In between Catholic Church and Orthodox Church

[Gabriel_of_12]

Both. Adding the Filioque fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship of the 3 persons of the Trinity. While there is some discussion to be had about the Roman claim that “procedit” has a different meaning in Latin than in Greek, remember that the Creed is meant to be a universal Creed that is recited by all Christians in communion with one another, and thus should mean the same thing. Any alterations were forbidden by the Second Ecumenical Council without the consent of another council that is universally accepted.

That is a ridiculous assumption and lacks the reality of history. Rome is under attack not only be secular forces but also by Eastern heretics. During which time your Patriarch of Constantinople has already usurped authority over apostolic sees along with his secular weakened Eastern Emperor who refused assistance to the Pope militarily not to mention the Patriarch of Constantinople was not going to assist the Pope’s lead to council with him to defeat the Eastern heresy which came from their sister church’s.

When the Church ADDED the Nicene Creed to the Apostles Creed to defeat heresy, you have no problem with this addition with the Popes approval? Yet when the Pope declare Jesus is God to the eastern heretics, you object to his victory over the eastern heresy.

Something is wrong with your logic here. Besides Jesus gave Peter the keys (authority) singularly to bind and loose on earth. The Pope’s as apostolic successors to Peter excercised the Keys which Jesus gave to Peter alone. Yet you object to the Pope’s defeating heretical doctrines with filioque which proves Jesus is God. Filioque never states that Jesus is the Father, only that Jesus is God.

Peace be with you

 

[Schism_hater]

Is “through the Son” doctrinally in error or does it represent yet another change that’s not allowed?

With respect, I must disagree with some of my Orthodox brothers and say, in my understanding, “from the Father through the Son”, properly understood, could be said by an Orthodox believer. What is essential in this formulation is that the Son is clearly not viewed as an originating principle of the Spirit in conjunction with Father, as the post-schism proclamations of Rome unfortunately proclaim. This language could be understood as equivalent to the Spirit proceeding (eternally) from the Father and resting in the Son, or being manifested in the Son, both of which formulations have patristic support and have been looked opn favorably by at least some Orthodox theologians. Again, what is to be avoided is the Anselmian-Thomisitic view, dogmatized by Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence, that the Father and the Son together, equally, act as one eternal principle of the Spirit. That is what Orthodoxy considers heretical.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ConstantineTG;10797903]Yes, I absolutely believe 100% it is a heresy. It is proven in Scripture and I have posted the exact passage where Jesus himself outlines the procession of the Holy Spirit

.

You have proven nothing. The only thing you have proven is the false belief that Orthodox have of filioque which I myself know is 100% heretical. The Orthodox view of filioque is new and heretical it is never supported by the Nicene Creed and it is one that is never believed by Roman Catholics.

Show me your full filioque I and will show you a devil.

You are talking about Mass. I am talking about the fact that the Latin Mass uses the Nicene Creed exclusively. The current use of the Apostle’s Creed has only been going around since the 70s.

So the rosary was just revealed in the 1970’s? LOL… I have to say Constantine I did not expect that from you, that is funny. It reveals how much you really know about Catholicism. Why don’t you try and get out of the post constantinople period of pride and take a look at reality in the history of the Roman Catholic Church pre-constantinople period. You are free and do not have to remain stagnant, explore a little.

Thanks for the laugh…lol 1970’s

**p.s the Catholic filioque only reveals that the Son is God, not that the Son is the Father. The Trinity is one God. This is the Orthodox misunderstanding of the filioque who reveals their own heretical filioque as the Son is the Father. The Equality reveals the Trinity as one God never the Son is the Father.

