J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Pretty much any document from an office of the Roman Curia can be considered an official Church document.
And the Second Vatican Council was in the '60s. Do you think that it is no longer valid?
Huh?
- Status
P
PJM
Guest
*** I think you may learn something here?***
From the current Code of Canon Law
BOOK III : THE TEACHING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH
Can. 747 §1 It is the obligation and inherent right of the Church, independent of any human authority, to preach the Gospel to all peoples, using for this purpose even its own means of social communication, for it is to the Church that Christ the Lord entrusted the deposit of faith, so that by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it might conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it.
**§2 **The Church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to make judgements about any human matter in so far as this is required by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls.
Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.
**§2 **It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.
Can. 749 §1 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.
**§2 **The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.
**§3 **No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.
Can. 750 Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.
**Can. 753 **Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.
**Can. 754 **All Christ’s faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops.
**CHAPTER IV : THE ROMAN CURIA **
Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the business of the universal Church through the Roman Curia, which acts in his name and with his authority for the good and for the service of the Churches. The Curia is composed of the Secretariat of State or Papal Secretariat, the Council for the public affairs of the Church, the Congregations, the Tribunals and other Institutes. The constitution and competence of all these is defined by special law.
Can. 361 In this Code the terms Apostolic See or Holy See mean not only the Roman Pontiff, but also, unless the contrary is clear from the nature of things or from the context, the Secretariat of State, the Council for the public affairs of the Church, and the other Institutes of the Roman Curia.
Love and prayers friend,
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Thank you. I really don’t want to argue with you about this, but are you suggesting this committee report carries the same weight as an infallible statement by an ecumenical council? If, yes, why is the filioque clause still in Catholic creed and not in the Orthodox creed? Why are they still damning us as heretics for keeping it in?
As to the canon law, I think you need to read a little more carefuly.
God bless you.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
If that is your standard, then throw away almost every Papal Document because 99.9% of them aren’t ex cathedra statements. And those that are (such as Ineffabilis Deus) are only composed of maybe 1-5% of ex cathedra statements.
As that document is a product of a Curial office (namely, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity), it carries the same authoritative weight as just about every other official Church document, such as the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law and Dominus Iesus from the CDF.
Probably for many of the same reasons that it is omitted in most Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches when they recite the Nicene Creed.
For reasons that really aren’t relevant to the discussion at hand.
Do you have specific canons in mind?
And His peace be upon you, too.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Are you siggesting this committee report is a Papal Document? Was it signed by JPII?
Do you have anything, canonical or otherwise, to support your opinion?
(Ferde asked, if this is an official Church document, why is the fillioque still in the Catholic creed and not in the Orthodox creed.)
What are those reasons?
(Ferde asked why the Orthodox still consider us heretics for including the filioque?
Permit me to disagree. If the document you call an official Church teaching came from a committee composed of Catholic and Orthodox members, then the teaching has to be reflected in the doctrine, actions AND beliefs of Catholics and Orthodox. IOW, if it’s an official Church teaching from a committee of Catholics and Orthodox, the differences cannot remain. If they DO remain, then the document carries no weight at all, which is my position.
(Ferde suggested JMJ_coder read his canons more carefully.)
Sure. Canon 749, section 2. The one you cited to me. It reads, in pertinent part:
“…likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.”
The document in question meets none of those qualifications.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Yes, it was signed and published in the name and authority of the Holy Father. If you want to hear the Pope’s very own words on the matter, refer to his General Audience of November 7, 1990.
Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and by his authority for the good and service of the churches. The Roman Curia consists of the Secretariat of State or the Papal Secretariat, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, congregations, tribunals, and other institutes; the constitution and competence of all these are defined in special law.
Ummm, because the Orthodox Church isn’t in communion with the Catholic Church.
Because the Councils of Lyons and Florence only required assent to the theological teachings of the Filioque, not to it’s recitation in the Creed. Also, the Holy See forbade the recitation of the Filioque in Greek because in the Greek language the Filioque sounds heretical. And, in those places where the Filioque was recited in the vernacular (like in English), the Holy See has been encouraging the return to the traditional practices of the Eastern and Oriental Churches since the Second Vatican Council.
Many reasons. Among the top are 1) differences between the Latin and Greek languages make for easy misunderstandings (for instance, when translating back into Greek, the teaching of the Filioque sounds quite heretical - procedere in Latin doesn’t convey the same meaning as ekporeusis in Greek) and 2) the Filioque wasn’t added to the Creed via an Ecumenical Council before the Schism of 1054 and the Orthodox insist that the Creed can’t be changed (I haven’t received any clear indication whether the Orthodox think even an Ecumenical Council can alter the Creed, which is the standard the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople placed on licit alteration) and 3) human sinfulness (there’s a lot of anti-Latin sentiments in Orthodoxy).
I think you have mistaken where this document comes from. It is not from the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue (which is merely referenced in the document), but from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, a Curial office. There is also a somewhat official Orthodox response to this document.
How does this even apply?
P
PJM
Guest
No, but perhaps you’re asking the wrong question.
Are Catholics nevertheless Gravely obligated to obey these church teaching?
