Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Religion?

[Cavaradossi]

Furthermore, if the aims of the Roman Pontiffs in their reforms were to ensure the liberty of the Church from lay or political control, then what could possibly be the problem with that? At the very least the Pope was stressing the doctrine of the proper division between temporal and spiritual powers, with the latter taking precedence especially over ecclesiastical affairs and interests, e.g. Church property.

If you will recall, the popes went further than that. Was it Unam Sanctam where Pope Boniface VIII claimed that the Pope had both supreme temporal and spiritual power?

The point is that this was not a problem in the East. There was no lay control of the Church or investiture in the East, as the excerpts which I posted point out. Quite frankly, if you are not willing to believe in the words of a Catholic priest and historian on this matter, then I am afraid that nothing will change your mind (in which case we might as well end this discussion now and quit wasting time).

Your challenge then appears to be based only on the existence of the Flioque clause’s existence in the West, which existed for a long time before the Great Schism. It hardly compares to a complete break with ancient tradition of Apostolic origin that the Petrine See held both a primacy and a preeminence, and all other Sees drew their authority from that See as a stream from its font.

No, the challenge is that the papacy changed tremendously in the eleventh century from being a powerful metropolitan to being something far greater. Also, while it is true that the *Filioque *existed in the West before the schism, it was not accepted in Rome until the 11th century. Perhaps you will recall that a certain Pope Leo III, who forbade the addition of the *Filioque *to the Creed, had the Creed sans-*Filioque *engraved on silver tablets in the Old St. Peter’s Basilica, with the inscription “HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI”.

What happened, if I may ask, to the faith of Pope Leo III? Why did Rome so quickly forget one of her orthodox forefathers?

 

[Filii_Dei]

I would be more cautious in your phraseology, as it gives the impression that you imagine that the Church can possess a defect.

The Catholic Church is by definition without spot, stain or wrinkle, because She is the Mystical Body of Christ and His Spouse, such that we can say that if your are seeking Christ’s Church, then you are seeking that Church which hasn’t spot, stain or wrinkle and is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” While it is true that all men are sinners; nonetheless, and as the saying goes, “the student is only as good as the teacher.” If, then, the True Church were subject to fault or defect, then by consequence She would be incapable of producing true and even examplary holiness in Her members, which is saintliness; and the Holy Catholic Church is (again by definition) “the communion of Saints.”

If I may have been unclear, I apologise. Members of the Church have had temporal shortcomings, but it does not substract anything from its fullness of faith. The sins of the Church’s members does not change the faith of the Church. The student can be no greater than the teacher, but sometimes they are less. What I mean is the Great Schism was a tragic event that was precipitated by wrongful attitudes and actions by people on both sides, even if both did not intend ill, and that much is certain. The perfection of the Church’s faith was not affected, and it has nothing to do with it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Challenge accepted. First there was the unilateral addition of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed by Germanic Popes.

Whatever you were reading, it could not have been Dvornik (or at least not in the excerpt you provided). It is, at the very least, a fantastic and false claim that the filioque was unilaterally inserted into the Nicene Creed by Germanic Popes. The fact of the matter is, almost the entire Latin Church EXCEPT the Church of Rome had already utilized filioque in the Nicene Creed before it was accepted at Rome.

Secondly, there was the denial that the Roman Emperor of the East was even Roman, a true diplomatic slight coming from the new Germanic masters of Rome, who installed their own in the papacy.

From what part of your excerpt are you getting this?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No, the challenge is that the papacy changed tremendously in the eleventh century from being a powerful metropolitan to being something far greater. Also, while it is true that the *Filioque *existed in the West before the schism, it was not accepted in Rome until the 11th century. Perhaps you will recall that a certain Pope Leo III, who forbade the addition of the *Filioque *to the Creed, had the Creed sans-*Filioque *engraved on silver tablets in the Old St. Peter’s Basilica, with the inscription “HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI”.

What happened, if I may ask, to the faith of Pope Leo III? Why did Rome so quickly forget one of her orthodox forefathers?