Catholics never profess that the Son is the Father, yet the Orthodox wish to make this false heretical claim that is what the filioque is. that is heretical and a lie, and it has never been professed by Catholics.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

With respect, I must disagree with some of my Orthodox brothers and say, in my understanding, “from the Father through the Son”, properly understood, could be said by an Orthodox believer. What is essential in this formulation is that the Son is clearly not viewed as an originating principle of the Spirit in conjunction with Father, as the post-schism proclamations of Rome unfortunately proclaim. This language could be understood as equivalent to the Spirit proceeding (eternally) from the Father and resting in the Son, or being manifested in the Son, both of which formulations have patristic support and have been looked opn favorably by at least some Orthodox theologians. Again, what is to be avoided is the Anselmian-Thomisitic view, dogmatized by Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence, that the Father and the Son together, equally, act as one eternal principle of the Spirit. That is what Orthodoxy considers heretical.

What you insert into the filioque and misunderstand is never what the simple word “and the Son” indicates which supports fully the Nicene Creed.

First of all how you can add so much language to the simple word “and” is beyond me?

Here is where Orthodox misses from the Nicene Creed and the filioque. The Word “and” distinguishes the Father from the Son. It’s not hard to understand this if you leave it alone, don’t add your semantics or possible language assumptions to the word “and”. The Word and distinguishes the Father from the Son here.

The Arians are now educated and are using the Nicene creed to dupe the latins and teach a false Jesus that Jesus is not God. It gets tricky here but the Pope is not fooled by these high tech heretics.The heretics presume to declare that Jesus is not God because the Nicence creed reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. That is not what the Nicene declares. Remember we are dealing with Jesus divinity, never that Jesus is the Father.The filioque declares Jesus divinity.

When it is declared that Jesus is God, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Thus when the Trinity is declared in that profession in the Nicene Creed it confirms that the Son is God because it is professed in the Nicene Creed that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and because God is one and never divided the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as “One God”. The Arians form of heresy was defeated using both their own interpretation of the Nicene Creed the spirit proceeds from the Father with the filioque which confirmed that Jesus is God.

The filioque is never believed to divide the God head nor does the filioque ever make the claim that the Son is the Father. When the spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son stop! all this declaration is professing is that the three persons identified here are trinity and all are one God and if all are one God, confirms that Jesus is the son distinguished from the Father with the “and” during the eternal procession of the Spirit.

Keepping it simple here; Filioque distinguishes the Father from the Son with “And”. The “and” does not make the Son the Father. To conclude the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son is revealing one God. God is Trinity and is One God. The word and reveals the three as one God.

The Word and does two things it distinguishes the Father from the Son, secondly it joins all three persons as One God. “And” if all three are One God, then the Word of God made flesh is God, this is what defeated the Arian heresy that Jesus is God. Filioque never reveals that the Son is the Father.

**“Through the Son” is not part of the Nicene Creed professed, what is professed is the divinity of Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God is the Word of God made flesh. The Word “And” confirms the oneness the Son shares with the Father as One God.

Through the Son is Catholic theology and is professed at Mass, “In him, with him and through him”…etc. But it is not part of the Nicence Creed because “through him” reveals our Communion with the Father through the Son. Although the Father and the Son can be included in the Nicene Creed because it declares the Son is God.**

Peace be with you

 

[marlo]

Hello,

Food for thought, if you say the Catholic Church, it is the churches in communion with the Pope of Rome, if you say Orthodox Church, you have to choose between the Eastern and Oriental, In general, Orthodoxy is not the Eastern Orthodox church alone there is the Oriental Orthodox church too

thanks
Marlo

Hello,

I’ve been lurking for a while after a thought was placed in my heart about the Catholic Church. (That was months ago, and I’ve still been searching.) Currently, I’m a Protestant (of the charismatic persuasion, no…not the jumping up and down and rolling on the floor kind), but the idea of a universal, catholic church has been appealing to me.

Then I discovered that there was such a thing as the Orthodox Church who also claims to be the true catholic church. Confused, I looked into their history, and they seem to make sense as well.

