C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Apostle’s Creed is in use today in the OF in many places. In the Philippines and Canada, it is the norm. But the Tridentine Missal uses the Nicene Creed.
- Status
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Please let us be sensible here; to update you the CCC confirms the councils findings to which you have left your misunderstandings in the past. Let me educate you and update you what the CCC teaches about your misgivings of the Lateran IV council that follows.
The principle is God. The Catholic church has taken the Nicene Creed’s profession that the Son is consubstantial with the Father “FIRST”.Which filioque proves from the Nicene creed. Remember the Catholic Church here is fighting against an Arian heresy that is using the Nicence Creed to prove that Jesus is not God. I ask you take this into consideration as I inform you of more details of the Lateran IV findings.
Yes to be sure, because the Nicene creed professes that the Father and the Son are consubstantial = God. The reason the Blessed Trinity proves one God, is because each person is God. That is what filioque is professing in the Nicene Creed against the Arian heresy which denies Jesus as God. The Equality references the Trinity which the Nicence Creed and councils confirm to be one God. That is why the CCC confirms** first **that from the Nicene Creed which professes the Son is consubstantial with the Father, the filioque takes precedence here from this profession.
What you appear to be misinterpreting of the Lateran council is that the Son himself is equal to the Father as if the Son is the Father. That is not what the Lateran council reveals. It is not there. Because the CCC confirms the profession of the filioque first takes into account the Nicene Creed of the Son is consubstantial with the Father.
Your call name identifies you as Orthodox. And Orthodox posters have indicated that the filioque professess the heresy that the Son is the Father. If this is not your Ortrhodox position, then I humbly retract my statement from your position.
Schism hater; you appear to be reasonable. Please allow me to conclude my thoughts on this subject with you.
The Pope allowed the filioque to support the Nicene Creed not to change it as some falsely claim. Because the Arians at the time were professing the Nicene Creed but misinterpreting it to confirm it professes that Jesus is not God.
What the Pope did what he always does. He protected the apostolic faith professed from the Nicene Creed from falling into the hands of heretics. From my own words to simplify a delicate matter allow me this internet space to speak.
The reason the Pope included the filioque was to defeat the Arian heresy from infecting the Nicene creed, that Arians professed that Jesus is not God. The Pope did this to eternally remove any more future heretics who try to use the Nicene Creed to disprove Jesus divinity. The “filioque” is the stone placed between heretics ever infecting the Nicene Creed from ever denying Jesus is not God. The filioque confirms that Jesus is God.
When considering the present condition and present age when the filioque was included in the Nicene Creed, was to protect it from heretics ever using it to include their own false heretical teachings.
The CCC warns that no rigid affirmation should be made to the filioque apart from what the Nicene creed already professes that “first” the Son is consubstantial with the Father, "and that the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed (which is in the Nicene Creed). Please read CCC 248. Or see post above #134
Peace be with you
M
marlo
Guest
Hello Brother Gabriel of 12,
Basing on what i read so far, I think the word “Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father or the Son” is the exact English wording which the Orthodox is putting on the meaning of the Filioque because this is what they are trying to describe on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as if the Son is the Father and the “or” makes the Holy Spirit a creature.
Thanks
Marlo
Basing on what i read so far, I think the word “Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father or the Son” is the exact English wording which the Orthodox is putting on the meaning of the Filioque because this is what they are trying to describe on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as if the Son is the Father and the “or” makes the Holy Spirit a creature.
Thanks
Marlo
Please let us be sensible here; to update you the CCC confirms the councils findings to which you have left your misunderstandings in the past. Let me educate you and update you what the CCC teaches about your misgivings of the Lateran IV council that follows.
The principle is God. The Catholic church has taken the Nicene Creed’s profession that the Son is consubstantial with the Father “FIRST”.Which filioque proves from the Nicene creed. Remember the Catholic Church here is fighting against an Arian heresy that is using the Nicence Creed to prove that Jesus is not God. I ask you take this into consideration as I inform you of more details of the Lateran IV findings.
Yes to be sure, because the Nicene creed professes that the Father and the Son are consubstantial = God. The reason the Blessed Trinity proves one God, is because each person is God. That is what filioque is professing in the Nicene Creed against the Arian heresy which denies Jesus as God. The Equality references the Trinity which the Nicence Creed and councils confirm to be one God. That is why the CCC confirms** first **that from the Nicene Creed which professes the Son is consubstantial with the Father, the filioque takes precedence here from this profession.