Nothing happened to the FAITH of Pope Leo III. The filioque is simply a different expression of the SAME Faith - that the Essence of the Holy Spirit is from the Son as mediated from the Father (or from the Father through the Son).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I find this statement to be very problematic. The approbation of the Pope of a creed affirms its truth, it does not make it true. If the Nicene Creed is true, it was true prior to its approbation by the Pope. The Pope defines truth, but does not stand above it.

Furthermore, in the ancient Church, there were numerous local baptismal creeds, many of which the Popes no doubt had no knowledge. So, if they were indeed true, were they null and worthless, since they lacked the approbation of the Pope? Certainly not.

That which is true is true. Articles of the faith, which are, as we believe, objectively true, are articulated and defined for the faithful by the bishops, first of whom is the Pope. However, they are not true because the bishops or the faithful say so. Rather, the bishops and the faithful are bound to the articles of faith, and God grants the bishops the charism of defining them rightly for the benefit of the faithful, because they are in fact true.

 

[dcointin]

Nothing happened to the FAITH of Pope Leo III. The filioque is simply a different expression of the SAME Faith - that the Essence of the Holy Spirit is from the Son as mediated from the Father (or from the Father through the Son).

Blessings,
Marduk

I would have to agree here that the Filioque was accepted as orthodox as early as St. Augustine. Pope St. Leo III however did oppose its inclusion in the Creed, but not out of opposition to its theology, but because he believed altering its text would lead to significant controversy.

 

[pismopal]

You do not know me. You also did not answer my “question.” In fact, the post in which you first quoted me didn’t even have a question in the quote.

You are correct…I do not know you. I actually do not know anyone here. The rest of your assertions are a mystery but that is fine. I answered your question about why we would call St Peter a “pope” when the title did not exist in his time. I answered the question and if it does not make sense to you there is nothing I can do about that. I don’t have the time to try another tack.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I would have to agree here that the Filioque was accepted as orthodox as early as St. Augustine. Pope St. Leo III however did oppose its inclusion in the Creed, but not out of opposition to its theology, but because he believed altering its text would lead to significant controversy.

The Filioque, understood as the Father and the Son spirating the Holy Spirit as one principle is not Orthodox.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I would have to agree here that the Filioque was accepted as orthodox as early as St. Augustine. Pope St. Leo III however did oppose its inclusion in the Creed, but not out of opposition to its theology, but because he believed altering its text would lead to significant controversy.

If only Pope St. Leo III were alive today and could see the volume of internet forum debate on this subject alone …

 

[John_of_Patmos]

If only Pope St. Leo III were alive today and could see the volume of internet forum debate on this subject alone …

Even in Heaven, I’m sure he knows…:heaven:

 

[Seaumas]

Never mind Leo III. How about Leo XIII. (Quadregesimo Anno). I don’t think he would have cared one bit except that being the oldest does not necessarily mean one is the wisest or most holy or whatever. Forget about it. What endures is Righteousness. and no matter the indignities, the self abuse, the self delusion and sickness that the Church visited upon itself due to every human failing, including the intrusion of evil, The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church endures. Just look at what it and its adherents have gone through. By any standard of logic, Aristotelian or otherwise, nothing good should have survived, yet it does. I’m no Roman or Eastern apologist. In fact I’m from Jewish. This is the message of the Book of Job. This is the main theme of the Psalms of David. This is the message of Yeshua bar Yusef (Jesus). We have survived 7,000 years of civilization and, to me, The Church is the prime carrier of that survival to all mankind and not just a bunch of escaped Egyptians wandering through the Sinai, Arabia and the land of the Hittites. Or the desperate acts of a drunken farmer with a lot of family who had idiotic visions to build a big boat and save everything. (A pesher example of God’s forgiveness in cleansing his lands of creation so that we might have just one, one, more chance at adhering to His wisest laws. We screw this up and he has no choice but the conflagration which we are presently racing toward.) I propose we stop this “canonomaniacal” argument and get with the program. Meshuginah! This is all you’ll see from me.