So now, I’m just kind of torn because I do want to find a spiritual home, and on the one side, I’m leaning towards the Catholic Church because they do seem to be Catholic in the global, worldwide sense (and perhaps primacy of Peter is true), but the Orthodox Church is also appealing because, well, they don’t seem to have statues (yes, I know, that sounds like an idiotic reason) and they don’t have quite an intellectual, rational approach to every spiritual mystery. Both Churches place a heavier emphasis on the Virgin Mary/Theotokos that I’m still not quite familiar with (e.g., Queen of Heaven, Bride of God). (I still have baggage leftover from reading/hearing about the Catholic Church being the h*rlot and all that business…)

The one major issue is the Real Presence of the Eucharist. My current church believes Communion is only symbolic. But I feel drawn to believe that Christ our Savior is present. (This belief has been made more firm after reading The Dialog of St. Catherine of Siena.)

So in about the six months I first posted here, I’ve barely made 1 step and I’m just as confused now because of the claim by the Orthodox Church.

I don’t really have a question, but if anyone switched from RCC to OC or OC to RCC, I would love to hear your opinion.

(I’m still not sure why the Filioque was such a giant deal…it sort of seems like…semantics…? Please don’t stone me for saying that…)

Now I’m off to Mass (missed the one at 11:30 am). Thank God the parish that is two blocks away has multiple Masses… It’s actually been a while since I’ve been to Catholic Mass, even though the parish has been right there all along…

 

[Peter_J]

After taking the time to read all the stuff in your last two posts … and with all due respect to you and all other Catholics who post here (of which I am one), this seems like a good time to remind readers like EIF5A that stuff posted here isn’t on par with official Catholic documents. I’m not denying that this forum is a great resource but … well put it this way: dotcoms, this one and others, have only been around for 2 decades, whereas the Catholic Church has been around for 2 millennia.

P.S. I’m not much of a night-owl, but I just caught up on reading all the posts. I have to say, Wow. What I said about “stuff” posted on an internet discussion forum seems twice as appropriate as it did when I said it. Hopefully all readers already realize that the Catholic Church isn’t a dotcom or an internet discussion forum, but I really feel that I ought to say it anyhow.

:frighten:

 

[Peter_J]

Is there a reason why everyone can’t agree on “from the Father through the Son”?

I was going to respond to this question, but then I thought better of it in view of how the dialogue here has gone in the last 12 hours or so; and instead decided to refer you to a completely separate dialogue. The dialogue itself was held in private (naturally) but you can read the document that was produced:
The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement

Another excellent document is this one from the Vatican:
The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is a ridiculous assumption and lacks the reality of history. Rome is under attack not only be secular forces but also by Eastern heretics. During which time your Patriarch of Constantinople has already usurped authority over apostolic sees along with his secular weakened Eastern Emperor who refused assistance to the Pope militarily not to mention the Patriarch of Constantinople was not going to assist the Pope’s lead to council with him to defeat the Eastern heresy which came from their sister church’s.

When the Church ADDED the Nicene Creed to the Apostles Creed to defeat heresy, you have no problem with this addition with the Popes approval? Yet when the Pope declare Jesus is God to the eastern heretics, you object to his victory over the eastern heresy.

Something is wrong with your logic here. Besides Jesus gave Peter the keys (authority) singularly to bind and loose on earth. The Pope’s as apostolic successors to Peter excercised the Keys which Jesus gave to Peter alone. Yet you object to the Pope’s defeating heretical doctrines with filioque which proves Jesus is God. Filioque never states that Jesus is the Father, only that Jesus is God.

Peace be with you

Already? At no point did the Patriarch of Constantinople had any authority over other bishops the same way the Pope of Rome has. You are misinterpreting titles the same way it was misinterpreted back then. The Pope of Alexandria has the title “Judge of the Universe” yet he never really judged anyone.

Jesus never singularly gave the authority to bind and lose to Peter. Read the Gospel again. He gave it to all Apostle (Matthew 18). Also there is nothing in the Bible that points to any passing of authority from Peter to anyone, something that is only explained by faulty reasoning and assumptions made from passages with the idea of proving the Papacy in mind. Anybody who doesn’t already assume the Roman idea of Papal Primacy will never find it in the Bible when they read it. It simply is not there.