What you appear to be misinterpreting of the Lateran council is that the Son himself is equal to the Father as if the Son is the Father. That is not what the Lateran council reveals. It is not there. Because the CCC confirms the profession of the filioque first takes into account the Nicene Creed of the Son is consubstantial with the Father.
Your call name identifies you as Orthodox. And Orthodox posters have indicated that the filioque professess the heresy that the Son is the Father. If this is not your Ortrhodox position, then I humbly retract my statement from your position.
Schism hater; you appear to be reasonable. Please allow me to conclude my thoughts on this subject with you.
The Pope allowed the filioque to support the Nicene Creed not to change it as some falsely claim. Because the Arians at the time were professing the Nicene Creed but misinterpreting it to confirm it professes that Jesus is not God.
What the Pope did what he always does. He protected the apostolic faith professed from the Nicene Creed from falling into the hands of heretics. From my own words to simplify a delicate matter allow me this internet space to speak.
The reason the Pope included the filioque was to defeat the Arian heresy from infecting the Nicene creed, that Arians professed that Jesus is not God. The Pope did this to eternally remove any more future heretics who try to use the Nicene Creed to disprove Jesus divinity. The “filioque” is the stone placed between heretics ever infecting the Nicene Creed from ever denying Jesus is not God. The filioque confirms that Jesus is God.
When considering the present condition and present age when the filioque was included in the Nicene Creed, was to protect it from heretics ever using it to include their own false heretical teachings.
The CCC warns that no rigid affirmation should be made to the filioque apart from what the Nicene creed already professes that “first” the Son is consubstantial with the Father, "and that the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed (which is in the Nicene Creed). Please read CCC 248. Or see post above #134
Peace be with you
B
brb3
Guest
I converted to RCC 4 years ago. But, over time, I’m discovering alot of the ‘problems’ with the RCC, that seem to prevent full Ecumenism from having success. Too many of us seem too intolerant to allow us to be able to ‘bridge the gaps’ with our fellow Christian brethren. Its really depressing me.Hello,
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…)
Right now, the Orthodox Church seems to be calling me. But, its early, and I’ve just started investigating them. So far, I like what I’m finding. I would have to be 100 % convinced of their ‘authority’ and legitimacy … before I would switch Churches again. I agree with you on the Filioque issue. Not sure why the RCC pushed so hard on this … and brought on the schism with our brethren. If we can’t work this out after 1000 + years, —will we ever ? I want a Church that focuses on the ‘big picture’ … and not fanatical to a fault, over the minutia.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Correction; I stated that the Roman Catholic Church never left the Apostles Creed and has always professed it. You introduced it as surfacing in the 1970’s. I rejected this, and said we have always included the apostles Creed in our rosary which predates 1970’s, never mind the liturgy.
As far back as the liturgy is concerned. The Roman Catholic Church has always catechized her catechumens with the Apostles Creed before and during baptism. History records this as the “Mass of the Catechumens”. Already we have Pope St.Hippolytus recording what is already handed down to him in the Apostles Creed around the year 200 a.d.
The apostles Creed was professed by every baptised Catholic from antiquity in the Roman Catholic Church. The Mass of the Catechumens included the profession of the apostles Creed. This profession of faith by all baptized Catholics set’s them apart from the early Gnostics and the Marcionites.
The Mass of the Catechumens always included the profession of the Apostles Creed celebrated with (the hidden mysteries) Holy Communion, which did not get revealed to the catechumens until the day of their baptism. If this is not a liturgy from antiquity? then, you have a lot of explaining to do about your Orthodox faith.
In retrospect, the reason for the Creed’s was to separate the sheep from the goats. The Roman Catholic Church still uses the Apostles Creed in every baptism, celebrated with the liturgy of the Eucharist.
Any time a sacrament is celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church the Liturgical Mass is celebrated with the mysteries.
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Because the Orthodox are autocephalous and many are not in full communion with each other, the filoque attack from these vary in different rejections, from authority, to legitamacy of a council and from their self interpretations which almost always falls into heretical views of the filioque and contradicts the CCC teaching of the filioque that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, thus Jesus is God.
One Orthodox will make one claim to the filioque and disagree with another Orthodox view of the filioque. When all they have to do is listen to the bishop of Rome who used it to defeat their Eastern heresy. But these refuse to hear the teaching from the Roman Catholic Church of the filioque and make it something other than what is professed and believed from the filioque, that Jesus is God, consubstantial with the Father “First”.