ABSOLUTELY YES! Two sides of the same coin.
You’d do me a favor by being more specific about my re-reading Canon Law? Wht is the point you’re making?
Love and prayers,
Pat
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
I agree. Please concult CCC paragraphe 246, 247 and 248.No, but perhaps you’re asking the wrong question.
Are Catholics nevertheless Gravely obligated to obey these church teaching?
ABSOLUTELY YES!
I apologize. I didn’t realize it was you who posted the lesson in Canon Law and posted to the wrong person. Please see the message I posted at 2:18 PM yesterday (at the bottom). Sorry but I don’t know the number.
P
PJM
Guest
Can. 246 §1 The celebration of the Eucharist is to be the centre of the whole life of the seminary, so that the students, participating in the very charity of Christ, may daily draw strength of soul for their apostolic labour and for their spiritual life particularly from this richest of sources.
**§2 **They are to be formed in the celebration of the liturgy of the hours, by which the ministers of God, in the name of the Church, intercede with Him for all the people entrusted to them, and indeed for the whole world.
§3 Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, including the rosary, mental prayer and other exercises of piety are to be fostered, so that the students may acquire the spirit of prayer and be strengthened in their vocation.
§4 The students are to become accustomed to approach the sacrament of penance frequently. It is recommended that each should have a director of his spiritual life, freely chosen, to whom he can trustfully reveal his conscience.
§5 Each year the students are to make a spiritual retreat.
**Can. 247 §1 By appropriate instruction they are to be prepared to observe celibacy and to learn to hold it in honour as a special gift of God.
**
§2 The students are to be given all the requisite knowledge concerning the duties and burdens which are proper to the sacred ministers of the Church, concealing none of the difficulties of the priestly life.
**Can. 248 **The doctrinal formation given is to be so directed that the students may acquire a wide and solid teaching in the sacred sciences, together with a general culture which is appropriate to the needs of place and time. As a result, with their own faith founded on and nourished by this teaching, they ought to be able properly to proclaim the Gospel to the people of their own time, in a fashion suited to the manner of the people’s thinking.
**§2 **They are to be formed in the celebration of the liturgy of the hours, by which the ministers of God, in the name of the Church, intercede with Him for all the people entrusted to them, and indeed for the whole world.
§3 Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, including the rosary, mental prayer and other exercises of piety are to be fostered, so that the students may acquire the spirit of prayer and be strengthened in their vocation.
§4 The students are to become accustomed to approach the sacrament of penance frequently. It is recommended that each should have a director of his spiritual life, freely chosen, to whom he can trustfully reveal his conscience.
§5 Each year the students are to make a spiritual retreat.
**Can. 247 §1 By appropriate instruction they are to be prepared to observe celibacy and to learn to hold it in honour as a special gift of God.
**
§2 The students are to be given all the requisite knowledge concerning the duties and burdens which are proper to the sacred ministers of the Church, concealing none of the difficulties of the priestly life.
**Can. 248 **The doctrinal formation given is to be so directed that the students may acquire a wide and solid teaching in the sacred sciences, together with a general culture which is appropriate to the needs of place and time. As a result, with their own faith founded on and nourished by this teaching, they ought to be able properly to proclaim the Gospel to the people of their own time, in a fashion suited to the manner of the people’s thinking.
C
CallistusPM
Guest
Let’s put this to rest, shall we?
Encyclopedia of Catholic History . . . . . . . “Filioque”: That the Holy Ghost proceeds from BOTH God the Father and Son, as stated in the present form of the Nicene Creed. It was NOT part of the Creed until 589 at the Council of Toledo. Its insertion was met with objections by Eastern theologians. Popes Adrian I and Leo III opposed the interpolation BUT they did defend the entire doctrine. The “proceeding from the Father and Son” usage continued in the West and by the start of the 11th century, Rome gave it formal acceptance . Unfortunately, this only heightened tensions between East and West and in 1054 Constantinople officially broke away (Great Schism.) Even so, the Greeks were not obligated to insert the “Filioque” in their creed in the interest of compromis. In spite of this, Orthodox assemblies rescinded this doctrine in Constantinople in 1453.
Strangely, in the 20th century, both Churches agree that the Third Person does indeed proceed from both the First and Second Persons but this long formal dispute still serves as a major obstacle to unity, perhaps because of deep wounds and the authority of the popes to be the deciding and major factor in accepting and then promulgating such controversies. The present breach has transcended its original cause to center now on the supremacy of the supreme pontiff.
So, the disputed “Filioque” is only the tip of the iceberg; The true causes of the separation can be summed up in the wide differences that have developed between East and West in matters of culture, politics, jurisdiction, language and some elements of dictrine.
As an aside, the liturgical practices of the Orthodox churches are almost the same as the Eastern Catholic Church, following the Byzantine Rite. The Catholic Church recognizes as valid all sacraments and ordination and consecration of Orthodox priests and bishops, the major differences being papal authority, the Filioque and the Immaculate Conception. Their priests may also marry.