 

[ConstantineTG]

.

You have proven nothing. The only thing you have proven is the false belief that Orthodox have of filioque which I myself know is 100% heretical. The Orthodox view of filioque is new and heretical it is never supported by the Nicene Creed and it is one that is never believed by Roman Catholics.

Show me your full filioque I and will show you a devil.

So the rosary was just revealed in the 1970’s? LOL… I have to say Constantine I did not expect that from you, that is funny. It reveals how much you really know about Catholicism. Why don’t you try and get out of the post constantinople period of pride and take a look at reality in the history of the Roman Catholic Church pre-constantinople period. You are free and do not have to remain stagnant, explore a little.

Thanks for the laugh…lol 1970’s

**p.s the Catholic filioque only reveals that the Son is God, not that the Son is the Father. The Trinity is one God. This is the Orthodox misunderstanding of the filioque who reveals their own heretical filioque as the Son is the Father. The Equality reveals the Trinity as one God never the Son is the Father.

Catholics never profess that the Son is the Father, yet the Orthodox wish to make this false heretical claim that is what the filioque is. that is heretical and a lie, and it has never been professed by Catholics.**

Did I say Rosary? I said Mass. If you want to be taken seriously I suggest learning how to discuss intelligibly and focus on the discussion instead of interjecting points from all over the place just to “win”. Your method of discussion is indicative of someone with nothing to say and only wants to “win” by insulting the other party.

 

[dvdjs]

The Apostle’s Creed wasn’t even used in the Roman Church until the recent change in History. The Latin Mass exclusively uses the Nicene Creed.

The Roman church uses the Apostles Creed at baptism and has done so from time immemorial.

Also you never addressed the fact that Scripture is explicitly clear from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds from. And Jesus himself said it.

The filioque does not contradict the passage unless one were to implicitly assume that the word “alone” belongs at the end. Such assumptions can cause trouble, reminiscent of “saved by faith (alone)”.

 

[dvdjs]

The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement

Another excellent document is this one from the Vatican:
The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions

Nice,

 

[CopticChristian]

Is “through the Son” doctrinally in error or does it represent yet another change that’s not allowed?

If you have not noticed there are differing opinions. If you are considering Orthodox vs Catholic, I suggest you realize as I pointed out earlier…

Some Orthodox will say the Roman Catholics are in error and some Catholics will say the Orthodox are in error…

What I suggest you do is this. Go back and view the tenacity of disagreement between those that claim Orthodoxy and those that claim Catholic. Understand that this is just an anonymous forum.

Then as you venture into your journey ask Orthodox priests, Roman Latin priests, Roman Eastern Catholic priests…what the big deal is about the filioque.

As you get a handle on this controversy do not make it your hill to die on…focus on Christ in the Eucharist as your main focus…all else flows from there…

**No Catholic will say you are in error if you celebrate the Eucharist at either Church as a member. **

Read and study the Catechism. I suggest the Audio USA Catechism for Adults…the book is good as well. Eastern Catholics have their own Catechism. Read that as well. I am not sure if the Orthodox have a recommended Catechism, if they do read that too…focus on agreement not controversy.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Did I say Rosary? I said Mass. If you want to be taken seriously I suggest learning how to discuss intelligibly and focus on the discussion instead of interjecting points from all over the place just to “win”. Your method of discussion is indicative of someone with nothing to say and only wants to “win” by insulting the other party.

Actually I was trying to let you off easy here, because you are ignorant to the fact of the Apostles creed. Your false assumption that the Roman Catholic Church started to use the Apostles creed in the 70’s is comical. Even the Rosary contain the Apostles creed since long before the 70’s. Need I strike the dead dog here? Your point of the Apostles Creed and date is false and misleading here. You are losing your credibility of honesty here. Either you don’t know or you do? But don’t guess that the Apostles creed began being professed by the Catholic Church in the 70’s. That is absolutely wrong and should be informed.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here is a source that confirms all that I have stated that the filioque compliments the Nicene Creed as the son is consubstantial with the Father and that the filioque only reveals that Jesus is God.