If one views the Characters that began the great schism, it is easy to see that the filioque was not the problem of the schism.
What started all this business of rejecting the filioque? This is what Orthodox look away from. St.Ignatius the Patriarch of Constantinople in 846 a.d refused Holy Communion to Barbas an uncle to the Eastern Emperor Michael which history records this emperor as a “Drunkard”.
Poor St.Ignatius was arrested and imprisoned who refused to resign his post, was illegally deposed. While the great schism starter, a layman by the name of Photian replaced St.Ignatius as Patriarch of Constantinople. Can you imagine that a layman appointed by a drunk Emperor replaced a great Saint Ignatius?
Photius was easily a learned man, one cannot take this from him. Yet his greatest admirers regarded Photius as worldly, crafty, ambitious, and unscrupulous.
This crafty Photius saw his clergy were discontent with his usurption of St.Ignatius. Photius sent ambassadors to Pope Nicholas I with costly gifts in order to secure his new position. These ambassadors “LIED” to the Pope and tried to convince him that St.Ignatius had resigned his office himself.
To conclude a long story here; The pope refused his bribes and declared Photius as condemned and deposed. This particular Photius made the clarian call to his fellow countrymen, that the West had fallen into heresy for adding the word filioque to the Nicene Creed. He also attacked the disciplines of the Catholic Church. Photius also did what no one earlier had ever dare do; He with the support of his drunk emperor, pronounced sentence of deposition against Pope Nicholas in 867a.d.
This clarian call by Photius which inflamed the hearts and pride of the Eastern Church’s that even turned into hate towards the West has not kindled and is still revealed by some Orthodox who hold to this post constantinople sentiment, when it was never known in the Church from the pre-constantinople period of the Church.
Peace be with you my brother in Christ
B
brb3
Guest
I share your concerns … but, having begun my spiritual journey as a Protestant, I ‘know’ the HS is active in the lives of many Protestants. The HS goes whereever he is desired and directed by Christ.
Somehow, we have to broaden our horizons. We try to limit God to being only in this or that church … which life experience tells us is being small-minded of us. God desires us all to join hands in Ecumenism. The church that is working to do this, is the best Church, IMO.
B
brb3
Guest
A … Yes, you are 1000% right.
B … And it would be which — Eastern, Orthodox, or RCC Catholic ? What private revelation did you receive which confirmed this to you ? Or, was it another truth you discovered in your search ?
I’m thinking all 3 are legit … from the Apostles. But, they, like the 12 tribes of Israel — couldn’t keep the peace for long … and split apart.David, briefly brought them back together … but, after his passing, they again split up.
Christ, started us out as ONE church … but, look what man has done !! We still can’t improve upon the Hebrew pattern. But, scripture is clear … Christ want us all unified and living in peace with our brethren. So, which of the 3 above is the peacemaker church, which is more obstinate, and which insists on its own way, and unable to compromise ?
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Kindly stop referring to Arianism as “their (the Orthodox) Eastern heresy.” This is highly insulting and inflammatory; furthermore, it is a lie. Arianism is Eastern in origin, as is well known. It was also refuted by Eastern bishops, at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. On the other hand, it continued to plague the Western Church for a few more centuries.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’ve never heard anyone put an “or” into it. I’m curious where you got this?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
When I was returning to Christianity, exploring the Church I was also reading some gnostic texts. This was for reasons of academic interest rather than spiritual searching. I was struggling at the time between the Orthodox and Catholic Church. I leaned to the Orthodox side, but struggled with the fact that the RCC seemed so orthodox. I asked myself the question I’ve seen many people ask here - why does it have to be one or the other?
Anyway, back to the gnostic texts. One night I happened to read a certain one, a Sethian document known as “On the Origins of the World”. The utter blasphemy which this text taught made me cringe, but it also made me think about how garbage such as this was kept out of the bible. The answer of course is that those who held legitimate authority in the church had decided to condemn the text while approving the bible.
The question then becomes one of authority. We can accept that the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox, are all very similar in their teachings, and the Holy Spirit is strong in all of them - but they do have some major differences. So now it is not a question of which one has the Holy Spirit, but which one has true God-given authority.
I concluded that it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that could legitimately trace its authority to the Apostles. Others, obviously, have come to other conclusions.