Encyclopedia of Catholic History . . . . . . . “Filioque”: That the Holy Ghost proceeds from BOTH God the Father and Son, as stated in the present form of the Nicene Creed. It was NOT part of the Creed until 589 at the Council of Toledo. Its insertion was met with objections by Eastern theologians. Popes Adrian I and Leo III opposed the interpolation BUT they did defend the entire doctrine. The “proceeding from the Father and Son” usage continued in the West and by the start of the 11th century, Rome gave it formal acceptance . Unfortunately, this only heightened tensions between East and West and in 1054 Constantinople officially broke away (Great Schism.) Even so, the Greeks were not obligated to insert the “Filioque” in their creed in the interest of compromis. In spite of this, Orthodox assemblies rescinded this doctrine in Constantinople in 1453.
Strangely, in the 20th century, both Churches agree that the Third Person does indeed proceed from both the First and Second Persons but this long formal dispute still serves as a major obstacle to unity, perhaps because of deep wounds and the authority of the popes to be the deciding and major factor in accepting and then promulgating such controversies. The present breach has transcended its original cause to center now on the supremacy of the supreme pontiff.
So, the disputed “Filioque” is only the tip of the iceberg; The true causes of the separation can be summed up in the wide differences that have developed between East and West in matters of culture, politics, jurisdiction, language and some elements of dictrine.
As an aside, the liturgical practices of the Orthodox churches are almost the same as the Eastern Catholic Church, following the Byzantine Rite. The Catholic Church recognizes as valid all sacraments and ordination and consecration of Orthodox priests and bishops, the major differences being papal authority, the Filioque and the Immaculate Conception. Their priests may also marry.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Excellent summary. As an aside to the aside, the filioque originated in the East from a church in Syria long before the great divide.
C
CallistusPM
Guest
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
The Filioque was introduced at the Third Council of Toledo, in Spain, to combat the Visigoths who were the last vestiges of Arianism at that time.
Again, a primary problem is that procedere in Latin doesn’t mean exactly the same as the Greek work it is translated to, ekporeusis (which would be heretical if used in this context – the Catholic Church acknowledges this).
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
“It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son.” Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the filioque cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.” Orthodox Wiki, Filioque, History, Early use of…
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
We can see the teaching even before that. For example, both Saints Basil and Athanasius in the fourth century teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father through the Son, using the non-heretical Greek word proienai. But the actual word Filioque, which is in the Latin language stems a little later (from the Third Council of Toledo as has been mentioned). Thus, the word wasn’t coined by the Greek Fathers since they spoke Greek and not Latin. I doubt that the Syriac Fathers would use a Latin word (since that was not the language they spoke) – do you know that word they used to convey their teaching?
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
It’s not the same teaching. The Orthodox teach that today. The Eastern teaching I cited says what the filioque says: That the Spirit proceeds FROM the Father AND the Son.
Excuse me for saying so, but we’re not talking about the word ‘filioque,’ but the MEANING of the word. The teaching, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son originated in the East and Toledo has nothing to do with it.
It’s irrelevant to the discussion. Since you are determined to be right about this, even though you are clearly wrong, I’ll leave you to be right in your own mind. God bless you.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
It is the same teaching when you consider that English is not the language all this originated in. Even the Catholic Church has affirmed that “and the Son” means the same as “through the Son”.
The problem is, as I have been trying to say here, is that the meaning of the word changes depending on the language. The subtleties of the primary languages of formulation (i.e., Greek and Latin [and potentially Syriac]) do not allow for easy translation. Thus while the orthodox Latin word translates into English as “and the Son”, the Greek word translated from Greek which in English means “and the Son” conveys a subtle distinction that makes it heretical (which I have mentioned already and which the Catholic Church affirms that it is heretical). What is needed is a different Greek word (the word used by the Greek Fathers), which translates into English as “through the Son”. But, again, the Church recognizes and teaches that “and the Son” and “through the Son” refers to the same reality and truth.
:yawn:
I
I_Fortuna
Guest
Thank you PJM, I was reading on to see if someone would finally quote the correct answer.
This is a very difficult concept for some people. Your quotes explain it beautifully.
I, however, do not understand why Catholics do not refer to their Cathechism for some of their questions. Also, seek your answers in prayer as well.
Also, the USCCB (Bishop’s website) has a lot of good and correct information.
Folks really need to go to a weekly bible study. If there is not one, start one with the help of your priest.
My hope is that we stop passing on incorrect or incomplete information in order to “help” others. This only tends to confuse the issue more.
This is a very difficult concept for some people. Your quotes explain it beautifully.
I, however, do not understand why Catholics do not refer to their Cathechism for some of their questions. Also, seek your answers in prayer as well.
Also, the USCCB (Bishop’s website) has a lot of good and correct information.
Folks really need to go to a weekly bible study. If there is not one, start one with the help of your priest.
My hope is that we stop passing on incorrect or incomplete information in order to “help” others. This only tends to confuse the issue more.
B
Benadam
Guest
There is also the question that surrounds ‘as coming from one principle’ 
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and/through the Son as if from one principle and through one spiration. This directly contradicts those who claim that the teaching of the Filioque implies two sources or principles of the Holy Spirit.There is also the question that surrounds ‘as coming from one principle’
It can and does get confusing and subtle (but a lot of theology does).
- Status