catholic reference materials? Well, my first impression was to view its entries as a look back at the liturgical and theological paradigm in place at the time of its compilation. Then I read your personal disclaimer with regard to attempting to use it for this purpose (as posted in the quote above). I must confess, this leaves me a bit confused as to just how you feel this work should be used. If the accuracy of many of its entries is suspect with regard to the teachings of the Church today, and if it does not represent a benchmark, as you say, with regard to the teachings of the Church at the time of its compilation then, please forgive me for saying so, but how can we treat it as a reliable reference resource, as many on this Forum are wont to do?

By the way - all that said, I do enjoy reading the entries, just as you do, and I will make time to read the ones you’ve linked to… thank you! I’ll continue, however, to disregard its usefulness as an accurate resource with regard to the teachings of our Catholic Church today.

Mnohaja i blahaja l’ita, my friend!

 

[oat_soda]

if the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, then he has no beginning. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son, then because the Son has no beginning, the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father and the Son. What is the problem here? exactly why do many EO have a problem with this? it’s just a different way of understanding this mystery. now, if the church denigned that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, then we have a problem.

after a 1000 years of complete schism between the east and west, and even longer between the oriental orthodox, you would think we could get together and understand that we believe in the same thing in regards to the Trinity. it’s an affront to Jesus who wants us all to be one body, one faith, not three main apostolic churches and tens of thousands of splinters.

finally, i have little hope in a complete healing of the schism. the best we can hope for are more individual churches w/in the orthodox becoming catholic. similar to what has happened in the past. since they have no head, they are incapable of making a drastic decision such as this one, minus a miracle.

 

[JPrejean]

oat soda:

if the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, then he has no beginning. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son, then because the Son has no beginning, the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father and the Son. What is the problem here? exactly why do many EO have a problem with this?

The Holy Spirit has no beginning. He eternally proceeds from the Father. The Son and the Holy Spirit are identical in that regard, so you can’t use that to distinguish them.

 

[oat_soda]

The Holy Spirit has no beginning. He eternally proceeds from the Father. The Son and the Holy Spirit are identical in that regard, so you can’t use that to distinguish them.

So are you saying the the Holy Spirit doesn’t proceed through the Son because he is eternally proceeding from the Father? i want to get at the essence of what divides the two schools of thought.

 

[JPrejean]

oat soda:

So are you saying the the Holy Spirit doesn’t proceed through the Son because he is eternally proceeding from the Father? i want to get at the essence of what divides the two schools of thought

You’ve got it exactly. The hypostases of the Son and Holy Spirit are both eternally derived from the Father, so the derivation of either one cannot depend on the other.

 

[whosebob]

a pilgrim:

I maintain that the usefulness of any reference resource is directly proportional to the accuracy of the information contained therein.

JMJ + OBT​

That is a sensible view to hold, in my opinion. I would point out, though, that a strong case could be made that, say, 95% of the articles in the CE are highly accurate, and the 5% which are not (or that have sections which are not) accurate all fall within certain categories. If this hypothesis can be developed a bit more, then perhaps a disclaimer against the CE can be less general, that is something like . . .

“Articles in the on-line 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia that treat ‘such and such’ should be read with an understanding that the Church’s Magisterium has clarified or developed or shifted its emphasis in teaching on this topic in the last century; while articles that deal with most everything else can more generally be given the benefit of a doubt as to their representing ‘official’ Catholic viewpoints and teaching.”

I think you’ll agree with me that it would be worthwhile to have a clarification like this on the New Advent site itself – if the research was done and conclusions stated carefully enough and presented respectfully to the webmaster, I think it could actually become a reality. I would be glad to take a stab at it myself or to head up an ad hoc “Internet-committee” to do so, but I’m going to be leaving the country indefinitely to go on a mission trip and don’t have the time (my departure is in two weeks). How about yourself?
a pilgrim:

many who participate on this Forum who point to entries from this encyclopedia as THE difinitive Catholic stance on their particular issue

You are correct, that is not ideal – it would be nice to have people looking first at the Catechism and then to other official Church documents as well as to “non-official” resources like the CE.

In fact, I find that in many cases, the Catechism can ideally serve as a 'diving board," wherein the “raw” Church documents and the CE are like the swimming pool. Moreover, the CCC and clarifications from the CDF, etc. help to serve as guides to distinguish official Catholic teaching from statements or treatments of a particular writer or editor (whether of an article in the CE or some other book or collection, like the PG and PL) which might be heterodox or incomplete.

the typical reader has no way of knowing which of the entries are current and factual and which are not ( and I believe from your post that we agree many are not), I maintain that it is safer to defer to other sources for accurate and current Church teachings.

I’m not sure how large “many” is, but I think it is approximately 5% or less of the 11,000+ articles.

Again, if a targeted disclaimer and perhaps a simple “red dot, yellow dot, green dot” system could be developed and implemented, this wouldn’t be such a problem. And, in fact, because I’m quite confident the “red dot articles” mostly fit within certain well-defined categories, I don’t think it would take an 11,000 article review to complete a useful first-round implementation.

This would take dedicated volunteers and some sort of ‘board’ to review the submitted ratings, but I really think it could be done and would be worth doing.

So are you going to sacrifice some of your time and help with this or what?

Then I read your personal disclaimer with regard to attempting to use it for this purpose . . . I must confess, this leaves me a bit confused as to just how you feel this work should be used.

Thanks for pointing out my inconsistency. Actually, I caught the mistake myself, but the time-limit in which I could edit the article had already expired. I wondered if you would catch it, and whether you read “between the lines” or ask me to clarify.

Basically, what I was thinking in my head didn’t come out with the same clarity in typed words. My statement regarding “benchmark” should have read something like:

“Moreover, where the CE displays a heavy bias or worse, the editors’ analysis and conclusions can’t automatically be, or shouldn’t automatically be, used as a ‘benchmark’ for the perspective or thinking of the universal Church at that time.”

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

I’ll continue, however, to disregard its usefulness as an accurate resource with regard to the teachings of our Catholic Church today.

I hope I’ve demonstrated why I feel it important to say that such an approach seems extreme. The CE is in reality a great treasure of Catholic thought – theology, philosophy, doctrine, dogma, incarnational “world view,” sacramentality of the economy of salvation, official teaching of the Church, etc. etc. etc.

I DO agree with you that the real and serious shortcomings need to be dealt with in a decisive way, but I think there are more creative and value-adding means to do so without basically discounting the Catholic Encyclopedia outright. In fact, I believe it a great mistake to give the CE such disregard and to lead others to do so.

I also agree with you that New Advent should in some way encourage it’s readers to look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other documents from the authentic Magisterium (past and present) when attempting to draw conclusions as to “official” Church teaching.

Thanks for your feedback.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[a_pilgrim]

Dear whosebob,

My sincere compliments and respect on your well spoken and thought out response. I do believe, however, that it’s time we turn this thread back over to its original intent, lest we both be sent to the “time out corner” for hijacking!

May Our Lord travel with you on your upcoming missionary work (any details you can share with us? *…*ahem… in a separate thread, of course! ). Please know that you and your work will be in my prayers.

To repeat what I said to you in an earlier post (this time in English, rather than Church Slavonic)… many blessed years, my friend!