B
brb3
Guest
They all have the HS … per your admission above. Who precedes from the Father, via the Son … to all 3 Churches.
Thus, they all have authority from Christ the Cornerstone of the Church. How can we possibly argue one over another, saying authority is only via the Apostles, when we know only God, in three Persons, gives ‘authority’ to his ONE Church.
What is preventing all 3 from giving up ‘man’s’ authority claims … and instead accept that of the Godhead, in 3 persons ? Which ever one is willing to compromise man’s authority, for the sake of unity and desire of Christ … that Church would seem to be of God.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Why do we always look at the Church as some sort of authority, as if it is some government agency working in behalf of the president, who is God?
E
EIF5A
Guest
Isn’t that what the Church is? Handing down of authority and power from the Apostles who received the power and authority from Jesus?
Or at least that’s what the RCC and OC seem to emphasize (i.e.: Apostolic Succession)…
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Apostolic Succession isn’t about authority, it is about truth. Truth doesn’t need authority.
A Church Father who was a bishop (sorry, I forgot who, it may have been St. Ignatius of Antioch, but I’m not sure) said that we are not to believe what he says if what he says is against what is in Scripture.
E
EIF5A
Guest
But someone with authority (aka Church) has the power and assignment to interpret Scripture (aka truth).
Not sure if the OC has an equivalent to the Magisterium.
The authority to dispense/hand out/transubstantiate (sorry, don’t know the technical term) the Eucharist must come from God, and I presume, through the Church.
One of the RCC and OC’s charge against Protestantism is lack of authority, so clearly, the question of where power/authority comes from is important in this particular case.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I don’t think we can take the legitimacy of apostolic succession and authority away from any of the three you mentioned.
While I am Catholic, I don’t question the legitimate Apostolic authority from the Eastern and/or Oriental Orthodox. I do, however, understand that Rome has final authority in matters of the Faith
. That does not minimize my respect or acknowledgement of the authority of your Church, I just don’t see their authority as final. So whenever I get to a crossroads where we differ, I will abide by the Catholic Church.I did look at the Orthodox Church before coming back to the Catholic Faith. I must admit that I truly enjoy the Spirituality and the Mysticism (Not in the New Age sense, but in the Lossky’s like sense). However, the 2 biggest obstacles were: 1) Lack of diversity - each individual Parish was significantly lacking in a blend of cultures. 2) Lack of a Central and organized Leadership, after roaming around through Protestantism I needed structure and a defined Hierarchy.
In the end, I am now discovering an entire world of Spiritualism and Mysticism in the Catholic Church that I never knew existed, even though I was raised in the Catholic Church!
But I must admit, like you and many others, that I questioned the fact that I had to choose one or the other…
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Is the truth the truth because it is the truth? Or is the truth only the truth when someone with authority says so?
No we don’t.
We do not see that as “authority” or “power”. We believe that the bread and wine is made the body and blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. So definitely it is not about any power any of our clergy inherently has.
Who specifically in the Orthodox Church makes that claim against the Protestants? I know from our perspective they lack a lot of things, but I wouldn’t say it is about authority.
E
EIF5A
Guest
Truth is truth by itself. But the RCC and OC believe that correct interpretation of Scripture (truth) lies in each respective Church.
The source of the power is ultimately the Holy Spirit, but are not the clergy the conduit through which the power of the Holy Spirit is manifested in the Eucharist?
Can’t give specifics at the moment, but it’s a common sentiment that the Protestants just “make things up” and that because there is no central authority, the beliefs are run amok, leading to “tens of thousands of denomination”. Sometimes, it seems even Catholics on this board revel in this fact that they are part of the “true” Church and that the Protestant heretics are obviously blind and scattered.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Yes. But in Orthodoxy we believe that because we believe we have the fullness of truth. Not because we are the authority.
The entire Church is. Did the Holy Spirit descend upon Peter alone at Pentecost? Or the 12 alone? Or only on men? Orthodoxy believes that every baptized and chrismated Christian is a participant in some way in the entire life of the Church. While we have an order within the Church, that is, certain people have certain ministries in fulfillment of the Kingdom. As St. Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:
11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
The ministries, or roles, are for building up the body of Christ, not for some authority over the rest of the members.
Well, we believe that they deviated from the orthodox faith and so they do not have the fullness of truth. But again it is about truth, not about authority. It is not that they lack the authority or they lost the authority, it is that they do not have the fullness of truth because they do not believe in the orthodox faith.
- Status