 

[Seaumas]

Never mind Leo III. How about Leo XIII. (Quadregesimo Anno). I don’t think he would have cared one bit except that being the oldest does not necessarily mean one is the wisest or most holy or whatever. Forget about it. What endures is Righteousness. and no matter the indignities, the self abuse, the self delusion and sickness that the Church visited upon itself due to every human failing, including the intrusion of evil, The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church endures. Just look at what it and its adherents have gone through. By any standard of logic, Aristotelian or otherwise, nothing good should have survived, yet it does. I’m no Roman or Eastern apologist. In fact I’m from Jewish. This is the message of the Book of Job. This is the main theme of the Psalms of David. This is the message of Yeshua bar Yusef (Jesus). We have survived 7,000 years of civilization and, to me, The Church is the prime carrier of that survival to all mankind and not just a bunch of escaped Egyptians wandering through the Sinai, Arabia and the land of the Hittites. Or the desperate acts of a drunken farmer with a lot of family who had idiotic visions to build a big boat and save everything. (A pesher example of God’s forgiveness in cleansing his lands of creation so that we might have just one, one, more chance at adhering to His wisest laws. We screw this up and he has no choice but the conflagration which we are presently racing toward.) I propose we stop this “canonomaniacal” argument and get with the program. Meshuginah! This is all you’ll see from me.

If you wish quotes from famous and wise people please see Moses ben Miamon’s quote on “Jewish Penis v Christian Penis”. You see, even the most lauded are flawed.

 

[Art321]

If you wish quotes from famous and wise people please see Moses ben Miamon’s quote on “Jewish Penis v Christian Penis”. You see, even the most lauded are flawed.

What are you talking about???

 

[dochawk]

Cavaradossi;8915234:

The Filioque, understood as the Father and the Son spirating the Holy Spirit as one principle is not Orthodox.

That’s not Catholic teaching, either, but you’d never know that from Most Orthodox arguments against it

western teaching is that the Spirit proceeds in origin from the Father, and temporally through the Son.

hawk

 

[RyanBlack]

Filii Dei;8911397:

That’s not Catholic teaching, either, but you’d never know that from Most Orthodox arguments against it

western teaching is that the Spirit proceeds in origin from the Father, and temporally through the Son.

hawk

Yes, it is Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (246):

The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, it is Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (246):

The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

Bingo.

 

[Nine_Two]

Bingo.

So much for taking it from the horses mouth.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

dochawk;8951149:

Yes, it is Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

(246):

The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

Bingo.

So much for taking it from the horses mouth.

Yet, the Eastern Catholic Churches recite the Nicene Creed sans filioque, so the CCC in essence contradicts itself in reality, as this teaching has not been extended to require the ECCs to insert the filioque in their form of Creed. Rather, the exact opposite occured. The filioque was used as one of many “Latinizations” imposed on the Eastern Catholic Churches, and has been removed once again in recent years as the Eastern Catholic Churches have been encouraged (dare I say ordered) to restore their own traditions and praxis.

 

[dochawk]

Bingo.

No, not really. But I’ll leave it to those with much better Greek than mine (which doesn’t take much ); discussing something in English which is rooted in the differences between Greek and Latin, by making use of translations which were meant for other purposes, is not my idea of “productive.”

It took a lot of effort following those who could competently explain and debate to figure it out; explaining is way past my pay grade on the issue. I’ll just sign off by noting that even after the translationss involved, “principle” and “origin”, while similar, are not synonymous–and that’s without translating them back to Greek.

The theologies are actually in violent agreement, with languishing differences in the way.
hawk

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Spirit came from the Father because the Son returned to the Father and requested the Spirit be sent, see John 14:16. The Orthodox also process one spiration on the same basis, but omit the Son’s mediating role in the Creed; they do not mean thereby to contradict Scripture. The confusion arises because the essence of the Holy Spirit somehow gets left out of the discussion. The Holy Spirit is God, and therefore must have everything in common with BOTH the Father and Son except being Father and Son, respectively. Accordingly, the filioque did not cause a change in doctrine.

Speaking of changes in doctrine, I would like to see the Orthodox here address the issue of why some Orthodox Churches changed their position on contraception. just as the Bible, Didache, and Church Fathers did.pharmikea