**Offficial source; CCC 248 ** At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father,” it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.

The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son (This is from the Nicene Creed), by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason, " for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle” (again the Nicene Creed substance is being revealed from the filioque understanding), is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is with the Son, (which points to Jesus divinity as God) the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarily, (meaning filioque does not change the Nicene creed the filioque compliments the Nicene Creed) provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed. (in short the CCC confirms the Catholic filioque understanding compliments the Nicene professed Creed that Jesus being consubstantial with the Father, Jesus is God, and it is from God that the Holy Spirit proceeds).

Anything added to this from Orthodoxy is heretical.

Paranthesis mine.

 

[Schism_hater]

What you insert into the filioque and misunderstand is never what the simple word “and the Son” indicates which supports fully the Nicene Creed.

First of all how you can add so much language to the simple word “and” is beyond me?

You are speaking out of ignorance of your own church’s dogmatic declarations. Before tryin to speak on this subject, you should at least educate yourself by reading the decrees of Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence. As I said in my post, they declare that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son eternally as from one principle. Lateran IV states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “equally”. I am not making anything up, it is there.

Also I never said the Latin church said the Son was the Father. I don’t know where you got that.

 

[Peter_J]

Also I never said the Latin church said the Son was the Father. I don’t know where you got that.

I’ve pretty much given up on trying to make sense of where this conversation has gone. It seems more worthwhile to just keep it in mind as an illustration that one shouldn’t put too much trust in the internet.

 

[Peter_J]

I was going to respond to this question, but then I thought better of it in view of how the dialogue here has gone in the last 12 hours or so; and instead decided to refer you to a completely separate dialogue. The dialogue itself was held in private (naturally) but you can read the document that was produced:
The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement

Another excellent document is this one from the Vatican:
The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions

Nice,

Thanks it wasn’t easy.

Well, actually I guess for me it was rather easy, since I just had to look them up and post the links, not write the documents.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually I was trying to let you off easy here, because you are ignorant to the fact of the Apostles creed. Your false assumption that the Roman Catholic Church started to use the Apostles creed in the 70’s is comical. Even the Rosary contain the Apostles creed since long before the 70’s. Need I strike the dead dog here? Your point of the Apostles Creed and date is false and misleading here. You are losing your credibility of honesty here. Either you don’t know or you do? But don’t guess that the Apostles creed began being professed by the Catholic Church in the 70’s. That is absolutely wrong and should be informed.

Peace be with you

Your continuous insistence on ad hominem suggest you really have nothing meaningful to present and contribute to this conversation. I’m letting you know that our discussion is ended.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Roman church uses the Apostles Creed at baptism and has done so from time immemorial.

The filioque does not contradict the passage unless one were to implicitly assume that the word “alone” belongs at the end. Such assumptions can cause trouble, reminiscent of “saved by faith (alone)”.

We are talking about the Creed as recited in every Liturgy. Again, don’t change the topic. I know its place as the Baptismal Creed, but that is not the charge that was falsely laid out against the Orthodox Church. Read back, the triumphalist polemic was about using the Creed in the Liturgy, not in the Rosary, not during Baptism, but as an everyday use in Liturgy.

 

[dvdjs]

We are talking about the Creed as recited in every Liturgy. Again, don’t change the topic. I know its place as the Baptismal Creed, but that is not the charge that was falsely laid out against the Orthodox Church. Read back, the triumphalist polemic was about using the Creed in the Liturgy, not in the Rosary, not during Baptism, but as an everyday use in Liturgy.

Actually, that restriction is not at all clear from the thread; I just responded to what you said about the the use in the church.

I am not entirely sure about when the Creed was incorporated into the Mass - probably second millenium. But I have the Apostles Creed used in the Mass in Europe. Do you have a reference on this?